I found it to be a very good primer that more than lives up to the title and discusses what the topic of sex and sexuality in Victorian England from the point of view of societal expectations toward women, but also how they were enforced, and the legal acts that went along with them. Particularly for an era in which it is difficult to get accurate statistics, it is an important source for researchers looking into this area. It talks about prostitution, as well. They also (rightly) bring up the tricky challenge of studying the era, which is to discover photographs that were "titillating" for lack of a better term and could be considered embarrassing (or in some cases illegal), and so it's difficult because they would not have been an official document or record. Not to mention because the camera was still a relatively new invention and while there were advances even into the 1890s, it was definitely not a societal situation in which everyone had a camera in hand or ready access to one.

The Romanticism movement is discussed and its roots in the French chivalry moment that preceded it centuries before. Queen Victoria's own marriage is also discussed and analyzed. Overall, the discussion of the social life and customs of Victorian-era women written in an accessible way is of great interest for anyone interested in the period.

Somebody from a small book circle told me about this book. The title caught my attention. Who isn’t interested in the sexual lives of a society we usually know as being prudish, hypocritical and secretive?

The title pretty much says it all: Fenn discusses how sex, sexuality and gender were viewed in Victorian Britain, covering a wide range of topics; from the sex life of married and prostitution to contraception, the literary and artistic depictions and homosexuality. Of course, Fenn also talks about the different expectations placed on men and women and some differences between the middle- and upper-class and the lower class.
All in all, the text is informative and gives a good overview of different topics in bite sized chunks, allowing the reader to get good perspective in a few short pages. Personally, the writing style is a mixed bag: on the one hand, you can easily understand each topic (for those who fear a “dry” academic style) and it’s told in an engaging manner; however, on the other hand, the style also tends to be too colloquial, bordering on questionable. I would’ve preferred that Fenn didn’t write so flowery and humorous for certain topics as they’re absolutely unfit for what she’s discussing.

An example: she talks about how nowadays we believe that Victorians used machines with attached dildos to cure women from various illnesses, claiming that it’s not proven. She never backs up her claims with actual sources or proof. And as far as I know, these women were abused by machines but normal dildos used by doctors.
But even if all of this is a modern fabrication (despite the fact that there is proof that people invented such machines and used dildos to “cure” women, which Fenn even mentions in her text), the problem is that she talks about this form of sexual assault and rape the following way: “one sexy story” and “jaw-dropping naughtiness”.
These women, who were often forced into asylums because they didn’t follow the patriarchal script of proper womanhood, like daring to be independent, poor, a prostitute or whatever other transgression, were RAPED with these dildos. They didn’t and couldn’t consent to being “healed” when they’re literally imprisoned and being treated for things like wanting too much sex or not wanting sex enough or being “hysterical”.
It’s not sexy and jaw-dropping naughty, it’s sexual assault. Fenn is talking about how these women were sexually abused and continues to use her flippant jokester voice to talk about such a sensitive, horrible and traumatising subject. And this is neither the first nor the last time where Fenn uses such “flowery” jokester language to talk about serious topics. I nearly DNFed the book that moment.

