Jeremy Neill is currently bullish on the sexual revolution: “If I were a broker and the sexual revolution were a stock, at this point, I would still be urging my customers to buy shares” ( Public Discourse ). But it won't last forever. No revolution does. Someday, the children of the rebels will rebel against their parents, and when they do there will be no place to go but “back to where it started: in classical sexual restrictions.”
Neill's analysis rests partly on his claim that the internet is responsible for the latest wave of sexual revolutionism: “In terms of its sheer power to alter human opinions, no amount of rational argument can ever hope to compete with the raw habituating force of the internet’s thousands upon thousands of sexual novelties. In half an hour of web surfing, a dedicated pornography seeker can encounter more sexual innovations than his grandfather could witness in a lifetime. Nothing other than brute media habituation could possibly explain how it is that so many humans have changed their opinions so quickly over the last decade about fundamental sexual issues.” We've become habituated to sexual perversions because they're a click or two away at any moment.
But “there are limits to our psychologies and our bodies that suggest that the sexual revolution will not be able to continue in perpetuity. The novelty will eventually run out. Pornography addiction is characterized by a quest for a harder and harder chemical ‘hit.' Eventually, though, the experiences sought get old and clichéd, and no longer are capable of delivering the desired high. What could be more boring than nonstop, unlimited online nudity?”
It's a heartening prospect, and Neill is surely right that the revolution cannot continue indefinitely. What comes after the deluge, though, is not so straightforward. There are, after all, sexual restrictions and sexual restrictions, not all of them healthy. Even now, we don't lack norms of sexual behavior; we simply have abandoned traditional norms and replaced them, as Chesterton could have predicted, with a new set of micronorms. Having sexual restrictions doesn't necessarily mean the restoration of sexual sanity. Everything depends on what's restricted and what's permitted.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Sexuality
Continue reading related articles

Love the Little Children
First we slaughtered unborn babies in their mothers' wombs. Then we started killing babies born from "botched" abortions. Or born babies that didn't look quite perfect. Now we're butchering the bodies of children in an insane attempt to turn them into their opposites. And the UN is undermining age of…

Adam's Helper
Yahweh declares Adam alone is “not good” (Genesis 2:18). His solution is a fresh act of making. He deliberated over the creation of man with a “Let us” (1:26). He resorts again to the first person as He declares His intention to create woman: “I will make” (2:18). “Let us”…

Spousal Body
John Paul II ( Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body , 181-5) argues from Genesis that “‘alone,’ the man does not completely realize [his] essence.” Without the woman, Adam does not possess the “basic conditions that make it possible to exist in a relation of…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.