I’m not the only one unimpressed by Magnanti’s new book

From the Guardian Review’s Critical Eye:

“I can’t remember a more incoherent, confusing and downright bonkers book than this peculiar tome by Brooke Magnanti, the real-life research scientist behind the blogger and former escort Belle de Jour.” The Sunday Times’s Eleanor Mills put The Sex Myth in its place: “rather than attempting to analyse her own life choices as a window into the bizarre whys and wherefores of the sex industry, she has written a dreary, often unreadable survey of other people’s research into the trade. It seems inconceivable that a book by a former escort all about sex could be so boring …” Melanie McGrath in the Sunday Telegraph agreed: “The poverty of her critical thinking can be breathtaking … Add to this a penchant for wildly invalid and insulting comparisons … and you have an unwholesome brew of intellectual incoherence and self-delusion … It’s hard to know what Magnanti thought she was trying to achieve … it might have carried the reader had its tone not been so self-regarding or – in places – so insufferably boring”. An off-beat review by Abby O’Reilly in the Independent on Sunday, however, admired Magnanti’s “clear, accessible language, insightful humour and wit”; she judged the book to be “meticulously researched” and “an enlightening must-read for anyone exposed to the press”.

The name Abby O’Reilly rang a bell; she’s an idiot sex-pozzer who intermittently writes for the UK F-Word, and back in 2007 wrote an incredibly poor quality article on ‘feminist’ porn. Apparently, one needs a degree from Cambridge to come up with lines like:

saying this I feel like I’ve dug up Andrea Dworkin and shat on her face.

Please note, Andrea Dworkin only died in 2005, so O’Reilly was being really classy there. O’Reilly’s profile from the piece says: “She hopes one day she’ll decide what she wants to do with her life, but until then she’ll watch porn.” Seems like she’s probably been doing just that, and her lack of intellectual growth over the past five years reflects the fact!

2 responses

  1. Given Brooke Magnanti’s book is just a compendium/anthology of other people’s (sic) research into sex and sexology I believe the only reason this book was published is because it contains that magical profitable word ‘sex’ which publishers will interpret as ‘offering to buyers an opportunity to engage in sensationalist reading.’ Not forgetting of course Magnanti constantly promotes pornstitution as work for women (never men of course because men know pornstitution is not empowering for men but is disempowering to men).

    Abby O’Reilly is another pornstitution apologist and so of course she praises Magnanti’s book and O’Reilly like so many anti-feminists considers it ‘clever’ to write insulting prose particularly if the person she is insulting is no longer living. O’Reilly if you must disagree with radical feminists do at least demonstrate you have intelligence and not parrot women-hating men who commonly engage in personal attacks because they are incapable of constructing real arguments/analysis. Furthermore O’Reilly you have clearly been viewing porn because your language is common within malestream porn since all women are apparently non-human – unlike men of course!

  2. […] a ‘popular science’ book about sex which was roundly criticised for being biased, inaccurate and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: