The Legacy of Alfred Kinseys Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
It may be said that this research undertaking was exploratory in nature and devoid of any moral or socio-cultural judgment about what is proper or improper sexual behavior. Kinsey et al. (1948, p.7) liken it to a story of the sexual behavior of the human male. It does not follow a hypothetical construct of what is normal or abnormal. Instead, it strives to capture the totality of the sexual experience among all types of males. Such is the case that they coined the term agnostic approach in researching the male sexual behavior. The study encompasses all aspects of human sexual behavior and thus, individuals from different fields of expertise -- anthropology, biology, psychology, and animal behavior, among others -- were involved in the development of the project.
Kinseys approach in the research design and treatment of data is very much a product of his background in biology. His work is not far detached from most scientists, specifically physicians, who were vigorously undertaking research about sex and sexual behavior. Drawing from his education and professional background, Kinsey applied the taxonomic approach. In biology, the function of taxonomy involves naming, describing, classifying and categorizing species. When applied to the study of human behavior, it involved measuring the variation in series of individuals which stand as representatives of the species in which he is interested (Kinsey, et al., 1948). In doing so, the researcher attempts to identify the factors that are causing the differences between individuals or between certain populations of individuals.
The interview guide and system for coding are crucial areas that were carefully constructed to be able to maintain the credibility and integrity of the data. Training for the interview process takes a full year, not including the coding system which is a separate exercise as well. Kinsey and his colleagues believed that the sensitivity of the topic at hand the various dimensions it will bear on the respondents will require the utmost expertise of the interviewer.
Kinseys data presentation was divided into broad categories factors affecting sexual outlet and sources of sexual outlet. This came from the studys operational definition of male sexual experience which is measured through orgasm. According to Kinsey (1948, p.4), there are sexual encounters that do not lead to orgasm and he considers these emotional situations as having variable intensity which are difficult to measure.
Furthermore, implicit in this approach was the assumption that the number of orgasms experienced by an individual in a given period of time, from whatever source, would provide some measure of sexual drive or need for sexual release of that individual, and as such would be an important measure of individual variability (Bancroft, 1998).
Kinsey reported that orgasm or sexual outlet was a factor of the following (1) early sexual growth and activity (2) total sexual outlet (3) age (4) marital status (5) age of adolescence (6) social level (7) stability of sexual factors (8) rural-urban background and (9) religious background. He also identified nine primary sources of sexual outlet in the human male (1) masturbation (2) nocturnal emissions (3) heterosexual petting (4) pre-marital intercourse (5) marital intercourse (6) extra-marital intercourse (7) intercourse with prostitute (8) homosexual outlet and (9) animal contacts. When Kinsey made public these reports, it was supposedly a statement of facts and findings devoid of any form of moral judgment or social evaluation. However, this was not received in the same manner by the general public. Clearly, the results presented aroused various reactions and mixed emotions that appear to cloud objective and scientific cognition which in actuality was the nature of the research program since its inception. And while the initial response to the publication was positive, respective biases soon tainted logical judgment and by the time Kinsey and his team were preparing for the female volume of the book, criticisms were hurled at them from various angles.
While results of the project reflected in the book are the major cause of upheaval among different sectors of society, there were also a number of attacks on the methodology employed by Kinsey and eventually the credibility of respondents and the consequent validity and reliability of data. While there are those who regard him as a hero for ushering the era of sexual revolution, there are others who believed that his work was the source of the collapse of societys moral fiber. To this day, more than 50 years later, the debate that was sparked by Kinsey remains and as expressed by Bancroft (2004), Kinsey continues to influence the political process and in view of the recent phase of political opposition to sex research, there is again a renewed interest in Alfred C. Kinsey. This research paper attempts to present the different sides of reaction about the Kinsey report. Specifically, it will strive to relate the work of Sigmund Freud on sexuality with Kinseys research and how the former has affected the development of the latters work. The paper will also discuss the methodological issues with the research for which it has been majorly criticized. The discussion concludes with an overview of Kinseys major contributions in revolutionizing sexuality and his continuous socio-political impact in the present society.
