Passing Social Conservative Values from One Generation to the Next: A Q&A with Nathanael Blake
A new book by my colleague Nathanael Blake, Victims of the Revolution: How Sexual Liberation Hurts Us All, is the latest critique of the sexual revolution from an unabashedly social conservative stance, “grounded in the Christian natural law tradition,” as he says in the preface. The sexual revolution—like other revolutions—promoted certain ideas and promises to people. Men and women, boys and girls, believed and acted accordingly. Rejecting nature, tradition, and custom, people of every class espoused these ideas and suffered the consequences. One of the strengths of this book is the analysis of these consequences. That, coupled with its Christian grounding, makes it a book I would give unhesitatingly to my adult children and their friends.
Here is my interview with the author.
Luma Simms: If you had to summarize your book in two sentences, what would you say?
Nathanael Blake: The sexual revolution has not delivered on its promises; instead of authenticity, happiness, and lots of great sex, it has left Americans lonelier, unhappier, and even less sexually fulfilled. In contrast, though Christian sexual morality has been dismissed as the province of prudes, bigots, and killjoys, it provides a better way to live that is rooted in human nature and which directs us toward our good and that of those around us.
LS: How do you make your case? What makes your book different from others on this subject?
NB: The sexual revolution is a moving target—just look at how rapidly gender ideology went from the fringe to the center of culture and politics—and so conservative Christians have to update our arguments as it evolves and expands. In doing this I have made a point of using material from sources that support sexual liberation (e.g., the New York Times) to show how the sexual revolution is failing even on its own terms. I also argue that recent critiques of the sexual revolution from secular writers such as Mary Harrington are insufficient because they do not go far enough, neither rejecting the sexual revolution at its roots nor showing how a better way of life is possible.
LS: The foreword to your book was published in these pages. And I know you’ve done many interviews on the subject matter of your book, so I’d like to take this conversation somewhere a little different. People have been writing about and discussing these issues for a long time—Mary Eberstadt and Jennifer Roback Morse, to name a couple. Part of what it means to be conservative is the emphasis on learning from those who have gone before us and then carrying the work forward. I am concerned that a gap has developed between these older writers and the younger generation of socially conservative writers like you, Patrick Brown, Leah Libresco Sargeant, and others. Who were the authors that influenced you in this area and what did you learn from them? How do you see yourself carrying forward the work that so many social conservatives have done in this area?
NB: That’s a challenging question. There are many socially conservative writers whom I have read and learned from, including both Eberstadt and Morse. The difficulty is in disentangling the threads of ideas and influences that have been woven together over the years. Doing so is possible, but that would have been a very different book—an intellectual history of opposition to the sexual revolution, rather than the contemporary critique I wrote.
To give an example where I can separate the threads, in my chapter on abortion I cited our colleague Erika Bachiochi’s excellent work on feminism, autonomy, and the asymmetry of human reproduction. Yet these insights were quickly connected with both younger writers, such as Leah Libresco Sargeant, and my readings and reflections on John Locke and liberal political theory, which then brought a host of other influences and ideas into play. A thorough account of all the ideas and influences involved would have quickly overwhelmed the point I was making.
What I think this demonstrates (at least in my case) is not that Boomer and Gen X social conservatives are being ignored by their Millennial or Gen Z counterparts, but that their arguments and insights are assimilated and synthesized as part of an ongoing conversation. And this is often good, for as the sexual revolution evolves, so must some of the critiques. The crucial thing is to explain how permanent truths about human nature led to the harms we see inflicted by the sexual revolution, and in doing so we will draw on many generations, from those immediately preceding us to those hundreds, even thousands, of years before us.
LS: What do you think is the difference between the older generation that worked on these issues for the past thirty or forty years and your generation?
NB: I am an older millennial, but I have never known a world in which the sexual revolution was not triumphant. Those of my generation who were raised in the church may have still been surrounded by family and community norms against sexual liberalism, but this was a self-conscious counter-culture—general cultural adherence to Christian sexual morality was long gone. We then watched the sexual revolution complete its conquest through the rapid triumph of once-unthinkable demands, such as same-sex marriage.
Thus, we were always on the losing side, always a minority, and always in retreat as law and culture embraced each new iteration of the sexual revolution. And because we have never known a world without a dominant regime of sexual liberalism, we have experienced the evils of the sexual revolution differently than prior generations did. It is no wonder that we write about these subjects differently than our forebears.
For boomers and Gen X, the sexual revolution was a party, and the warnings were that the party was dangerous and destructive. For millennials and younger generations, the sexual revolution is an entrenched way of life that has failed to deliver on its promises. The evidence of this failure is now all around us, even in the pages of redoubts of sexual liberalism such as the New York Times. Thus, the challenge is to persuade people that there is a better way to live, and to be willing to make sacrifices (particularly of short-term pleasure) to attain it.
LS: I understand that every generation must push back against the evil of its time, but I also believe that learning from those that have gone before us better equips us. Do you believe that those who came before you did not, or could not, make a difference, or do you think that younger readers need young writers and thinkers?
NB: As I get older I am more sympathetic to those who fought these battles before me. Yes, they made mistakes, but they were up against long odds. And though they often lost, I think they very much made a difference.
Recent victories, such as stemming the tide of gender ideology, as well as the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, were only possible because of the faithfulness of prior generations who persevered despite the world’s turning against them. The same is true for those who defended religious liberty against the totalizing tendencies of the sexual revolution. These fights have not been won, but they were not entirely lost either. Likewise, many families, churches, and communities remained as redoubts against the sexual revolution. They preserved a living witness to essential truths about marriage and family; they taught and modeled how Christian sexual morality protects and promotes human well-being.
