A response to Reiss' “trouble in paradise”

Reiss' (1982)1 recent article demands a response. Although he is clearly expressing his own opinion, his remarks derive from his presidential address to the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex (SSSS) and were published as the feature article in The Journal of Sex Research. Thus, it may appear to some readers that his remarks are statements of SSSS policy. They are not. I wish to be clear that I am speaking only for myself, and my conception of sexology2 is not necessarily shared by others. Further, a rigorous definition of sexology is beyond the scope of the present comment and will not be attempted. I hope my remarks and Reiss' article will spur others to define and to describe sexology systematically, with its distinctive theory and methods. Throughout the present comment, I will be referring to research which I believe is based upon the sexological perspective. Obviously, since I have not defined sexology, it is debatable whether these studies actually represent the sexological perspective. Further, all the researchers were trained in an established discipline, thus their perspective has been influenced by their original training. Therefore, it is not clear that any one of these meets the criteria of being a true or pure sexologist. These problems also plague Reiss' paper.