Hello, all. Last night, I was studying for my final in Clinical and Abnormal Psychology. I was reviewing the Kinsey scale (which both asserts that sexuality is a spectrum — NOT black and white — and aids individuals in discovering where they exist on that spectrum) in my study guide. His methods — interviewing thousands upon thousands of individuals in a first-of-its-kind objective analysis of human sexuality, free from the confines of moral, religious, or philosophical mores — piqued my interest. I decided to purchase two of his books: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. 

He approahed his analysis of human sexuality as if he was objectively studying the mating patterns of any given species of animal (perhaps an optimal way to conduct this research). I found the introduction to his book Sexual Behavior in the Human Female moving, inspiring, and powerful. Though I have only scratched the surface, I have quickly become convinced that Kinsey’s work is under appreciated. 

Additionally, reading his introduction stirred in my mind an idea I’ve long had about the role of the scientist as necessarily, in its purest form, being that of the revolutionary. You see, Kinsey was facing a Goliath in his own right. Let’s ask ourselves: why was his study the first of its kind? Why were scientists so likely to conduct thorough analyses of the mating patterns of all other species of animal except for ourselves? 

The answer to that question lies in the heavy presence of conditioned shame and guilt surrounding human sexual behavior. We might forget how much progress we have made as a society— for example, individuals in Kinsey’s time (around and before 1950) were being imprisoned for homosexual behaviors. Science thrives with objective analysis, unfettered from personal bias or taste. The heavy religious and social dogma surrounding sexuality had, to that point, made such objective analysis near impossible without facing heavily ostracism and condemnation (which Kinsey did, as a matter of fact, face). 

The Goliath Kinsey faced was the social dogma surrounding human sexual behavior. At that point, such dogma was so heavily ingrained and pervasive that previous scientists had found it extraordinarily difficult to get honest answers from participants, even with the promise of anonymity, because of the immense shame surrounding such topics. To admit to homosexual behavior could have meant the end of one’s life as they knew it, either literally or figuratively (such as in social ostracism, the loss of one’s job, friends, family, etc.).

Kinsey, in his introduction to Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, makes it abundantly clear that he is fully aware of the Goliath he is up against. He cites a pattern seen throughout history in which the discoveries a scientist may make directly contradict that of the existing social, religious, and cultural institutions of their time. He references, for example, the pushback that the heliocentric theory and its proponents met, demonstrating that some of the most crucial of scientific discoveries are necessarily revolutionary in their character. He similarly references the theory of evolution and the threat that posed to existing religious institutions.

You might have already drawn the connection this has to the archetype of Aquarius. Aquarius, the revolutionary — Aquarius, forward-looking — Aquarius, scientific. I cite the research of Gaequelin in the connection between Saturn — ruling Aquarius traditionally — and that of the scientist. From astrologer.com:

“Gauquelin’s research detected statistically abnormal diurnal positions of the planet Mars at birth in athletes, Jupiter in actors, Saturn in scientists and the Moon in writers.”

I consider Aquarius, traditionally ruled by Saturn, to be the zodiac sign perhaps the most related to science. Obviously, being an Aquarius doesn’t mean someone is going to be a scientist; rather, the archetype of Aquarius possibly could find some of its best expression through the role of the scientist. 

So, now, let us review what we’ve covered: some of the most important scientific research is revolutionary in character, having the potential to upend existing ideologies and social institutions. Saturn, traditionally ruling Aquarius, has been empirically (though I admittedly have not looked into his methods to determine the validity of his experiment) demonstrated to be associated with the scientist. The archetype of Aquarius is that of the revolutionary. 

Kinsey’s work was revolutionary in character and was an immense contribution to the advancement of equal rights for individuals of all sexual orientations. He met backlash for his work (as any revolutionary scientist may). 

Aquarius, it appears, may be related to the advancement of human knowledge itself and the upending of existing social institutions (a Saturn key phrase). I believe science is most associated with Aquarius. I believe science itself, in its purest form, is revolutionary. It may revolutionize existing social institutions. Those who champion the taboo in the name of progress and reason may be the most likely to face ostracism, condemnation, and backlash, a Saturnian experience. 

Notable quotations from Kinsey’s work:

“Such protest at the scientific invasion of a field which has hitherto been considered the province of moral philosophers is nothing new in the history of science. There was a day when the organization of the universe, and the place of the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars in it, were considered of such theologic import that the scientific investigation of those matters was bitterly opposed by the ruling forces of the day.”

“There is an honesty in science which refuses to accept the idea that there are aspects of the material universe that are better not investigated, or better not known, or the knowledge of which should not be made available to the common man. There are, for instance, in this age, those who believe that it would have been better if we had never learned what we now know concerning atomic structure. One might be led to believe that there was something unique in the situation which atomic research has produced. But the history of science records that similar objections were raised as each new revolutionary discovery was made. It is, moreover, the record of science that greater knowledge, as it has become available, has increased man’s capacity to live happily with himself and with his fellow men. We do not believe that the happiness of individual men, and the good of the total social organization, is ever furthered by the perpetuation of ignorance.

“There is an honesty in science which leads to a certain acceptance of the reality. There are some who, finding the ocean an impediment to the pursuit of their designs, try to ignore its existence. If they are unable to ignore it because of its size, they try to legislate it out of existence, or try to dry it up with a sponge. They insist that the latter operation would be possible if enough sponges were available, and if enough persons would wield them.

“There is no ocean of greater magnitude than the sexual function, and there are those who believe that we would do better if we ignored its existence, that we should not try to understand its material origins, and that if we sufficiently ignore it and mop at the flood of sexual activity with new laws, heavier penalties, more pronouncements, and greater intolerances, we may ultimately eliminate the reality. The scientist who observes and describes the reality is attacked as an enemy of the faith, and his acceptance of human limitations in modifying that reality is condemned as scientific materialism. But we believe that an increased understanding of the biologic and psychologic and social factors which account for each type of sexual activity may contribute to an ultimate adjustment between man’s sexual nature and the needs of the total social organization.”

• Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, Alfred Kinsey, 1953