this book is very informative and gives a basic introduction into the world of sexuality from all aspects from identification of sexual characteristics,education on intercourse, diviant behaviors, relationships, and current state of modern relationship roles for the 21st century.

Having majors in both the natural and social sciences, I can honestly say this is a very unprofessionally written text for just a single reason. There are constant, in-text, one-sided diatribes between the "first author" and the "third author." The third author is the ever-lovable Lois Fichner-Rathus who is married to the first author. The problem is that this woman takes numerous opportunities to slam males and masculinity throughout the text (without any similar asides from the male authors).

One section I remember in a not-so-fond manner is where the "third author" rants about how men can't help but be competitive, even with animals, on page 119. On page 23, there is a footnote that reads, "The first and second authors of this text [males] point out that it is not necessarily advantageous for females to have the ability to discriminate duds from winners. The third author confesses that she wishes she had had that capacity years ago."

The book also presents rather one sided views of topics like circumcision. In the book, they describe how, in uncircumcised males, "smegma--a cheeselike, foul-smelling secretion--may accumulate below the prepuce, causing the foreskin to adhere to the glans." (110) The text neglects the fact that smegma naturally occurs in females as well around the clitoral hood with improper hygiene. If they had mentioned this, would it be grounds for supporting clitoradectomy? They then cite data from a Wiswell study concerning penile cancer, and UTI's and declare that circumcision "lessens" these risks. The problem is that the data in that study was actually correlational because the circumcision (as an I.V.) was not controlled by the experimenter, rather, the observations were made ex-post facto where factors like poverty determined who was circumcised. This introduces the possibility that significant differences (monetary, hygiene, education, etc) existed between the subjects. Don't they know that correlation doesn't imply causation?

I liked one comment the third author made in the childbirth section on page 364. She describes how the obstetrician invited her husband to cut the umbilical cord and she "seized the scissors and cut the umbilical cord herself." She asks, 'who gave the obstetrician the right to determine who would cut the umbilical cord!' Heck, I'm amazed she let her husband have the privilege of sleeping with her to conceive the child in the first place. He's lucky she even bothered to take, er, append her husband's last name onto hers.

I don't mind a book with humor, but when the humor makes certain readers feel like they are under siege with every new page, then it no longer serves the usual purpose of conveying information.

Besides that, the book is ultra-thorough. It covers sexuality on biological, moral, psychological, and sociological levels. It is almost too thorough to make for engaging reading for someone interested in a single aspect of sexuality, but this also makes it adaptable for use in many fields of study.