Discussion
One of the leading psychologists identified with the study of sexuality is Sigmund Freud. His influence remains a hallmark in both academic and clinical practice. Kinsey and Freud however, embarked on the mission of studying human sexuality in different contexts. Freud was doing his clinical practice against a backdrop of social repression in Europe, where sexuality was not considered an appropriate dinner table discussion. It was also a time when women were repressed and considered second class citizens in the society. Frueds work was guided by his theory of the id, ego and superego and has lead him to hypothesize that majority of the patients issues reside in the unconscious, the seat of repressed thoughts and emotions. Due to the socio-political milieu of his time, sexuality was indeed a topic that was constantly repressed. Thus, it was not surprising that most of the clinical cases that Freud dealt with were those of women and that the common thread that he saw among these women were the problems of sexuality.
Freud provided the theories and hypotheses which have fundamentally changed our conception of the role of sexuality in our mental and social lives (Yerkes, 1953). However, what Freud may have failed to achieve by virtue of his clinical practice, training and social context of his time, Kinsey was able to accomplish. Both men share the same objectives but they differ greatly in the approach of data gathering. Kinseys work claims rigid scientific discipline and is a product of long-term data gathering procedure. At the time that Kinsey conducted the research, the United States saw revolutionary changes in sexual attitudes and practices which further facilitated the research being conducted and further ushered how the public received the report. What fifty years ago could not have been mentioned in a social group --- sexual and reproductive happening and experiences --- are now spoken of without inhibition (Yerkes,1953). This was partly due to the influence of Freuds work as well as the increasing prevalence of womens liberation and cultural exposure of the American youth of different sexual codes and practices during the World War. It may be surmised that that zeitgeist was very much aligned with Kinseys research endeavors.
At present time, the Kinsey report has gained its due fame and has created a legacy in the study of human sexuality. Its claim as a scientific research that employed taxonomical procedures have been both hailed and criticized. Closer inspection of his methodology would reveal that although the objectives were built upon the rigors of the scientific discipline, the design and procedure did not necessarily adhere to the experimental design and the requirements implied in a statistical research. Perhaps during that time, social science is not yet as evolved and sophisticated as we know of it now. Also like Freud, Kinseys background and training may have been a limiting factor and misguided his research methodology. Kinseys employed his knowledge in taxonomy and biology to understand a topic that is much within the realm of social sciences.
At the publication of the male volume of the Kinsey report, researchers and statisticians highly criticized the sampling methodology employed in the study, an area Kinsey explained in detail and discussed extensively in the book. Due to the topic that was explored and the taxonomic approach that was rightfully justified by Kinsey, the research team was faced with grave difficulties. One of this is in the area of probability sampling which is best addressed through random sampling methods, but in this study purposive sampling was employed. The American Statistical Association however, upon careful considerations of the task embarked and the whole methodological procedure, concluded that his use of non-probability sampling is justified, but advised that he employs better sampling strategy and statistical data treatment in the future. Re-analysis of data after Kinseys death using more sophisticated methods revealed that major results are consistent except for statistical differences in the area of homosexual relations.
Although his statistical treatment was a favorite topic for criticism, his interview method has been regarded as superior and exemplary. Kinsey achieved what any qualitative researcher at present time aims to achieve data credibility and respondents confidence. Kinseys interview methodology is heralded for its ability to convey a non-judgmental attitude that enabled his subject to describe any sexual behavior however stigmatized and his ability to convince subjects that their records would remain completely confidential (Bancroft, 1998, p.4). Even at present day, the major challenge in research about sex remains the ability of the interviewer to gain the trust of the respondents and be able to gather data of high quality. One of Kinseys legacies therefore, is in providing the framework for training of researchers involved in studies about sex.
