I just finished the book (well, about a week ago) and I have to say that I had a very mixed reaction to it. It seems to have a reputation as an extremely radical book, and in 1970 when it was published, that was probably true. However, I was continually struck not by how radical it was but instead by how *reactionary* it was by today's standards. Now that gay and lesbian relationships, transsexuality, sex-change operations, and polyamory are pretty well known and accepted (at least in my circles), and no longer carry the shock value they once had, it was rather disappointing to see that the radicalism stopped there, and that the rest of the values espoused in the book were so conservative by comparison.

Somehow Heinlein didn't seem to have any problem with characters who practiced free love, poly-amory/fuckery, gang bangs, etc., but then promised to "love, honor, and *obey*" (instead of "cherish") their husband, consciously used sex as a tool to manipulate people (well, I guess that's not necessarily reactionary, just distasteful), and seemed generally content to let men continue to have the lead role in society. With the exception of the main character, I do not recall any women in positions of power anywhere in the book: the judges were men, as well as the doctors, lawyers, police, personal bodyguards, the screener for the lunar colony, and even the artists (Joe Branca was the only one of these I recall, but still). The non-main-character women mostly seemed to be money-grubbing shrews (JSBS's ex-wives) or closet nymphomaniacs under a veneer or "nice" respectability (Tom's wife Olga).

The sex-as-manipulation I found particularly annoying, as it seemed that every time JSBS/JES didn't get her way, she would put on a pouty look and bare her breasts and offer kisses and the men would practically fall over themselves bending to her whim. To be fair, JSBS/JES backed it up with veiled threats, (monetary) bribes, and occasionally sound reasoning, but I found the behavior deceitful and underhanded; much better would have been to show how women can be strong, smart, and independent *without* having to resort to such tactics, and how men are not always just 'thinking with their other head' so to speak. And to be frank, Heinlein would have to show a *lot* more generally radical behavior before convincing me that thirteen-year-olds are ready for sex (Eve, at the end of the book).

I have my own reservations about polyamory which I have already posted to another thread here and will not belabor further other than to say that this book did not change my opinion that polyamory in the Real World in never so neat and free of complications as Heinlein presents here. Perhaps it is possible to have such a society, but if it comes along with a huge crime rate, rampant illiteracy, and such a casual understanding of the word "rape" as he presents in the book, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live there no matter what the benefits.

To his credit, Heinlein did not shy from describeng homosexual relationships of both sexes, and did put a unique perspective on transgender issues well before such were accepted, or even recognized, in the mainstream. Ultimately, however, it was disappointing that the radical views were not carried out much further than they were. I'll be interested to see what other perspectives are posted here.