Since I’m talking about the writing style, I want to mention another thing. Right at the beginning she says that we should view perspectives from that time during the lens of Victorian society and analyse it through that context. We should “judge them” by “modern” standards.
As an historian I call bullshit.
First, just because some things are generally viewed as okay to say, doesn’t make it okay. For example, the N-word wasn’t okay to use then and it isn’t okay to use today. There are still people who use slurs nowadays. It is, in fact, still socially acceptable in many places to use slurs. Just because racists use the N-word, does not make it okay! And it’s always “well twenty/thirty/whatever years ago things were different!” and people will continue using this excuse twenty/thirty/whatever years from now saying that “back then”/today it was used as well.
Just because something is socially acceptable for SOME people, especially the dominant culture, in this case White, heteronormative, patriarchal society, does NOT make it less wrong.
Second, this position does not make for good historical analysis. Yes, we need to understand things within their context but this does NOT mean that we cannot and should not judge Victorian society. To claim otherwise is bad historical work and leads to continuing those ideas as okay until today.
Third, Fenn, despite insisting numerous times that we shouldn’t dare judge Victorian society by “modern standards”, judges Victorian society by modern standards whenever she feels like it. This leads to a rather hypocritical standpoint as she says that paedophilia in Victorian Britain shouldn’t be called that because age of consent was twelve and thus, we cannot judge but turn around and judge sexism by modern standards. This happens on various occasions and it’s honestly irritating. It’s incongruent, either you criticise both equally or none but picking and choosing which one you (rightfully) judge and which ones you don’t is hypocritical.
There’s another example we she talks about nude photography and says that nude photographs of children were normal and not seen as erotic but just “appreciation” for young bodies and…no. please, stop. That is the thinnest veneer of excuses used to disseminate early child pornography. If somebody would take pictures of naked posing children in obvious erotic poses, most people wouldn’t accept the excuse of “it’s art” or “just pretty images” because it’s an excuse and we know it!
If the people in power use arguments to excuse their abuse of power, then we should be all the more critical of their logic and not reproduce it uncritically, as Fenn does. Yes, sure, men said that taking pictures of naked children was okay and they sold those in erotic bookstores. Does that mean that the photographs were neutral and just “pretty images” or does it rather mean that the people in power were using the thinnest of excuses for their paedophilia?
A real historical analysis wouldn’t just reproduce these arguments but question them and see them for what they are. The powerful will always claim that what they’re doing is alright because [reason].

Fenn therefore tends to reproduce Victorian perspectives uncritically and presents them as facts. That’s sloppy historical writing. Fenn is not a historian and it shows, including in the lack of sources. She sometimes incorporates books, newspapers or essay titles within the text but the rest, all the historical analysis, archival material and secondary sources remain unnamed. I, as a reader, cannot follow the path she took to come to her descriptions and conclusions. This is meant to be an historical overview but the historical part, the researching, thinking and sciencing, is cut out. I have no idea what historians she consulted to write this book and so I can’t check for inaccuracies, correct summaries or questionable source material.

She also falls into the trap of Othering Victorian society in quite a few instances. She mentions several times how religious Victorian Britain was and how religious doctrines dictated the treatment of men, women and sex. But she fails to see or acknowledge that 1. It’s highly improbably that everybody blindly followed the doctrines. It was just a handy excuse to discriminate, and 2. This exist today, too. We still have Christians who think very similar to Victorian society and use their religion to oppress and suppress people. Just off the top of my head: the constant struggle of reproductive rights and abortion; the virgin-whore dichotomy for women; the vilification of female sexuality; patriarchy; the subjugation of women; how children are seen as tiny adults and thus their abuse is okay; the abuse of LGBQT+ people; victim blaming; etc. etc.
I highly doubt that Victorians were more superstitious and religious and it’s even more doubtful that, as Fenn claims, our society is more open. Ultimately, it depends who you ask and thus which source you use. If you read super-conservative material from the Victorian era you think that everybody were buttoned-up sexists and homophobes. Much like asking for example Evangelicals will give you a completely different view on society and the role of people and how they can and should express themselves than when you talk to a queer person or BIPOC or woman of colour.
Also, as an addendum: Fenn strongly focuses on White experiences. Especially in regards to how women were treated because women of colour doe NOT appear in this book so any discussion of gender, sex and racism is lacking.
It becomes obvious, for example, when she talks about the ports and prostitution or gynaecology. In the latter she says that women today – at least in the first world countries, as she emphasises – have relatively safe births. Only, that isn’t true if you look at statistics. A quick glance at Black women in the US, for example, reveals absolute medical neglect. Black women are dying because they aren’t treated properly (if at all), misdiagnosed and just plain ignored. Black women die at a higher rate because of racism. Even famous athletes and entertainers aren’t exempt from this! Look at Serena Williams and Beyoncé who both nearly died because of complications during childbirth.
The fact that Fenn glosses over intersectional problems and solely discusses women and feminism through the lens of White women is an absolute shame and robs us from rich and important historical analysis. The experience for White women is not the same as for WOC. That should be acknowledged.

Speaking of sources. Fenn repeatedly uses the phrase “a quick internet search shows us that…” and I cannot say how horribly stupid that is. The internet in itself is not a source. Search engines and image boards are not historical sources. She especially uses it in context of images, like ads and photographs.
Again, I’m a historian/art historian and one of my research topics is historical photography and I can’t tell you how much BS there is online regarding historical photographs. “A quick internet search” is NOT research, historical analysis or even representative. It’s often fed with wrong information by people who have zero education within the field.
Source she could have mentioned: museum and archive collections. Yes, they do exist, even online! And they’re usually held up to a certain standard in terms of quality and content control, curated by professionals with care and interest in correct information. I can’t even tell you the times that I’ve seen historical photographs online with complete wrong information, spreading ahistorical garbage and people just picking up the same wrong info over and over again. How many times have I seen photographs of “samurai” and “Japanese warrior women”?
And here comes Fenn, who never cites a source, and just tells you to “google it”. This enrages me so much. It’s irresponsible.
For the love of all that is holy, do NOT go full German TV and say “Source: Internet”. This is an honest to gods age old meme in German speaking countries because German TV programs would cite their sources like that. The internet has been making fun of this for well over fifteen years.

What’s my conclusion?
The book is generally interesting. It gives a good overview of many relevant topics and the writing style is accessible. But it lacks quite a few perspectives. Fenn also doesn’t cite sources, writes in purple prose making jokey-jokes at inappropriate times, reproduces Victorian perspectives uncritically and contradicts herself at various points.
This book is more entertainment and because of all of the points above, I can’t even say that it’s accurate because I simply don’t know since I can’t control any of the information. Furthermore, her lack of critical thinking and analysis, as well as her use of “Source: Internet” as the height of historical research in regards to photography, makes me question a lot of the information found in this book. I don’t disbelief everything per se and I’m sure that many things are summarised correctly but there were many instances where I highly doubted the information given, especially biographical ones, as they tend to be messy, but again, I can’t factcheck anything because she doesn’t cite sources.
The book is meant to entertain but it’s also an historical overview. Just because something is meant to entertain, does not mean it should be held to a lower scientific standard. It should matter even more because this will be widely read as it is a short book with an enticing topic to entertain readers.
I’m honestly disappointed.

I’ve never read a more interesting book, let alone a book on sexuality during the Victorian era! Definitely unforgettable and full of amazing facts and examples. Would recommend to any history buffs out there.

It was an interesting and informative read that kept me hooked till the last page.
I discovered a lot new information and how the approach of Victorian age people was different from what we thing.
The book is well researched and well written.
An excellent read, highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC, all opinions are mine.

So, this wasn’t what I was expecting when I requested this book. It reads more like a research paper and there’s really no rhyme or reason to the chapters so it was confusing. Some of the information was interesting. Thank you to netgalley for the arc.

I found this book really interesting, the Victorians for me are fascinating so this was always going to be a hit with me!

The author covers quite a bit in the pages available from the different sexually transmitted diseases that were rife at this time, particularly syphilis, through to prostitution, cross dressing and the tragic consequences of homosexuality with it of course being a criminal act at this time.

The book was concise and I liked the way it was split in to the different chapters. The book was clearly focussed and the author has done a lot of research and knows her topic. I thought that it was well written too and I did find it to be an easy read and it didn’t really take me very long to read as the book is only 144 pages so more of a novella length for me.

It is 4 stars from me for this one, I thought it was full of interesting detail and it is definitely one I would recommend to people who have an interest in this period – highly recommended!

I found this book absolutely fascinating! If you read ‘The Curious History of Sex’, then you should really enjoy this book! It’s not too academic but is so insightful, I found myself completely immersed in the period and subject. Will be purchasing for my library!