Critical literature about the Sexual Behavior in the Human Male revolves around the results presented. Kinseys focus on orgasm or the sexual outlet to describe male sexual behavior was criticized as not giving justice to the totality of the sexual experience. Every scientist however, will recognize that this form of reduction and operational definition is necessary in any scientific investigation. Not having this in place at the beginning of the study will not only prove chaotic but will deprive it of a measurable variable that is implicit in any scientific research.
When Kinsey presented the sources of sexual outlet, his goal was basically to state the facts and findings. He has repeatedly explained in the book that these findings were analyzed and presented without any social or moral biases. His refusal however, to categorize or label what is good versus what is bad, or what is normal versus abnormal created the spiral of attacks and condemnation. In some articles, the attacks became too personal to the point of labeling him as pervert. In 2005, the movie Kinsey was released portrayed by Liam Neeson, primarily meant to present the strengths of the research endeavor of Kinsey though at the background it portrayed glimpses of Kinseys personality and views on sexuality. The movie showed his sexual relationship with a male research colleague his unconventional marriage to Clara and the frank discussions of sex with his family, including taking his fathers sexual history (Boynton, 2005). The creation of the movie shows how Kinsey continues to influence the present realities in our society. However, to those who regard Kinsey as a plague in the history of morality, the movie only fueled the disapproval and disrespect that they bear.
In a related article, Knight (2008, p.3) released a strong statement for the Kinsey Institute in Indiana University Instead of celebrating the 50th anniversary of Kinseys female volume, Indiana University and Congress should investigate Kinseys junk science and criminal cover-up. The impact of Kinseys work in the legislative system, particularly from the findings in the male volume, is reflected in how cases of rape and incest are treated in the American penal code system. Kinseys research revealed that 95 of men committed sexual crimes such as rape, sodomy, incest, homosexuality, and adultery, which led him to express that if sexual criminal actions as defined by law are natural tendencies among men, then perhaps society must redefine what is normal and revise the sanctions for sexual offenders. As Kinsey was part of the reformulation of the Model Penal Code, he was accused of putting women and children at risk by reducing penalties for sex offenses, such as rape and molestation (Knight, n.d.). Like any monumental contribution, Kinseys revolutionary implications for laws and policies were met with the same amount of denigration.
There are however, always two sides to a story as is often the case with controversial and historical issues. The central theme in the main report relates to the needs for social change as differences in male sexual behavior was related to social classes. Kinsey (1948) believed that such differences translates to resulting conflicts between the two classes due to misunderstanding, and the imposition of those in the upper social level of their moral codes to the rest of the population. This made him realize that most of the sex laws imposed was not only based on religious backgrounds but also on the sexual morality of the upper social levels whereas those in the lower levels were manifesting the natural sexual behaviors.
What Kinsey strove for was an understanding of the sexual expression. Such were the powerful words of Kinsey (1948, p.678) There is an abundance of evidence that most human sexual activities would become comprehensible to most individuals, if they could know the background of each other individuals behavior. Spoken like a true advocate, Kinseys motive was that scientific understanding will hopefully improve socio-political and academic treatment of sexual behaviors. Perhaps the lasting impact of Kinseys work and his legacy is in the contribution towards the sexual liberation of men and women. He was one among the many theorists who provided empirical data that propelled the sexual revolution.
It should be noted that Kinseys contributions were primarily on the sexual behaviors of males and females and not specifically on the attitudes towards it. His work however, became the springboard of other future researchers and schools of thought. His work has often been connoted with the liberation of women in his explanation that it is quite possible for a woman to enjoy heterosexual intercourse. (Hester, 1992). It should be noted that during that time womens sexual expression and pleasure were viewed as heavily dependent on the male. Although Kinsey was still not totally free from the social dictates of his time, this remarkable finding added fuel to the growing movement to emancipate women and move towards equal status of men and women.
