PARTISAN REVIEW
to their principles, make the mistake of believing that, being scien–
tists, they do not deal in assumptions, preferences, and conclusions.
Nothing comes more easily to their pens than the criticism of the
subjectivity of earlier writers on sex, yet their own subjectivity is
sometimes extreme. In the nature of the enterprise, a degree of sub–
jectivity was inevitable. Intellectual safety would then seem to lie
not in increasing the number of mechanical checks or in more rigor–
ously examining those assumptions which had been brought to con–
scious formulation, but rather in straightforwardly admitting that
subjectivity was bound to appear and inviting the reader to be on
the watch for it. This would not have guaranteed an absolute objec–
tivity, but it would have made for a higher degree of relative objec–
tivity. It would have done a thing even more important-it would
have taught the readers of the Report something about the scientific
processes to which they submit their thought.
The first failure of objectivity occurs in the title of the Report,
The Sexual Behavior of the Human Male.
That the behavior which
is studied is not that of the human male but only that of certain
North American males has no doubt been generally observed and
does not need further comment.
8
But the intention of the word
behavior
requires notice. By
behavior
the Report means behavioristic
behavior, only that behavior which is physical. "To a large degree
the present study has been confined to securing a record of the indi–
vidual's overt sexual experiences." This limitation is perhaps forced
on the authors by considerations of method, because it will yield
simpler data and more manageable statistics; but it is also a limitation
which suits their notion of reality and its effect is to be seen through–
out the book.
The Report, then, is a study of sexual behavior insofar as it
can be quantitatively measured. This is certainly very useful. But,
as we might fear, the sexuality that is measured is taken to be the
definition of sexuality itself. The authors are certainly not without
interest in what they call attitudes but they believe that attitudes are
best shown by "overt sexual experiences." We want to know, of
course, what they mean by an experience and we want to know by
a The statistical method of the report lies, necessarily, outside my purview.
Nor am I able to assess with any confidence the validity of the interviewing
methods that were employed.
466
