These lines appear in my novel, The City of Earthly Desire. In many ways, the novel was my way of grappling with the perniciousness of the sexual revolution. I say grapple because it took me an exceptionally long time to truly grasp the harm and devastation this noxious experiment in social engineering has caused in the past sixty-to-seventy years. By truly grasp I do not mean to imply that I possessed no intuitions about the harmfulness of the sexual revolution, but rather that I tended to view the issue from the same perspective I viewed other potentially detrimental things like alcohol. Simply put, I adopted a libertarian attitude about sex under the assumption that rational adults had the right to determine the course of their own beliefs and actions. I suppose this could be classified as a "whatever floats your boat" approach to the matter; an approach I coupled with "I'll tolerate what you do, as long as you don't push it on me" line of reasoning.
I mention this because I presume this was or perhaps still is the attitude of many people regarding sex. After all, rational adults do have the right to determine their own beliefs and actions - that's the whole point of freedom and free will. And yes, this freedom extends to sex as well. When all is said and done, every individual is free to choose their assumptions, attitudes, and approaches to sex. Here's the rub, though - the rub that took me a long time to fully comprehend: freedom of choice does not entail that any and every choice that is made is a good choice. This is particularly true with sex, where, much to every hedonist's and libertine's chagrin, good choices are restricted and limited.
Sex is a strong motivating force; perhaps the strongest after religion. What the sexual revolution has accomplished is to displace religion as humanity's strongest motivating force, at least at the collective level. And this has been a catastrophe. Among its many purposes, religion served to orient sex in a manner that was aligned to Divine Law and Creation. When this framework fell away, it was akin to opening Pandora's Box - and the chaos that has poured forth from this disastrous decision shows no signs of abating.
Sex today has become a Dostoevskian nightmare world - a nightmare world in which everything is permitted under the pretext of freedom, hedonism, and ironically enough, love. And don't kid yourself, the ultimate logical outcome of the sexual revolution will lead to exactly that - a world where everything is permitted. And when I say everything, I mean everything. Only a few things are considered taboo today. How long before those things stop being taboo? Impossible, you say? I beg to differ. You see, when all notions of the Divine are removed from sex, not only do impossible things suddenly become possible, but the temptation to make those impossible things possible becomes an irresistible force.
At its most fundamental level, sex is sacred, but it is only sacred if it is supported by a belief in the Divine. Without this belief, sex is reduced to nothing more than a vulgar means of attaining physical pleasure (at the very least). This does imply that those who do not believe in the Divine automatically diminish sex. Nor does it suggest that those who believe in the Divine automatically elevate sex to its proper function and role. Nevertheless, without religion, without deep metaphysical assumptions, sex slips into the realm moral relativity, much the way it has in the past sixty or seventy years. This of course brings us right back to religion which established a clear moral framework for sex. That moral framework has been all but vaporized; however, the diminished stature of this moral framework does not mean it has become obsolete. On the contrary, it has never been needed more.
Heaven is not down here. And even if it were, sex is certainly not the ticket - not in the sexual revolution sense anyway. Contrary to popular belief, the sexual revolution has done far more harm than good. And as uncomfortable as it makes things, you simply cannot be pro-sexual revolution and on the side of good. You can't. The two are incompatible. Any attempt to make them compatible is dishonest and delusional.