A reply is made to a critique of the author's previous paper, centering about two major issues: (1) theoretical precision and objectivity and (2) contamination of theory with values. Response is also given to a variety of specific criticisms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeachF. A.Characteristics of masculine “sex drive.” In JonesM. R. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1956. Lincoln: Univer. Nebraska Press, 1956. Pp. 1–32.
2.
ChristensenH. T.CannonK. L.Temple vs nontemple marriage in Utah: some demographic considerations. Soc. Sci., 1964, 39, 26–33.
3.
CoferC. N.AppleyM. H.Motivation: theory and research. New York: Wiley, 1964.
4.
HamblinR. L.BloodR. O.Jr.Pre-marital experience and the wife's sexual adjustment. Soc. Prob., 1957, 4, 122–130.
5.
HardyK. R.An appetitional theory of sexual motivation. Psychol. Rev., 1964, 71, 1–18.
6.
KinseyA. C.PomeroyW. B.MartinC. E.GebhardP. H.Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1953.
7.
MargoshesA.LittS.Sexual appetite and sexual drive. Psychol. Rep., 1965, 16, 713–719.
8.
WaxenbergS. E.DrellichM. G.SutherlandA. M.The role of hormones in human behavior: I. Changes in female sexuality after adrenalectomy. J. clin. Endocrinol. Metab., 1959, 19, 193–202.
9.
WaxenbergS. E.FinkbeinerJ. A.DrellichM. G.SutherlandA. M.The role of hormones in human behavior: II. Changes in sexual behavior in relation to vaginal smears of breast-cancer patients after oophorectomy and adrenalectomy. Psychosom. Med., 1960, 22, 435–442.
