Poor Pandora. She didn’t know when she sought after the knowledge of what lay hidden inside of the box she had been given by Zeus, she would unleash all the ills and evils that the world knows today; death, suffering, greed, envy . . . and pride.
In the ancient Greek myth of Pandora’s box, Pandora was created by the smith of the gods, Hephaestus, as a punishment to mankind for accepting the gift of fire from Prometheus. She was no ordinary woman. Zeus personally designed her and ordered all the other gods to give her extraordinary gifts. These gifts were intended to make her irresistible to any man who saw her. Her beauty was given to her by Aphrodite. Hera, the goddess of marriage, gave Pandora her gift of curiosity. Her wisdom was a gift of Athena. These, and many other gifts were part of her nature, that which made her who and what she was.
Zeus gave her two gifts. One was life, and the other was a box which she was ordered never to open, for within it were things which no mortal could contain; which mortal eyes should not see. Pandora was tempted by the allure of her own excellence. She recognized her own potential and beautiful design and wanted to use it as she saw fit and not in accordance with the design of her maker. We all know how the story finishes. In the end, Pandora gave in to her obsessive curiosity and opened the one box she was told not to open and by doing so unleashed the horrors trapped within. According to the ancient Greek myth, this is where sickness and death entered the world.
The Greeks intended this fable to explain the origins of worldly evil, and even though denied the benefits of Revelation, they did have the general motif correct. Mainly, that man is responsible for the introduction of sin and death into the world through disobedience to God; by violating His plan and design for us. In the Christian tradition, the entrance of sin and death came through the disobedience of the first humans created, Adam and Eve. Eve bit the apple as the saying goes. But there is more to both the stories of Pandora’s box and the fall of man than meets the eye. Both point to the same thing: disobedience to God is the main cause of all known evils in our world.
The image of breaking a seal which holds back an evil is a poignant metaphor which foreshadows all those things which men of good will know to be evil. However, just as Adam in the garden blamed Eve for bringing him the forbidden fruit of the tree, the fruit which distills death with every bite and of which he partook, so too are members of the conservative movement (people of good will) blaming those who came after them for their own sin. Yet just as the sin was also Adam’s, so too is the major sin afflicting the conservative movement in America today; the sin which distills death in every bite of that metaphorical apple. I am referring of course to the continuing sexual revolution and the unwillingness of conservatives to see the mote in their own whilst they continuously point out the sliver in their neighbor’s eye: contraception.
Many people of good will clamor about the psychology of sexuality or the biological theories of sexual deviancy as justification for the “big tent” approach to political and sociological coalition building. The natural result is the acceptance and celebration of two homosexual men, Dave Rubin and his partner, claiming to be fathers to the children they hired other women to carry for them.
It wasn’t long ago that gay marriage was voted down by the people of California three times in separate referendums before being forced down their throats by social activists wearing black robes. Now, good luck finding anybody in the mainstream conservative movement who would speak out against homosexuality, homosexual marriage, or the adoption of children by homosexual couples. The current cause celebre is transgenderism and the very odd phenomenon of drag queen story hours in public libraries and schools. The problem is that this issue, too, will be yielded to the cultural Marxists as soon as enough “trans-cons” are brought into the “Big political circus Tent” of the GOP. the current culture warriors of the right will be silent and accepting of some heretofore unknown transgenderd individual who will make their mark as a pioneer of the LGBTQ+ community by “coming over” to accept economic prosperity as their gospel; thus legitimizing and blessing the next step downwards in the endless revolution against Nature and Nature’s God . . . and there is nothing anyone will be able to say to stem this further erosion of public morality.
What has happened to make an entire society, seemingly a whole civilization, accept something so manifestly against Nature and Nature’s God and in such a short amount of time? The answer is as uncomfortable as it is clear for those individuals who have any inkling of conscience that what we as a society and movement have come to accept as OK is wrong, and yet feel powerless to make a coherent stand against. Mass acceptance and usage of contraception is responsible for, and the logical first step towards, the moral anarchy of “if it feels good, then it is good,” and the grave sociological inferences of that mentality.
No other realm of human action has had the same standard applied to it and for good reason too. Imagine if people who enjoyed the power of anger or wrath were told that if it feels good to pulverize the person they are angry with, they should do it! That would be a good recipe for a murderous, outrageously violent society in which nobody was ever safe. It simply wouldn’t do to have everyone always loosing their homicidal anger on the nearest target. That is so because it is obvious that murder, or the beating of an individual within an inch it, is wrong. Why? Because it is unjust.