Kinsey may be better regarded as eradicating the stigma associated with homosexuality. His report implies that there are no such things as perversion and the acts considered as abnormal by society are just extensions of what is considered as human normal sexual behaviors. This is a striking claim at a time when homosexuality was considered a disease. Homosexual liberation then can be claimed as finding roots and strong support from Kinseys research. There is few, if any, existing literature that comprehensively discusses the strong link between Kinsey and homosexual liberation. However, the connection between the two is quite clear and stronger than the connection with womens liberation. In fact, most of the conclusions about sexuality that Kinsey has drawn were more biased for men and against women. This paper has demonstrated that in the field of sexual liberation, Alfred Kinsey has made tremendous impact following the earlier works of Sigmund Freud. While opening the eyes of the public to common sexual behavior, Kinsey slowly paved the way towards a culture that embraces diversity.
Conclusion
The first section of this paper, the introduction, gives an overview of the book by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. This was the first book that he released as a product of years of research, and one that caught the attention of different sectors in society. The introduction also gives a brief history of Kinsey and somehow puts the production of the book in context. Furthermore, the section examines the zeitgeist when the book was created and how this not only influenced the development of the research, but also affected how its publication was received by the general public.
The succeeding section, discussion, demonstrates the impact of the book to the society at the time that it was introduced as well as its legacy and continuing presence in the academe and various advocacy groups. The discussion starts off with an explanation of how Sigmund Freud influenced Kinseys work. Before Kinsey, the highly acclaimed psychologist who studied and gave importance on human sexuality was Sigmund Freud. One of the major differences between the two is the manner of collecting data which was very much influenced by the field of discipline they were coming from.
Another difference is that Freud was working with a repressive society which was not as prepared as Kinseys time to discuss about sexual experiences. This section also highlights the major criticism of Kinseys work which is on its methodological approach. Perhaps the lack or gap in articulation of how the work should be interpreted by the general public was the major source of serious criticism about the results generated. This is also partly due to the methodology that Kinsey used to gather data. The paper has mentioned that since methods and analytical tools were not as sophisticated as modern time, this could have been limiting for Kinsey and his colleagues. The last part of section on discussion identifies the major and lasting contributions of the book. It has indeed earned a significant seat in the field of sexual revolution. However, caution must be taken in relating it directly to womens liberation as most of Kinseys claims in the book was not devoid of the prevailing male dominated structure of society during his time. It has been proposed that Kinseys work is more supportive of the homosexual revolution and in opening the minds of the public towards respect for individual differences.
Amongst all these discussions and criticisms in the past 50 years or so, what may have been lost is the recognition and understanding of the fundamental objective of Kinseys research endeavor the collection of scientific data about the male sexual behavior without any judgment of what is right or wrong, normal or abnormal. His objective presentation of facts however, threatened the very core of the social, political, cultural and moral foundations of society at that time. The findings had considerable implications on how sex and sexual behavior were regarded by the general public, the law and the religious doctrines. The prevalence of sexual behaviors which were sanctioned, basically on moral grounds, found expression in the voices of the respondents. Furthermore, the publication of his work became the jump-off point of massive sexual revolution not only in sex becoming openly discussed, but also in the perception of sexuality as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. Lesbian and gay activism found confidence in the work of Kinsey despite public disapproval.
The development of sex research and sex education owes a lot to the research project of Kinsey. Sex education and the freedom of its expression have not only been sustained in Indiana University (IU), but in several other institutions as well. Since 1998, the Kinsey Institute has been accessible online reaching more students, educators and researchers. IU chancellor Gros Luis remarked, while Kinsey opened up the study of human sexuality, the Institute now provides leadership, research, and resources for the interdisciplinary study of that subject through history, the arts, literature, culture, medicine and societal trends (cited in Kinsey Institute, 2005). Kinseys work has proven that even the most sensitive and sanctioned issue is not exempt from scientific investigation and the ingenuity of the researcher. Perhaps the zeitgeist set the stage for the production of a revolutionary study that was a major departure from past research at that time and one which continues to either haunt or enlighten us, depending on which side of the issue we prefer to stand on.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment