Reading progress update: I've read 128 out of 265 pages.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dc00f/dc00f4d2f29139bc51b86b958df4fdea446c40f3" alt="Debbie Doesn't Do It Anymore: A Novel - Walter Mosley"
Thoughts so far
So, I've started reading this. I have really....I'm going to use the words mixed....about feelings so far. There have been a few things that have bothered me about this book--things that the heroine has done and things that were done to her.
Sexuality and the heroine's control or input of her sexuality is one of the things that plays into this novel (as one of the things that I have seen criticized about it), and right now, it might change by the end of the novel, the heroine kind of goes between saying/showing she has/had no control over her sexuality (i.e., it was about her husband or sexual partners wanted and she was not important, and this comes across as why she's leaving, which is very understandable), to saying or implying she does have control over sexuality (although I'm a bit confused how, but that could be solely on me. It's like she's saying because she knows she incites lust in people either due to her former job or her dress, but I have to read more to see if it's mentioned again), and then commenting on the sexuality(mostly the lack thereof) in other people/characters, even at some point coming off as mocking. While I personally believe that sexuality, and likewise sensuality, aren't one simple, single definition and that each individual person determines their own sexuality/sensuality, at times, it's kind of hard to follow the heroine about her thoughts about it. For me, it seems the heroine is basing sexuality off how she's dressed and how much skin is covered, how many people she knows want to/would sleep with her (either due to her looks or her name/celebrity), or how experienced she is. While I'm not going to say it's wrong to relate sexuality to those things, I think it's wrong to relate sexuality to only those things (i.e. sexuality can only be those things and not defined by anything else). I don't know. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it. But that's how it's coming across.