An excellent volume, well reasoned arguments. In short Nussbaum argues that "disgust" in the average person is not enough to legislate on. She argues that we should move from disgust to humanity which is a respect for people to choose their own means of living and a deep sympathy in imagination of what others experience. Don't let the readability and shortness of the book deceive you, it's packed with broadness in subject and depth in treatment. Nussbaum discusses the psychological roots of disgust (an evolutionary aversion to possible carriers of disease but also a psychological aversion of being reminded of our animal nature), and tells us of the difference between primary disgust and projective disgust. She shows how the latter has been used historically to justify subordinating unpopular minorities. Her solutions tend to parallel Mill, to only legislate behavior that affects others and directly legislate those behaviors. She discusses the requirements for nuisance laws (causation, imposition, primary exposure) as a method for identifying behavior that affects others. Nussbaum summarizes the major cases in the area, and lays out the arguments both legal and historical. I found interesting her analogy to the colonial conception of "conscience" which developed out of religious freedom. Conscience was the idea that people be free to choose their beliefs even if (at the time) one really believed that such beliefs would damn that person to hell. In her detailed discussion of case law she makes some interesting observations. Nussbaum argues that there is some confusion over the meaning of "private" vs "public" (private as in private behavior, or related to the home, or non-commerical...etc) in the cases, which creates all types of issues. She also argues that heightened scrutiny does not actually require the three commonly seen requirements (political powerlessness, immutability, history of discrimination) to be met, that those are only common indicators of the existence of a categorization scheme and the irrelevance of these categories. It's also interesting to note that in many ways this book is outdated. She calls for the repeal of DOMA, so the book is pre-Windsor. It's interesting to note how quickly the legal landscape (in a post Hodges world) has changed. Hard to say I agree with everything that she has to say, but it's a good guide for someone looking for well reasoned legalistic argument over the slogan throwing that's commonly seen. ( )