Confessions of a Survivor of the (Homo) Sexual Revolution

November 16, 2001

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

Last week I suggested that the sexual revolution was really homosexual in character, and it signaled a severe social and cultural decline. The celebrated "Kinsey Report" (1948) authored by the gay pedophile Dr. Alfred Kinsey, convinced Americans that sexual license is healthy and normal. Hugh Hefner based PLAYBOY on Kinsey's assumptions and convinced men to substitute lust for love. Later, in this column, I will describe the effect this had on my life.

As Mathew Arnold pointed out, culture requires the subordination of animal instincts to spiritual ideals. Specifically, culture is founded on restricting sexuality to love which leads to marriage and procreation. Most homosexuals appear unable to find lasting love, and instead engage in extreme sexual promiscuity. Their activists, like Dr. Alfred Kinsey, want to "normalize" this lifestyle. With feminists, they work to promote sexual license, and to dissolve heterosexuality, the nuclear family, and culture itself. An example of their influence is the precipitous decline, since 1960, in the social prestige accorded to motherhood coupled with the collapse of the birthrate.

We all suffer from the substitution of lust for love in our culture. The focus on appearance and youth prevents us from finding enduring love. The result is arrested emotional development and an increasingly pornographic obsession with sex. This malaise is ruining millions of lives and nearly ruined mine:

At the onset of puberty, at age 11 in 1961, magazine pictures of women showing cleavage or leg had a magical quality for me. Pretty soon, my friends were stealing PLAYBOY from newsstands and I was also tempted. Instead, with some trepidation, I approached my father. In the spirit of the times, ("sex is natural, repression is bad") and without any guidance, he bought me a copy. Pretty soon I was a subscriber.

My father's decision vastly increased my trust and confidence in him. But it had the effect of making lust take the place of love in my imagination. Sex was sublimated love. I imagined that sex was something sacred that took place between perfect creatures in secluded garrets. The beautiful buxom centerfolds filled me with near religious wonder and awe.

PLAYBOY packaged this religion of sex. There was no interest in what women are really like. The subjects of love, marriage, children, and aging were disparaged. There was nothing about true masculinity and femininity. The religion of sex was curiously asexual.

Nevertheless, it took over my subconscious. My erotic dreams often involved PLAYBOY pictures. Women who were not beautiful became invisible. I could not take them seriously. My first wife was average looking. She had spoken to me twice before we became neighbors in the university library. I had no recollection of these encounters.

The fixation on physical beauty was psychologically emasculating. How did I approach someone when I saw only the surface? Attractive women remained mystical goddesses. I put them on a pedestal. I was too needy. I had lost touch with my masculine identity, my feelings and critical faculties. I wanted love but didn't know how to get it.

I was part of the (homo) sexual revolution, part of a generation of sexual fashion victims. Despite the example of my father, I didn't grasp the eternal model of masculinity. In this model, a man strives to look after and lead the woman and children he loves. Unconsciously, men and women are still looking for this kind of relationship. But with feminism, a lesbian philosophy, teaching women to be men, and vice-versa, both sexes are lost. I, for one, had no identity, goal, or motivation. I spent my time looking for them in social action and eastern religion.

I married the average looking woman because I was NOT obsessively attracted to her. I was tired of being ruled by my desires. She was a feminist and had a career, allowing me to pursue my own interests. Eventually, inevitably, I hungered for more.

I fell in love with an insecure young woman who played to my idealization of beauty by maintaining a facade. I divorced my wife and lived with this woman for six years. For a long time, she infatuated me. My love was totally giving, in the hope of securing her love. Mature love is demanding; she would have responded to that.

My book, "A Long Way to Go for a Date" chronicles my slow and painful emergence from immaturity and arrested development. I am now happily married because I have belatedly discovered masculine identity. A man cannot be ruled by desire for sex and love. A man is God's agent, creating a New World, the family. This is his duty, purpose and fulfillment. A woman's fulfillment is as his partner and means to this end.

Ironically, the androgyny celebrated by gays and feminists is actually found in successful heterosexual marriages. Only spiritual union (love) can satisfy sexual desire. For this reason, beautiful women no longer captivate me.

In conclusion, I see heterosexuality in spiritual rather than physical terms. Recreational sex between sexless females and males strikes me as homosexual. It transforms sex into pornography, and arrests personal development. It is fast destroying our social fabric and culture. On the other hand, heterosexuality is the loving union of masculine and feminine spirit. Heterosexual desire serves love, which impels marriage, children and the creation of culture.

---