Commentary on Sexuality Blog

COMMENTARY 4

Commentaryon Sexuality Blog

(InstitutionalAffiliation)

Commenton Sexuality

Theauthor of the blog has presented a brilliant perspective on issuescovered concerning human sexuality. I totally concur that the changefrom moral-based to scientific-based view on human sexuality was asignificant step not only in understanding human sexuality but alsoenhancing sexuality ‘equality.’ The 19thcentury perspective on human sexuality was retrogressive andoppressive those who exhibited sexual orientation or traitsdifferent from the morally accepted were considered deviants(Scherer, 1985). Just like the author of the blog, I concur thatwithout the scientific research and perspective on human sexuality,human race would still be in messy confusion.

Althoughwe herald the change in sexuality perspective from morality based toscientific-based, this does not mean that one cannot view sexualityfrom a moral-scientific perspective. In fact, the development ofscientific-view on sexuality was an important milestone in expoundinghuman knowledge on the morality of human sexuality (Scherer, 1985).In the same perspective as the article’s blogger, I agree that the19thcentury depiction of sexual deviants was wrong. It is normal forhuman beings to develop feelings to other beings that have similarbiological predisposition (homosexuality).

Humansexuality is both biological and psychological and as such, it isnormal for humans to have sexual orientation that goes contrary tothe ‘morally accepted’ status (Scherer, 1985). To this end, Itotally agree with the author. Indeed scientific studies on sexualityhelped emancipate many people who felt ‘imprisoned’ by themoralists who believed sexuality is either being attracted toopposite sex (male and female). I too support Krafft-Ebing theory of‘contrary sexuality’ in that although human sexuality cannot beregarded as influenced by instincts, to a great extent biological andpsychological predispositions may lead to contrary sexualorientations. However, I tend to differ with the author that humansare driven by instincts and cannot reason on matters of sexuality.

Ifsome individuals have contrary sexual orientation there is no problemif they engage it with other adults, however individuals withcontrary sexual orientation such as homosexuals have led to increasedsexual deviant acts with children. In addition, it is this scientificview on human sexuality that has led to increased prostitution,perversion, pedophile and other evil sexual subversions. In myopinion, scientific-view on human sexuality should integrate themoral-basis by informing people the moral function of human sexuality(Scherer, 1985).

Scientificresearch on human sexuality is important but only when it educatespeople on important matters rather than justifying ‘contrarysexuality’ as based on instincts and not reason (Scherer, 1985). Assuch, I find the author’s blog off hook for justifying the theoryof ‘contrary sexuality. Similarly, the commentators are alsoinclined to the same theory. It is important to state that I supportideas on ‘contrary sexuality’ but it must be based on morality ofthe practice only if done by adults. In addition, I support greatdevelopment in scientific studies concerning sexuality because it hasled to greater understanding and emancipation of those with ‘contrarysexual orientation.’

References

SchererBrewer. J. (1985). The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, genderand Reproduction. The Kinsey Interview Kit. Indiana Bloomington.