There is always a passing of the mantle between generations, and young(er) writers and thinkers must persevere in proclaiming enduring truths about marriage, family, and the human person. But we all, regardless of how long we have been in the fight, must address a changed culture, and this is where younger writers might be of particular service, as they may be more sensitive to what the culture has become, and therefore what our task is. In particular, I think younger social conservatives are more aware that our task is to re-evangelize, which includes teaching basic life skills, such as how young men and women can come together to form and sustain families.
The sexual revolution taught boomers and Gen X that marriage was a drag, whereas millennials and zoomers often give up on it as unattainable even if desirable. I think younger writers may also have a better sense of the material conditions that now enable and entrench the sexual revolution, and are closer to the despair this has caused—there are so many young men out there who have seen everything sexually via internet porn, but are terrified of asking a woman out on a date.
LS: Do you think that it took the kind of destruction we see in our society today for people to rethink the sexual revolution?
NB: Maybe. The broken promises of the sexual revolution have become increasingly apparent, and misery and failure can be very motivating. And there are signs that a rethink has begun, sometimes in very unexpected places, but it is still a minority position making occasional appearances (here a concern about a “sex recession,” there a worry about the porn-fueled practice of sexual strangulation). It is not yet a full counter-revolution. And there are many people who are still committed to the sexual revolution, but who just wish it were kinder and gentler. Christine Emba (formerly of the Washington Post, now at the New York Times) is a prominent example of this—her writing depicts a sexual and relational wasteland, but she won’t disavow the sexual revolution, let alone champion Christian sexual morality.
Thus, we have to not only illuminate the evils that have resulted from the sexual revolution, but also explain why they were intrinsic to it and why Christian sexual morality provides a superior way to live and love in accord with human nature.
LS: Do you think that the previous generation who worked on these issues didn’t have an effect on society because human nature needs to really fall before it is willing to self-correct? That is, is our society today more willing to listen? Is it more open to social conservative values and ideas about sexuality?
NB: I think social conservativism did have an effect, though it was often a rearguard action. But it was still essential; recent victories such as Dobbs were won through the perseverance of many who did not know if they would live to see them (as some indeed did not).
Meanwhile, the broader culture’s trajectory exemplifies how people often need to drive themselves into a ditch before they’ll accept help or course-correct—and the work of getting out of the ditch is often difficult and uncomfortable. This is where we are with the sexual revolution. It promised authenticity, freedom, happiness, and (of course) lots of great and fulfilling sex. But it has not delivered. Americans are, on average, lonelier, unhappier, and having less (and less satisfying) sex. Consequently, there is very much an opportunity for social conservatives to make our case. We’ve spent decades being dismissed as killjoy prudes or denounced as hateful bigots, but as sexual liberalism fails to keep its promises, people may be willing to reconsider their rejection of Christian sexual teaching.
LS: Let’s take that further. We know that our current society needs the Christian God, his love and mercy. Do you think that it is more open to God today than it was ten, twenty, thirty, or forty years ago?
NB: I want to say yes, for reasons of hope as well as vibes. It certainly feels like the collapse of trust in worldly authorities, institutions, and ideals, along with the failed promises of social and sexual liberalism, has created an opening for an orthodox Christian message to be heard.
But this vacuum also opens the door to darker possibilities. We can see the ingredients for a dystopia of unchecked AI, euthanasia, and eugenics, or for a clash between a godless left and a post-Christian right in which both sides become increasingly lawless and vicious. Less apocalyptic, but still alarming, is the prospect of a cynical and frivolous era in which distractions abound and truth is seldom sought.
We cannot control the tides of the world, but we can be faithful in trying to effectively proclaim the Gospel in the darkness of the world, and to model its truths in our own lives.
LS: The state of society today was brought about from a previous state. If social conservative values and ideas—preferably through belief in God—were to become more prevalent in our society, to a point where we started seeing healing in people and families (e.g., increase in marriage, decline in divorce, lower drug use, less sexual promiscuity, etc.), what protection would you put in place to guard against the recurrence of the sexual revolution’s destruction?
NB: I think a revival of conservative ways of life will depend on a Christian revival. And we need to be clear-eyed about what would constitute a social conservative comeback. For example, declining divorce rates are good, but they may be due more to fewer couples getting married in the first place. Likewise, the total amount of fornication may be dropping, but that is largely because the sexes are alienated from each other and men are turning to porn instead. A bitter nation awash in childless cat ladies and porn-addled men is not really a win for social conservatives.
These caveats in place, I think a central element in preserving future conservative gains would be better moral formation through churches and other Christian organizations. This would require articulating a clear positive vision of marriage and family, as well as teaching about the nature of the person. Sexual liberalism failed because it got human nature wrong. We need to present a right understanding, which means more than just trying to scare kids away from having sex by warning them about unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. This approach is not only spiritually and intellectually impoverished, it is also insufficient in our technological age, which is now generations beyond the advent of the Pill and penicillin.
This reminds us of the importance of attending to material conditions. Not only our culture, but also our economy and educational systems, are stacked against chastity, and far too many conservative Christians have accepted this. But instead of acquiescing in a norm of increasingly delayed marriage and childbearing, we should be enacting policies in everything from housing to education that encourage earlier family formation and reward family stability. And churches and families should enthusiastically support young couples getting married and having kids.
Policies matter, as do choices by individuals, families, and congregations. But ultimately our hope, both for rolling back the sexual revolution and then keeping it at bay, is in the grace of God.
Image licensed via Adobe Stock.