I love this review, by @JoanMBurda, for the New York Journal of Books. Sadly, the day after this was published, the publication folded. I take zero responsibility. Anyway, here it is:
I support Ms Bindel to the end - she has done so much for the lesbian cause against an onslaught from men who wish to be women. It’s insane that lesbians could not form their own women-only associations, clubs, bars and so on without the intrusion of men who call themselves lesbians.
I’m not a lesbian but I will support any and all biological women in their fight to protect their own spaces from men for whatever reason they want.
I'm a married, heterosexual male. I'm also Christian, and I suppose I would be viewed as a social conservative*. At first glance, I might be seen as at the opposite pole to Julie Bindel, and yet I've been reading her Substack for a year or so, and I nearly always agree with her.
I very much admire her opposition to the trans cult. I also support her opposition to coercive and exploitative sex (pornography, prostitution, etc.), and domestic violence (I suppose an occasional mention that lesbians can abuse their partners too wouldn't go amiss). Surrogacy is one of the most evil practices on the planet, and Bindel is one of the few voices resolutely opposed to it.
I don't care what others do in bed when it's not coercive or exploitative. At least, I think it's between them and God. In the case of male homosexuals, I suppose I have a personal disgust (which I don't think is relevant to law, etc.), but I don't even have that in the case of lesbians.
*: I'm not really happy with the term "social conservative", but I use it to self-identify, meaning that I'm left in economics but anti-liberal on sociocultural issues. I don't idealise the 1950s or the 1880s or whenever, as "social conservatives" often seem to. I don't believe in golden ages in the past any more than utopias in the future. I think the task of a Christian is to critique one's own era in the light of eternal values, and to try, usually unsuccessfully, to reform it.
Congratulations on the publication of your book....and this excellent review: clearly this is something everyone should read. Especially with all the spotlight on trans issues, your perspective is invaluable.
A tad late to the comments – I want to confirm that Julie had no part in the NYJB shutting down. It was due to the site's financial model no longer working. But, Julie does have the honor of being the last author reviewed for the site. The book is excellent and deserves to be on your bookshelf.
As a straight man it is, of course none of my business what consenting same-sex women do in private. But I wonder if one aspect contributes to the suspicion of lesbianism, one which in the South Africa of my birth, has led to lesbians being killed, along with the appalling thing known as corrective rape.
What I'm getting at is that when we talk of heterosexual relations we think that we broadly know what we're talking about. By contrast I don't know if anyone else has a single image of what female same-sex relations involve, I know that I don't
Since I will never be involved in this, there is arguably nothing of interest for me to say about this - it is to repeat, none of my business as to what consenting female couples engage in, in private.
But if like me, other men and perhaps women also have no particular image of what same-sex between two women may or may not involve, I wonder if this unknowingness doesn't add to, even help to create, suspicion - the same sort perhaps that led to murder of a hundred thousand women as witches? They were accused of deviance for dark malignant reasons, ignorance of which helped allow all manner of accusation.
Maybe this is all wrong, but if so, I'm happy to be enlightened. Ian
Jesus wept! I’m a heterosexual woman, married with children and have never had sex with a woman. But I’ve got a fair idea of what two women might do in bed and I doubt it’s much different to the things that heterosexual couples do. Only a disingenuous man would post something like this.
There are many reasons women were persecuted as witches and they were more about men’s fear of ‘uppity’ women and their own resultant loss of power. Nothing to do with lesbians except ignorance.
Thanks for your response Cheryl. I didn't of course say that women persecuted as witches had anything to do with lesbianism. I was thinking about the way in which allegations of witchcraft were a product of suspicion, and suggested that this was the link with lesbianism. Ian
Please read my reply to Ian Mordant. I think you will be amused. We can either laugh or cry at how ignorant some men are about sex. I prefer to laugh. Please join me in laughing!
You say you are a straight man. Can we assume that you have actually engaged in sexual relations with a woman, perhaps even more than one woman, perhaps more than once? If so, did you notice which of your actions sexually aroused these women? Where they enjoyed being touched and touched in certain ways? Did these women ever tell you what they enjoyed? Did you ever notice how they reacted and expressed experiencing tactile and sexual pleasure. I hope so.
