[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.94.5. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
April 17, 1954

THE KINSEY REPORT

Author Affiliations

132 E. 72nd St., New York 21.

JAMA. 1954;154(16):1371. doi:10.1001/jama.1954.02940500051023

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor:—  I am dismayed by the statement of Edmund Bergler and William Kroger concerning the Kinsey reports (J. A. M. A.154:167 [Jan. 9] 1954). To me these reveal a lack of comprehension of the facts of human biology. They assail Kinsey because he "neglects the dynamic unconscious" in presenting the substance of human sexual behavior and then go on to switch the issue from the biological study of how people behave—the expressed intent of the Kinsey reports—to a metapsychological discussion of the motivations of sexual behavior in general.Most of us are aware that medical theory and practice are built on the knowledge that man is a vertebrate, a mammal, a primate, and of the species homo sapiens. As an organismic unit, he is integrated functionally by a central nervous system and brain that give him the powers of mentation, judgment, memory, and speech. His psychology

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×