MovieChat Forums > Kinsey (2005) Discussion > A criticism of Kinsey

A criticism of Kinsey

posted 10 years ago by thready85
1 reply | jump to latest

I just watched the movie for the first time so the topic is still fresh in my mind. When I was getting my undergraduate degree in psychology I studied Kinsey and the history of psychology. First of all, I think the movie did him justice. He was a pioneer in the field of sexuality. He deserves every bit of praise given to him. However, I do have some criticisms of his views on sexuality that I think are legitimate as well. This is not to bash him, but rather to give another side of sexuality that I think he did not discuss. In my opinion, he looked at sexuality too much through the lens of biology. I do not think that he gave as much time studying the social, philosophical, and emotional aspect of sexuality. A time when his own emotions came into conflict with his views on sexuality could be shown in the scene when one of his students asks to have sex with his wife. He didn't really want to say yes, but he was so committed to his opinions on sex that he didn't want to be a hypocrite. But emotions are very important in our lives. I view our emotions as half scientific and half a part of the human experience. You might not, but I think that I have a legitimate point behind that. What I mean by that is we can study our emotions (the brain chemistry during an emotion, the psychological issues behind emotions) but in the end, we have to admit that our emotions help mold us as individuals and things like anger are not simply chemical reactions to external stimuli. Emotions are things we feel and deal with in a very intimate way. Science does not belong in that area of our life. I am using a bit of philosophy here because I do not believe that we can explain life simply through science. I do not think Dr. Kinsey understood that emotions, philosophy, ect. are just as big a part of sex as biology. I think that if he were living in today's society with what we know, he would understand this. I kind of blame the times for how he went about his research. I think that he had to be too scientific otherwise he would not have pissed enough people off. And you can only change the world by making many enemies. But those are my thoughts about his views. Great movie.

[–] sarastro7 10 years ago

You're wrong. Emotions can (and eventually will) be completely explained by science, and if Kinsey had lived in a later age, he would have insisted even more on this. Science progresses, you know - it becomes more and more clear as time goes by that EVERYTHING has scientific explanations. To believe anything else is religious and irrational.

Just because emotions can be explained by science and "reduced" to neurochemistry doesn't mean that emotions are somehow less important in our lives. Of course we are shaped by our experiences, etc., and of course we should live rich emotional lives, just as we should live rich rational lives. Reason and emotion are not in conflict with each other!! This is the big point that many people don't get. Reason is just a well-organized way of using emotion - but again, this doesn't mean that emotions aren't subject to the rules of science and chemistry. Emotional responses came about in nature's evolutionary process; there are specific reasons that we have them. And the better we understand those reasons, the more naturally we can deal with and relate to our emotions. This is what Kinsey was ultimately trying to clarify.

To say that science does not belong in the emotional area of our lives is preposterous. We will never learn to use our emotional capacities to the full unless we understand them to the full - which means understanding them scientifically. This should be obvious.