havior in the Human Male by Alfred C. Kinsey. Immediately upon publication this book became one of the leading non-fiction best sellers in the country.

It is unnecessary for me to stress the immense importance of the Kinsey book. That has already been adequately done by the various commentators from Morris Ernst to Albert Deutsch, even though some of these writers have misinterpreted the nature of that importance-which is physiological and sociological, and not ethical or legal. But although we have had scores of experts commenting on the significance. of the Kinsey Report, biologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians, sociologists, jurists, eminent authorities in many fields of knowledge, this initial flood of comment was completely devoid of the slightest reference to Guyon's Studies in Sexual Ethics. Now the curious thing is that the principal claim made by the proponents of the Kinsey Report was that it demonstrated the need for a drastic revision of our ethical and legal codes. Yet none of these enthusiasts were apparently aware of the fact that such a revision in complete detail, already exists in the eleven volumes written by René Guyon. For the remarkable thing is that, although Guyon's work was completed before the appearance of the Kinsey Report, there is not a single element in Guyon's blueprint for a future world that will need to be revised because of any of Kinsey's findings.

Fortunately, the comments of the initial popularizers of the Report (who must nevertheless be commended for bringing a tremendously important and valuable scientific work to the notice of the general public) are now being followed by the more deliberate comments of experts with wider and more profound knowledge of sexology. Dr. David Cauldwell's recent booklet on the Kinsey Report takes account of Guyon's Studies in Sexual Ethics. Joseph McCabe's new Encyclopedia of Essential Knowledge mentions Guyon's work prominently in the article on Sexology. A recent statement signed by Dr. Harry Benjamin, Prof. Howard M. Parshley, Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes, Dr. Albert Wiggam, and Dr. Robert L. Dickinson, asserts: "We consider that the major writings of René Guyon are of considerable importance to social science, and should be made widely available to research workers in this country." The statement adds that The Ethics of Sexual Acts "should be in every public library and college library that already contains a copy of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male by Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin."

one

Let us return now to the claim made by the proponents of the Kinsey Report: that it demonstrates the need for a drastic revision of our ethical and legal codes. Great stress has been laid upon its revolutionary social implications in this direction. But in point of fact, this conception of its importance is completely fallacious. Statistics of actual behavior have no relevance to the problem of optimal behavior; and statistics of the incidence of crime have no relevance to the problem of the justice of laws.

To consider first the ethical aspect. As Professor Herbert Birch rightly states, "it may be statistically normal for extra-marital relations and homosexual contacts to occur, but statistical normality and desirability are distinctly different concepts." Statistics showing how many men smoke tobacco or marijuana, or how many women wear high-heeled shoes, are totally irrelevant to the question of whether these practices are natural, normal, or desirable; and such statistics would have no influence upon any future textbooks of hygiene. Nor would statistics on how many men drink milk or how many women eat white bread have any influence on our scientific conceptions of optimal nutrition. The reviewer in The Commonweal is quite right when he says that Kinsey's statistics no more require a change in ethical standards than the fact that many people persist in lying requires us to consider dishonesty a virtue. What people do does not tell us what they should do."

There can be no need for revision of our ethical code" for the simple reason that we have no ethical code. We have several ethical codes, with entirely different bases. One large group of people accept a religious and metaphysical code of morals; another large group of people accept a scientific and utilitarian code of morals. The Kinsey Report shows that enormous numbers of men and women who profess the dominant religious code of this country ignore its sexual tenets in their daily lives. It does not show that there is any conflict between belief and practice in the case of those who accept a rational and scientific code.

Those who are familiar with the facts of Anthropology know that man has developed his own moral law, and that (except where his ideas and conduct were distorted by superstitions) he formulated it simply as a law of social life, with the object of preventing disturbance and suffering and promoting harmony and happiness. And those who are familiar with the facts of History know that a utilitarian

20