Killing isn’t always unjust. There are times when killing another human being is unfortunately necessary to protect against the injustice of having ones own life taken. That is called self defense. There is a manifest difference between the killing of a person because one simply feels like it as opposed to the killing of an attacker, or the killing of enemies on a battlefield. One is the wrong way to go about killing, and the other is the right way.
Why then do sexual desires and impulses not have the same rational standards applied to them when there is manifestly a right and just manner in which they are to be fulfilled and enjoyed, but also an unjust manner in which they are abused? The answer is again rather simple and logical when the premise that it is fine to separate the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect of the sexual act is accepted. Once the very real possibility of a child resulting from sexual activity is removed from the picture, then sex becomes ultimately about pleasure. Not that there is anything wrong with that pleasure, but the act of pleasuring oneself and ones partner free from the responsibility (at least the possibility) of child bearing changes the nature of the act entirely. The two acts are manifestly different in nature. One is just, the other unjust.
And why is it unjust to change the nature of sex? Fundamentally, it is unjust to change the nature of sex because we did not create it. It is not ours to change. Nature and Nature’s God made sex what it of necessity must be; the act by which the procreation and perpetuation of the species is to be accomplished. This is not to say that the only way to justifiably enjoy sex is when it is had in order to fulfill the ends of perpetuation. The pleasure found in sex is good. Very good! and it was made to be so in order to incentivize men and women to continue the human race! the simple fact of the matter is that pleasure alone is not what sex was designed for. Once contraception is introduced to thwart what nature has designed us for, then we are once again opening Pandora’s box of sexual possibilities and evils.
Once pleasure seeking is the sole end of marriage, then who is to say that other people, whose sexual preferences/activities once were considered a mockery of the beauty and design of marriage, should not be treated equally by society? Only a hypocrite would on the one hand pursue an intentionally sterile and pleasure based sexual relationship and then beguile another individual who happens to want the same type of relationship with a member of the same sex. Most people recognize the validity of the arguments made by the gay-cons that their relationships are just as valid as the heterosexual relationships once considered the bedrock of society because both are now, by enlarge, intentionally sterile and incapable of creating life. True, heterosexuals can choose to conceive when they feel like it, but what about when they are choosing not to?
We have all seen the results of this mentality. Gay marriage is now widely accepted and promoted. Parents are sending their children to public schools where homosexual ideology is pushed on them, where they are encouraged to develop sexual deviancies in secret, away from their parents. Other parents bringing their children to drag queen story hours and runway performances. Transgenderism being pushed as the newest fad infecting especially young women and girls. Who is to say where it is going to stop? We already are seeing op-eds being written which state that pedophilia is a legit “sexual orientation.” How many parents are willing to go along with the idea that if the pedophile says that their child consented, it was a legitimate sexual encounter?
The blame for all this lies squarely with the heterosexual individuals who long ago accepted the premise of the sexual revolution and the false promises of freedom. When they accepted contraception into their own marriages, they opened Pandora’s box. The responsibility lies squarely with the people of good will who care about the future of their society and children, but not enough to set an example of love and life by rejecting the false promises of sexual liberation and embracing their own biology by living for the other; for their children. They are the ones who are responsible for the destruction of the American family and the values, goodness, and traditions that upheld Western civilization for two-thousand years. It is possible to put this genie back in the bottle, to put the demons back into Pandora’s box and seal it up again. The question is, are good people willing to sacrifice themselves and their pleasure seeking for the sake of their children?
The acceptance of the pill has proven to be the opening of the box that contains the legitimization of every other sexual deviancy and impulse that heretofore has been acknowledged as destructive and counterintuitive to human flourishing. Like the myth of Pandora herself, the supposed beauty of a liberation from the responsibility of intercourse has proven to be a curse on mankind once attained. Never before has such moral relativity reigned so supreme and held so many otherwise good people in the snares and chains of incoherence in the face of evil. The only choice that conservatives, that Christians, and that people of good will have if they wish to turn back the tyranny of societal lust is to live in accordance with their natural design and purpose. Marriage must once again be oriented towards the generation and education of children, and away from being primarily a relationship of mutual pleasuring. We have no choice. Lust knows no bounds and leads deeper and deeper into the abyss of self-abuse, slavery, and the exploitation of the weak and innocent. The pill is what enables it all.
In Defense of Man 