Sex and Sexuality in Victorian Britain is a phenomenal piece of non-fiction written by Violet Fenn. As a true history junkie, I was beyond excited when I got approved to read this book! I was a bit suspicious that I wouldn't like it before I started reading. And I was wrong. I sincerely enjoyed this book. It was educational and well-researched, so that didn't disappoint me. What I enjoyed most were the real-life examples and experiences of people from the Victorian age. I found it really interesting to read their letters and diary entries.
My favourite chapter is Lifting the Lid on Lust: Libido, Kinks, and Sex Toys . The sassiness of the author toward other authors was very entertaining. I really like how Violet Fenn broke some of the misconceptions people have about the Victorian age, especially those concerning women and their intimacy.

I would certainly recommend this book to anyone interested in history, human condition and sex.


I received this book in exchange for an honest review.

A short and entertaining book about sexuality in Victorian society. The author presents the joyful aspects of people's intimate relations as well as the darker sides like prostitution, STDs and criminalisation of homosexuality. The book gets rid of some old myths and gives various examples of people and court cases that invite to explore the subject further. As an introduction to the topic I highly recommend this.

I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this book! I devoured it so interesting, and well written, it was!
Informative books can be, sometimes, clinical in their explanations, in my opinion, which makes me loose interest halfway in. But this one was approachable, easy and enjoyable to read. There was clearly a lot of research done for this, and it shows. I had some knowledge of the Victorian Era, but learned so much more!
There were no photographs, which I thought a bit of a shame. It’s just my own preference in having some visual material besides text in historical non-fiction books, though. And, this sure doesn’t change the fact that I thought this book highly enjoyable.
I’d strongly recommend this book to any lover of this period in history.

This is an interesting overview of Victorian attitudes to sex and sexuality. Far from salacious, it presents a social history of the period that covers a wide range of topics from marriage to pornography, art to homosexuality, public versus private behaviours and much more. It is not a challenging read (it's actually surprisingly short) and would definitely give the casual reader an insight into lots of issues surrounding Victorian attitudes.

I did enjoy the book and found Fenn an engaging narrator. However, I did feel that the book doesn't offer much to those of us who already have an understanding of these issues; it's a light touch coverage for those who haven't read within this area of social history. For this reason, there was a tendency to give a lot of background information on Victorians that those with an interest in the history of this period would already have. I'm not a historian, but there was little new in the book for me and many of the apparent source texts were also familiar - Rubenhold's 'The Five', for example, or McKenna's excellent book on 'Fanny and Stella'.

Overall, I'd say this was an engaging book for those new to the topic. It is well written and ranges widely to pick up some really interesting things, from the trend for cycling to the subtext of 'Dracula'. However, for those already engaged with the time period, I'm not sure there is much that is new.

This was a very good, well-researched, and highly readable look into the truth behind sex and sexuality in Victorian England. Violet Fenn looks behind the starched facades to the reality beneath- which is that anything you've thought of doing, it's been done before. She explores the dark realities of prostitution and sexually transmitted diseases and the tragic consequences of criminalizing homosexuality, but also introduces lighter elements and knocks down traditional stories like Victorians covering piano legs to prevent anyone from getting too excited. One of the things I loved best about "Sex and Sexuality in Victorian Britain" was how often I found myself saying: "so that's where that comes from!". From word origins to myths to facts of daily life, it was fun to discover their basis in Victorian life.

Overall a delightful, witty, and fun read, "Sex and Sexuality in Victorian Britain" is perfect for history lovers who want to learn more about the real lives behind the era, and women's roles-as victor as well as victim- in particular.

I was given a copy of Sex and Sexuality in Victorian Britain by Violet Fenn by Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.

This book is hard for me to rate. I feel like if you are a novice to Victorian History or Social History in general this book is a great beginner book to learn about the period. The style is very casual, almost like a person telling a story rather than stating facts. It doesn’t feel like a boring old history book, it's fun and engaging. It reminds me of the books you find in Barnes and Noble that are the non fictions in the front that are fun. The problem comes in when someone who is very knowledgeable about Victorians or history in general reads it. Which is the case for me. The style felt too casual at times. It read more as someone giving opinions on topics instead of factually discussing them. The chapters also felt really jumbled, jumping from topic to topic without transitions. I did learn a few things but I just feel like the book wasn’t for me. I’d still recommend it to people interested in the topic. But who wants less of a traditionally structured non fiction.