Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
-5% $32.29$32.29
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: GULAK
Save with Used - Good
$9.14$9.14
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: 2nd Life Books
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud Paperback – February 1, 1992
Purchase options and add-ons
This is a book about the making and unmaking of sex over the centuries. It tells the astonishing story of sex in the West from the ancients to the moderns in a precise account of developments in reproductive anatomy and physiology. We cannot fail to recognize the players in Thomas Laqueur’s story―the human sexual organs and pleasures, food, blood, semen, egg, sperm―but we will be amazed at the plots into which they have been woven by scientists, political activists, literary figures, and theorists of every stripe.
Laqueur begins with the question of why, in the late eighteenth century, woman’s orgasm came to be regarded as irrelevant to conception, and he then proceeds to retrace the dramatic changes in Western views of sexual characteristics over two millennia. Along the way, two “master plots” emerge. In the one-sex story, woman is an imperfect version of man, and her anatomy and physiology are construed accordingly: the vagina is seen as an interior penis, the womb as a scrotum, the ovaries as testicles. The body is thus a representation, not the foundation, of social gender. The second plot tends to dominate post-Enlightenment thinking while the one-sex model is firmly rooted in classical learning. The two-sex story says that the body determines gender differences, that woman is the opposite of man with incommensurably different organs, functions, and feelings. The two plots overlap; neither ever holds a monopoly. Science may establish many new facts, but even so, Laqueur argues, science was only providing a new way of speaking, a rhetoric and not a key to female liberation or to social progress. Making Sex ends with Freud, who denied the neurological evidence to insist that, as a girl becomes a woman, the locus of her sexual pleasure shifts from the clitoris to the vagina; she becomes what culture demands despite, not because of, the body. Turning Freud’s famous dictum around, Laqueur posits that destiny is anatomy. Sex, in other words, is an artifice.
This is a powerful story, written with verve and a keen sense of telling detail (be it technically rigorous or scabrously fanciful). Making Sex will stimulate thought, whether argument or surprised agreement, in a wide range of readers.
- Print length336 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherHarvard University Press
- Publication dateFebruary 1, 1992
- Dimensions6.37 x 0.7 x 9.25 inches
- ISBN-100674543556
- ISBN-13978-0674543553
Books with Buzz
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
Frequently bought together

Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
Review
“[Laqueur] gives us an excellent sense of how our predecessors, including physicians and scientists, thought about the anatomy that fascinates every schoolchild… No one can doubt, after reading this book, that our notions of masculinity or femininity have been imposed on what are supposed to be objective biological observations.”―Melvin Konner, New York Times Book Review
“[In this] challenging analysis of our ideas on gender…Laqueur shows how radically our consciousness of ourselves, our bodies, our sex has changed over the centuries. The categories we think of as most basic turn out to be mutable… And in this transformation, Laqueur emphasises, social changes were as crucial as medical teachings.”―Roy Porter, The Independent
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Harvard University Press; Revised ed. edition (February 1, 1992)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 336 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0674543556
- ISBN-13 : 978-0674543553
- Item Weight : 1.2 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.37 x 0.7 x 9.25 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #385,595 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #274 in Medical Psychology of Sexuality
- #450 in Psychology & Counseling Books on Sexuality
- #1,136 in Sex & Sexuality
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Laqueur contends that pre-Enlightenment medical texts viewed the physical body as inherently male. The female body's sexual organs were simply an inverted version of the penis. Bodily fluids such as milk, blood and semen were of similar matter. Therefore, "the boundaries between male and female" were (and Laqueur would argue still "are") "of degree and not of kind" (25). This discourse, a "one sex model," supported by such prominent philosophers as Aristotle and anatomists as Vesalius, dominated anatomical and medical rationalization, as well as gender literature, for nearly two millennia. Thus, a female could become a male, for example, after strenuous activity that would cause her inner sexual organs to drop. However, a male could not become a female, since "nature tends always toward what is most perfect," the male body (127). "Man" was "the measure of all things, and woman does not exist as an ontologically distinct category" (62). Moreover, such an order to the cosmos of humanity played a social role, maintaining a male ordered society.
