This book is an educational, informative study of America's attitudes towards sex during the 19th century. The author's thorough research and interesting approach (taken from four very different perspectives, depending upon gender, profession, and philosophy/religion) offer a unique explanation and understanding of how Americans viewed sex during the 19th century. I was surprised by how much information (though much of it is incorrect, such as the "fact" that women who are raped cannot become pregnant because they do not feel passion during the rape) there was available to 19th century Americans about this taboo topic. Some of it was not a surprise (the whole male sporting culture, which was adopted as a Victorian moral code for men and women in which men are permitted and encouraged to have as many sexual relationships as possible whether they are married or single and in which women are to be kept ignorant of their husbands' (and fathers', brothers', etc.) relationships or, if they are aware of them, they are to turn a blind eye, yet absolute fidelity on the part of the females is required. It sets up an illogical double standard--who are these men having sex with if women are to remain virgins until marriage and faithful after marriage?) Other parts were a surprise--the concept of "free love" appeared much earlier than I thought and censorship appeared much later than I thought. The reasons for turning to the courts and for using censorship were also explained, with thorough detail about how mores changed as the century progressed, and the full impact of the Industrial Revolution made its mark on every aspect of Americans' lives. Horowitz shows how, with the Industrial Revolution, work changed, and young people left home to work in larger cities. Without parental/familial or community (religious) control or guidance, young men experimented with sex and young women were also now subject to sexual pressures and temptations. Horowitz also makes an interesting connection between the censors' fears of sexual information, particularly about birth control and abortion, and the dangers of having and using this information. Also discussed in great detail is why this particular group feared, above all, giving women (both married and single) any information which would help them limit the size of their families, despite very compelling arguments from opponents about the hardships faced by parents who could not afford to feed a large family yet lacked the information to limit family size and arguments about how important it was for the health of the mother (and her family) that she should not have 12 children in 12 years. Horowitz states firmly that it was the fear that these women, if they knew of ways to prevent pregnancy or that they could have an abortion, would all cheat on their husbands! Fear of pregnancy, they reasoned was the only thing that prevented female infidelity! In this area, I think that Horowitz did not go far enough. Undoubtedly this was the concern stated by the pro-censorship faction, but underlying this was the larger issue of inheritance. At this time in American history, only males inherited property from their fathers (married women were legally not permitted to own property--everything they brought to the marriage, i.e., the dowry, became their husbands' property once they were married) and only legitimate children (i.e., children born of the marriage) could inherit. Illegitimate children had no rights whatsoever (inheritance-wise). It was a very frightening thought to men that their wives could be unfaithful to them, could become pregnant, he could end up raising an illegimate child! This is also what was driving the double standard--men could be permitted to have as many extra-marital affairs with prostitutes, mistresses, etc. because their behavior did not affect the inheritance laws. If a man had 50 mistresses and 500 children outside of his marriage, none of those 500 children could claim any rights to parental obligations/duties or to inheritance. The only ones who could inherit were a husband's male issue born of the marriage. The extra-marital behavior of the wife, however, was another matter entirely. No man wanted to see his property go to an illegitimate child, so this added an additional "control" on female behavior, just in case fear of pregnancy was not enough.
This book is very well researched and well-written. Academics and non-academics alike will find it easy to read, theories are set out and backed up with research and facts, and many of the stranger mores associated with the 19th century explained. It makes an interesting study for anyone who has ever wondered how and why Americans came to be so schizophrenic (using sexual images to sell everything from cars and copy machine toner to chocolate, yet there was a huge fuss a few years ago about a billboard that showed a woman nursing a baby) about sex during the 20th century because it shows that Americans were equally conflicted about sex during the 19th century, and had not resolved those issues. Highly recommended.

This marvelous books contains lots of surprises: that legal censorship of written material about sex came later in the 19th century than I had suspected; that "scientific " reformers who believed that disseminating informaton about sex appeared on the scene earlier; and that the perception that masterbation was a threat to American society came not from religious fundamentalists but from the scientific theories of some of these same reformers. Elegantly written, and brilliantly researched, this book is a must for anyone wanting to understand the strange cross-cutting attitudes about sex in contemporary America.

Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz says that she was puzzled by the stir in 1994 when Joycelyn Elders made a mild comment mentioning that masturbation might be taught about as part of sex education in schools. Our nation is used to hearing daytime talk show chatter about sexual abuse, homosexuality, prostitution, and more, but mentioning this universal and enjoyable practice as something that should be taught about (the religious right twisted her words into "should be taught") was enough to get Elders fired as Surgeon General. Why was there such a hysterical reaction to a mention of masturbation? Horowitz is a historian, a professor of American studies, and the one thing she could do to find an answer is historical research. She has done a mountain of it, looking into obscure court cases, journals, and newspapers, to produce the monumental _Rereading Sex: Battles over Sexual Knowledge and Suppression in Nineteenth Century America_ (Knopf). As the title reveals, Horowitz has not just covered ideas about masturbation (although ridiculous fears of that "evil" seem to have percolated through the minds of every parent and preacher of the time), but has covered the huge topic of what our predecessors thought about many aspects of sex.

The evangelical Christian movement sweeping across the country in the first half of the nineteenth century seized upon such worries about masturbators and lustful women, and "sinful lust became a chief way of comprehending sexual desire." The American Tract Society was particularly vehement on such issues, and was aghast at the scientific understanding of sexual function that was beginning at the time. Especially important was the protection of female virginity, and fear of pregnancy was a vital shield of the nation's maidenheads. Physiological explanations of birth control were seen as a special danger; unimpeded by fear of impregnation, there was no telling what the women would get up to. Tractarians saw the freethinkers who promoted sexual knowledge as blasphemers. Nothing shocked them more than the non-religious (and it was generally the freethinkers who promoted the spread of physiological ideas) insisting that women had similar sexual desires and need for satisfaction as men, or that birth control would promote happiness, health, and economic freedom. It is surprising that the Young Men's Christian Association looms large in these pages. The YMCA had as a goal the promotion of evangelical religion, and during the Civil War, it was worried about Union soldiers, displaced from home, and in 1865 the YMCA was able to advocate for a post office bill that would forbid mailing erotic prints and books, the first time the federal government tried to regulate moral content of mailed material. The anti-sex activities of the YMCA were linked to the famous and foolish reformer, Anthony Comstock, whose censorious aims even kept birth control information out of medical texts.

Horowitz has summarized four "frameworks" out of the confusing discourse about sex during the period. The Vernacular Tradition consists of sexual information (and misinformation) passed generally by word of mouth. Evangelical Christianity hated lust and equated most sexual activities with sin. Reform Physiology looked to the science of the body (often composed of wildly inaccurate assertions) to promote sexual freedom, and sometimes sexual restraint. And then there were Utopians, who thought sex was the central part of human existence and should be untouched by the government. These four voices, in the printed works and journals of the time, often overlapped and swamped each other with rhetoric. The huge number of philosophies and personalities which played a role in the debate, and made a foundation for our current sexual ideas, are brilliantly distilled into this large, well-referenced book, which is an entertaining academic tome without ever being fusty or tedious.

I really liked the way Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz looked at the physical structure and plan of the seven sister colleges to interpret their varying purposes and views on higher education of women. I am currently studying the history of Radcliffe, and I found Alma Mater enlightening and valuable.

This book does a wonderful job of describing student life in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. It should be required reading for all my fellow professors who pine for the fabled "good old days" when students were in awe of their professors, put a priority on their studies, and were virtuous. This book describes the reality, not the myth. It is a wonderful discussion of student life, including the rebels and outsiders. Several times I laughed outloud at the similarities between today's college students and those of centuries past.

The pictures in the book are wonderful. One in particular of the aftermath of a snowball fight at Princeton in the 19th century opened up some interested dialog among my colleagues regarding the nature of violence on college campuses. I highly recommend this book.