The book was also reviewed by Lisa Davis in "Psychology Today" and discussed by the sociologist Ray Pahl in "New Statesman & Society". Meade described the book as a "sensitive study" that "succeeds in locating many widely felt uncertainties, sharpening them up into pointed and timely questions for the future". However, he noted that Weeks included little discussion of fertility and child care and avoided "tackling the full extent of feminism's critique of male defined society". Bell credited Weeks with explaining the "underlying assumptions, modes of expression, and political implications of writings as diverse as scientific-sex research, psychoanalysis, lesbian feminism, and the advocacy of rights for sadomasochists and pedofiliacs." He concluded that, "No serious student of sexuality can afford to miss this book." Monk described the book as a "scholarly work that is enjoyable to read and highly instructive." However, he wrote that the position on sexual morality advocated by Weeks, "radical pluralism", was described only in general terms. He also criticised Weeks's discussion of sado-masochism, writing that Weeks's view that "a powerful argument against S/M's playful use of the symbols of power and domination is the existence of real oppression and exploitation" had "emotional strength" but was dubiously logical. He was also dissatisfied by Weeks's discussion of the age of consent, arguing that it contradicted views Weeks had expressed in other places of his book and left various issues unresolved. Altman endorsed Weeks's view that gay men's sexual promiscuity should not be viewed as compulsive and pathological, and expressed sympathy for his "liberationist" view of sexuality. He praised his discussion of gay identity, his socialist politics, and his "ability to expound complex ideas clearly". In another discussion, Altman maintained that Weeks was correct to maintain that AIDS had been surrounded by "moral panic" of a kind typical of societies in a process of rapid change. Kingham considered Weeks's aim of explaining the contemporary crisis of sexual values ambitious and only partly successful. However, he found Weeks's project promising, and credited him with providing "a valuable analysis and critique of the arguments used by those who see sex as govemed by natural forces" and with exposing the "naturalistic basis" of the theories of early sexologists. He praised Weeks's discussions of Darwin, Krafft-Ebing, Freud, Ellis, Kinsey, and Wilson, writing that Weeks showed "the key ideas embedded in their discourses", including their use of metaphor, but he added that Weeks perhaps "does less than justice to the anthropological position" and should have drawn on more recent anthropological and ethological evidence.