Lesbians are women. We have the same bodies as other women. We experience various types of touching the same way other women do. We have the same tactile and sexual sensitivities that other women do. As for your interest in "a single image of what female same-sex relations involve", from your experience engaging in sex with women, do you have only "a single image" of what heterosexual male-with-female sex relations involve?
I sincerely hope for the sake of your female partners that sex with you is not something that can be visualized as "a single image". Unfortunately, as many straight women know, some men apparently only have "a single image" of what should constitute heterosexual sex and that "single image" is penile penetration of the vagina, with the woman lying flat on her back with her legs parted and the man kneeling between her legs and thrusting his penis in and out of her vagina. (This is often called the "missionary position". That name is thought to have originated from the belief that it was the position favored by Christian missionaries when working among indigenous peoples.)
There are many "how to" books about heterosexual sex.
They describe many ways that men can stimulate women sexually, including many ways that do not involve them inserting their penises into women's vaginas.
I suggest that you consult one or more of these books, to learn about the many ways that women, including lesbians, can be sexually stimulated.
Dear Holly, Thanks for your response. I wasn't talking about the reality but perceptions thereof. Still you didn't address what I was getting at, which is that lesbianism has been suspect, and the extreme suspicion of it, eg in South Africa. So, a somewhat different topic to the one you wrote about.
I'm happy to accept your point re exclusion. But it still puzzles me firstly because the exclusion is so tiny, because lesbians are a small fraction of all women. And my second reason for puzzlement is that if a woman excludes me because she'd rather not be involved sexually with a man, then I wouldn't want to be around her for I would receive automatic rejection, but not for any reason that I could be held to be culpable or other personal failure.
All in all I can only think that some men must be very ignorant or very confused to get worked up by lesbianism. I see no reason to be at all. Ian
I support Ms Bindel to the end - she has done so much for the lesbian cause against an onslaught from men who wish to be women. It’s insane that lesbians could not form their own women-only associations, clubs, bars and so on without the intrusion of men who call themselves lesbians.
I’m not a lesbian but I will support any and all biological women in their fight to protect their own spaces from men for whatever reason they want.
"Bindel is light years ahead"
Sums it up really.
I'm a married, heterosexual male. I'm also Christian, and I suppose I would be viewed as a social conservative*. At first glance, I might be seen as at the opposite pole to Julie Bindel, and yet I've been reading her Substack for a year or so, and I nearly always agree with her.
I very much admire her opposition to the trans cult. I also support her opposition to coercive and exploitative sex (pornography, prostitution, etc.), and domestic violence (I suppose an occasional mention that lesbians can abuse their partners too wouldn't go amiss). Surrogacy is one of the most evil practices on the planet, and Bindel is one of the few voices resolutely opposed to it.
I don't care what others do in bed when it's not coercive or exploitative. At least, I think it's between them and God. In the case of male homosexuals, I suppose I have a personal disgust (which I don't think is relevant to law, etc.), but I don't even have that in the case of lesbians.
*: I'm not really happy with the term "social conservative", but I use it to self-identify, meaning that I'm left in economics but anti-liberal on sociocultural issues. I don't idealise the 1950s or the 1880s or whenever, as "social conservatives" often seem to. I don't believe in golden ages in the past any more than utopias in the future. I think the task of a Christian is to critique one's own era in the light of eternal values, and to try, usually unsuccessfully, to reform it.
A great review of an excellent book.
Julie, you are brave and a total inspiration! Thank you 🙏
Congratulations Julie - what a great review! Your voice should be heard more widely. Thank you for all that you do for women and girls.
The book is next on my list. I'm even more eager to read it now!
Congratulations on the publication of your book....and this excellent review: clearly this is something everyone should read. Especially with all the spotlight on trans issues, your perspective is invaluable.
A tad late to the comments – I want to confirm that Julie had no part in the NYJB shutting down. It was due to the site's financial model no longer working. But, Julie does have the honor of being the last author reviewed for the site. The book is excellent and deserves to be on your bookshelf.
I love Julie. We must protect her at all costs.
As a straight man it is, of course none of my business what consenting same-sex women do in private. But I wonder if one aspect contributes to the suspicion of lesbianism, one which in the South Africa of my birth, has led to lesbians being killed, along with the appalling thing known as corrective rape.
