December 2- 8, 2004

slant

A Kinsey Retort

The famed researcher pulled sex out of the shadows. But where's the love?

by Christine M. Flowers

My first memory of sex dates back to the fifth grade. The good Sisters of Mercy, entrusted with the care of 27 inquisitive 10-year-olds, decided that it was time to expose us to the facts of life, Catholic style. After obtaining permission from our parents, they showed us an animated film titled Wonderfully Made.

More than 30 years have passed, yet I still remember with great fondness the gentle and respectful tone of the movie. Yes, there were anatomically correct drawings of the vagina and the penis, along with the somewhat-less-authentic illustration of sperm and egg engaging in the fertility dance (even at the age of 10, I was relatively certain that ovum did not have smiling faces). But throughout the entire piece there was a recurring theme that, to this day, influences my perception of sex: The act means nothing if it is not grounded in human and spiritual love, preferably within the context of marriage. The act was presented as the unique union between loving souls that formed the gateway to the creation of new life.

Alfred Kinsey disagreed. The celebrated doctor is back in the news due to a new film which depicts him as a counterculture hero who held up a mirror to a hypocritical society and helped us make peace with our own sexuality. His reports revolutionized the study of sex in post-World War II America, and presented sex in a—excuse the pun—dispassionate manner, placing great emphasis on empirical evidence such as frequency and intensity of orgasm rather than the psychology of the individuals who engaged in the activity.

Most importantly, Kinsey was completely nonjudgmental, believing that all forms of consensual sexuality were valid. He was one of the first serious academics to study homosexuality and adultery, and he even examined the dark taboo of pedophilia. His failure to condemn the latter sprang from a refusal to view sex through a moral lens; this man who could not consider any act "normal" was likewise reluctant to label even the most marginal activities as "abnormal" or even "perverse."

Some believe that this scientific tolerance helped free a repressed society from the heavy chains of shame that organized religion had attached to sex. Others feel that Kinsey hastened the sexual revolution which in turn led to a steep and irreversible decline in morality. There is no question that the stigma of premarital sex, out-of-wedlock births and abortion have all but disappeared. In fact, those who take a stand against these things are tarred as intolerant and moralistic.

I think that Kinsey was a dangerous man, but not for the obvious reasons. It was time for Americans to start talking about sexuality in an open and intelligent manner. In some families, adolescent girls who had not been taught about menstruation thought that they were dying when the bleeding began. In other, more tragic situations children who were the victims of sexual abuse endured their agony in silence because they were made to believe that they were at fault for provoking the attacks.

But the doctor went too far. He stripped sexuality of its emotional and spiritual component, treating it as a commodity shared between human beings just like any other object of commerce. By refusing to admit that some things were morally objectionable, he made it easier for society to adopt an "if it feels good, do it" philosophy. This has brought us to a place that even Kinsey would not recognize, where couples live together in unwedded bliss without any hesitation, where children are born to parents who have deliberately chosen to go it alone, and where abortion is—despite the protestations to the contrary—used as birth control.

At the end of Wonderfully Made, one of the nuns told us that each of us were created by a physical act, but that the love which united our parents created the spark of immortality which elevated us above the animals. Kinsey would have probably disagreed. What a pity.

Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer. If you would like to respond to this Slant or submit one of your own (800 words), contact Duane Swierczynski, Editor in Chief, City Paper, 123 Chestnut St., Third Floor, Phila., Pa., 19106 or e-mail Duane Swierczynski.