Hi everyone. I agree with Sam, I thought Metzl did really creative work writing this book - it was really refreshing and made the book really compelling. However, sometimes I think it also took away from his argument. He spent so much time talking about the woman at the beginning at the book that he almost loses the reader - it's still interesting, but it sort of made me confused about his argument. Once he tied it together, I understood, but it was an odd choice. I was also interesting in something that I saw as perhaps a hole in his argument. While I find his argument compelling, I noticed that he did not directly address the 'sexual psychopath' fear that was an its height in the 40s and 50s, perhaps into the 60s. I'm not by any means an expert in this topic area or era, but I know that George Chauncey points to a moral panic in this time period that revolved around psychologists and the creation of 'sexual psychopaths,' and that this lead to many people seen as 'deviants' were pathologized. How much of this fear was perhaps responsible for the shift from white housewives to African American men? Overall, I was fascinated by Metzl's argument and his use of evidence. I particularly enjoyed his use of material like movies, ads, and other visual sources. I found the pharmaceutical ads totally shocking.