Not even the hard scientific, observable discoveries of the "Scientific Revolution" of the late 17th to early 18th century could overturn the one sex model, as linguistic categories of male and female predominated scientific observation. Although the Enlightenment focus on "nature" garnered a new era of recognition for the female body and politic, as well as a notion of "two fleshes" by the 19th century, the recognition was one of gender differentiation rather than sex delineation. Thus, Laqueur argues, in a vein similar to Foucault that gendered social categories (as well as the discourse and language such categories created), in which men held higher privilege than women, came to dominate Western culture while the one sex model remained. The two sex model was produced, Laqueur contends, "through endless micro-confrontations over power in the public and private spheres" over the course of the late 19th into the early 20th century (193). Moreover, 18th and 19th century beliefs that the female was "passionless" since she did not need orgasm to conceive played into notions of body heat (positive and male) as opposed to body coolness (negative and female). Even the writings of Sigmund Freud, Laqueur contends, indicate Freud saw a paternalistic order, since women possessed an "internal passive vagina," as an appropriate rendering of "socially defined roles" (241).
Laqueur's conception of the social categorization of the sexes, often through the lens of a paternalistically ordered social structure, fits nicely with Barbara Duden's chapter concerning "the perception of the [female] body." Duden examines the journal entries (over 1800) of Dr. Johannes Pelargius Storch, a male "physician" in the German town of Eisenach during the early to mid 18th century. Duden found that Dr. Storch consistently "struggled to force his own body concept into the scheme" of his prognoses of various female patients (106). Because physicians of Storch's era were not permitted to "open" bodies, doctors often examined external fluids in an effort to deduce the workings of the internal body. The internal body was "a place of metamorphosis," in which bodily fluids, especially blood, had to be kept in balance (109). Emotional reactions by women, such as fear, worry, jealousy or anger, caused what Storch labeled "mishaps," that could alter the blood balance in the body leading to various maladies including death. Moreover, natural, "cosmic events" such as the alignment of the stars or changing of the seasons could also cause women to experience various levels of illness, especially during the menses. Thus Storch tried to understand the female body "in the microcosm that corresponds to an order in the macrocosm" (177).
Reading Aristotle also suggests that at least him considered sexes to be separate. He compares slaves to women and implies that there are separate. The historical record challenges Laqueur's assertions because societies have frequently divided roles, and sexual mores according to sex.
Much of Laqueur assertions lay on the apparent absence of separate categories for men and women. He argues that throughout history women were seen as imperfect men, or inverted men (if we look at some of the dissection drawings made - it is clear from the similarities between vaginas and penises that they thought women were inverted males). Thus, Lauquer argues that women were considered to lack the heat required to be male. From this and the lack of different terminology (to which I'll get on later) he extrapolates that there was but one gender. However, he recognises that people were able to distinguish between man and women but the basis of this distinction was not there genitalia. Women were supposed to perform certain roles and also lacked heat; whereas men, who were seen as more rational and superior were expected to fulfil a different set of roles ergo men and women were separated and perceived to be different. While, the basis on which the distinction was made may not have focused on their genitalia the distinction existed and separated society into two groups; coincidentally (or not) once genitalia is used to separate the sexes along with their respective traits and roles the membership of groups does not change. Ergo, there is functionally no change; whereas prior to the 18th century (assuming Lauquer is correct) women were perceived to have certain characteristics and amongst those was their inverted penises; now, these same characteristics were perceived to result from the presence of said genitalia. We are left with a perfect correlation and a distinction that does not affect the interactions between said groups nor their composition but only their name.
Laqueur also explores the language used by historical actors and whilst language can be very important to understand how and what people thought its significance must be properly analysed. Laqueur argues that the fact that people used similar terms to refer to male and female reproductive organs means that these were not differentiated in the minds of those that utilise them. The fact that ovaries were referred as testes according to Laqueur means that these people did not separate the sexes. Alas, they (and may I add we still) refer to other organisms penises as penises; are we to extrapolate from this; that there is or that historical actors thought there was only one species? The fact we call these organs by the same name does not imply we consider them to be the same. Further, we still refer to some of these structures using the same names: gonads, gametes, secondary sexual characteristics; despite the fact we recognise that whilst these structures differ they are functionally homologous.
My favourite quote, when Laqueur reminds us of the ongoing male fear of "effeminacy", is of course from Shakespeare; need I explain the historical "prohibition" on feelings of love experienced by men towards women? Love "liquifies", turns men into women...Ah.
O Sweet Juliet,
Thy beauty has made me effeminate
And in my temper soft'ned valour's steel! (3.1..111-13) quoted p. 123.