What I'm getting at is that when we talk of heterosexual relations we think that we broadly know what we're talking about. By contrast I don't know if anyone else has a single image of what female same-sex relations involve, I know that I don't
Since I will never be involved in this, there is arguably nothing of interest for me to say about this - it is to repeat, none of my business as to what consenting female couples engage in, in private.
But if like me, other men and perhaps women also have no particular image of what same-sex between two women may or may not involve, I wonder if this unknowingness doesn't add to, even help to create, suspicion - the same sort perhaps that led to murder of a hundred thousand women as witches? They were accused of deviance for dark malignant reasons, ignorance of which helped allow all manner of accusation.
Maybe this is all wrong, but if so, I'm happy to be enlightened. Ian
Jesus wept! I’m a heterosexual woman, married with children and have never had sex with a woman. But I’ve got a fair idea of what two women might do in bed and I doubt it’s much different to the things that heterosexual couples do. Only a disingenuous man would post something like this.
There are many reasons women were persecuted as witches and they were more about men’s fear of ‘uppity’ women and their own resultant loss of power. Nothing to do with lesbians except ignorance.
Thank you Cheryl.
Thanks for your response Cheryl. I didn't of course say that women persecuted as witches had anything to do with lesbianism. I was thinking about the way in which allegations of witchcraft were a product of suspicion, and suggested that this was the link with lesbianism. Ian
Please read my reply to Ian Mordant. I think you will be amused. We can either laugh or cry at how ignorant some men are about sex. I prefer to laugh. Please join me in laughing!
Pleased to provide some enjoyment, though i don't think you quite got my point. Ian
You say you are a straight man. Can we assume that you have actually engaged in sexual relations with a woman, perhaps even more than one woman, perhaps more than once? If so, did you notice which of your actions sexually aroused these women? Where they enjoyed being touched and touched in certain ways? Did these women ever tell you what they enjoyed? Did you ever notice how they reacted and expressed experiencing tactile and sexual pleasure. I hope so.
Lesbians are women. We have the same bodies as other women. We experience various types of touching the same way other women do. We have the same tactile and sexual sensitivities that other women do. As for your interest in "a single image of what female same-sex relations involve", from your experience engaging in sex with women, do you have only "a single image" of what heterosexual male-with-female sex relations involve?
I sincerely hope for the sake of your female partners that sex with you is not something that can be visualized as "a single image". Unfortunately, as many straight women know, some men apparently only have "a single image" of what should constitute heterosexual sex and that "single image" is penile penetration of the vagina, with the woman lying flat on her back with her legs parted and the man kneeling between her legs and thrusting his penis in and out of her vagina. (This is often called the "missionary position". That name is thought to have originated from the belief that it was the position favored by Christian missionaries when working among indigenous peoples.)
There are many "how to" books about heterosexual sex.
They describe many ways that men can stimulate women sexually, including many ways that do not involve them inserting their penises into women's vaginas.
I suggest that you consult one or more of these books, to learn about the many ways that women, including lesbians, can be sexually stimulated.
Dear Holly, Thanks for your response. I wasn't talking about the reality but perceptions thereof. Still you didn't address what I was getting at, which is that lesbianism has been suspect, and the extreme suspicion of it, eg in South Africa. So, a somewhat different topic to the one you wrote about.
Ian
Lesbianism is ‘suspect’ as well as demonized, criminalized and persecuted because it excludes men. And male control or profit.
Your response was much better than mine!
Thank you!!!
I'm happy to accept your point re exclusion. But it still puzzles me firstly because the exclusion is so tiny, because lesbians are a small fraction of all women. And my second reason for puzzlement is that if a woman excludes me because she'd rather not be involved sexually with a man, then I wouldn't want to be around her for I would receive automatic rejection, but not for any reason that I could be held to be culpable or other personal failure.
All in all I can only think that some men must be very ignorant or very confused to get worked up by lesbianism. I see no reason to be at all. Ian
I am a lesbian and have been abused along with my children by lesbian partner .
Have you read Bindel's book? Is there something in it that relates to your experience?
I will get it