There they go again.
Maria Konnikova wrote a piece in the New Yorker based on her interview with the creator of an academic “casual sex” study.
In it, she accused Masters and Johnson of “bias” because they were interested in a cure for homosexuality.
A few paragraphs down, she wrote glowingly about the purpose of the author with the study, motivated by the desire to take the “shame” out of casual sex and make it as normal as the need people have for water.
But there is no representation of this attitude as being a “bias”.
Such is the way of many academic studies. The famous one from Margaret Meade of Pacific islanders happily copulating with everyone else has been shown to be less than totally accurate.
The fact is that the objective truth can be found only when one accepts the most proven perspective, but one that is rejected due to bias against it, and that is the Biblical perspective.