So… if you, like me, are single as a pringle, you might’ve missed that last Friday was Valentine’s day (i.e. my least favorite holiday). However! It’s not all bad because, now, not only is all the luridly pink and heart shaped candy 50% off but I also feel 100% justified in sounding off on a love-related rant.

You can blame Whitney Houston’s estate plan because the person in charge of it allowed for her rendition of “Higher Love” to be remixed into this:

Now, I don’t actually recommend you watch the video because 98% of it is little more than soft-core pornography (And, friend, I know what I’m talking about there. If you want proof, you can watch my porn addiction testimony here).

However, I’ve included it for the sake of providing ready evidence for verifying the following claim:

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that whatever the title of the song is, this music video isn’t about love.

It’s about sex.

Yes, I said it.

Honestly, the first time I saw this travesty, I couldn’t help but think that I was undergoing some sort of Orwellian double-think conditioning to the tune of “Let’s show them a line up of half-naked, gyrating girls being leched on by random guys and superimpose the whole thing with the words ‘Bring me a higher love/ Where’s that higher love I keep thinking of?'”

Because everyone knows that love–the highest love–consists of semi-clothed girls gyrating under the watchful eyes of strange men.

UGHGHGISOGONSDNODO!

I swear I could smack my face against my keyboard.

What’s worse is that according to the published “like” count, OVER HALF A MILLION people agree that love basically equals sex, and close to SEVENTY MILLION have passively consumed this Orwellian message.

Can we just… unplug the internet?

Please?

*Sigh.

But I digress.

The reason I wanted to talk about this is that I’ve been doing a bit of reading lately, and I’ve come across some interesting tidbits that give me something more to say about Kygo’s bastardizing–I mean–remixing of love other than simply

UGHGHGISOGONSDNODO!

With that being said, I’m going to try to inject a logical framework into my argument, so, keeping in mind that according to Kygo, Love = Sex, let’s crack in.

I want to begin with a quote from Margaret Atwood’s now infamous novel The Handmaid’s Tale wherein she writes, “God is love, they once said, but we reversed that…”

Let that sink in.

“God is love, they once said, but we reversed that.”

Love, then, is God, according to Atwood.

But let’s not forget that according to Kygo, love is sex!

So which is it?

Well, who says they’re mutually exclusive?

In fact, if we apply the Law of Syllogism to Kygo and Atwood, we’re left with this:

Love is Sex ->

Love is God ->

Sex is God.

In the modern epoch, is it not?

Think about it.

Has sex not become central in our society?

Aren’t questions, concerns, and click-bait about sexuality in the news almost daily?

Hasn’t “Netflix and Chill” subsumed dating?

Heck, many esteemed colleges (*cough Harvard) now host “Sex-Weeks” during orientation as if we’re not already bombarded with enough sex-laden content to make Caligula blush.

And this is all because singleness, or rather sexlessness, is basically now synonymous with death.

Seriously.

I recently told a friend that there’s probably no sex in Heaven and their response was, “Well, then I don’t want to go!”

Clearly, for many people, sex has become their ultimate concern.

But should it be?

Is sex the “higher love” we should be thinking of?

I say no.

Why?

Three main reasons:

# 1 Sex Is A Depreciating Asset.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve met precisely zero 80-year-olds who are in any condition to be swinging from the chandeliers.

At that age, I’m pretty sure sex of any sort is just asking for a heart attack, so no matter how all-consuming it may seem right now, there’s going to come a day when sex won’t even be part of the equation in a romantic relationship anyhow. Thus, making it an element of ultimate importance seems, to put it bluntly, stupid.

Not to mention unscientific.

Because even amongst young people, the mind-blitzing passion that comes with sex quickly fades no matter your age. All you have to do is wait. And according to current research, from the initial point of entry, you are just two years out from passion’s latest biochemical expiration date.

So, like I said, sex is a depreciating asset.

If it wants to be deemed a “higher love,” it’s heading in the wrong direction.

#2 Sex Is Bound To The Lowest Rungs Of The Ladder of Love.

I recently read Plato’s Symposium wherein a number of ancient Greek figures, most notably Socrates, give speeches praising and characterizing love. Some are interesting while others are straight-up weird, but of all the speeches, the best known is actually Socrates’ reiteration of Diotima’s scala amoris or “ladder of love.”

Now, while I don’t agree with everything in Socrates’ speech, I do think that the ladder of love provides a helpful framework for considering whether sex is a “higher love.”

In essence, Socrates contends that there is a inherent hierarchy to the things we love, and guess what?

Beautiful bodies are on the bottom.

Why?

Well, to put simply, it takes very little to appreciate a beautiful body.

There is no moral formation or intellectual rigor required, and if you don’t believe me, feel free to ask a class of high school boys for their take on the matter.

I think you’ll find them able to “appreciate” at the drop of a hat because when it comes to beautiful bodies, the chief method of appreciation is sex.

Conversely, the other objects of love on the ladder (souls, laws, institutions, knowledge, and Beauty itself) simply cannot be boned. Their form precludes that kind of appreciation, making sex exclusive to the basest levels of love’s ladder.

Does that make sex bad?

No!

But does it make sense to elevate it as that “higher love” we’ve been thinking of?

Eh…

I don’t think so.

#3 Sex Is A Means–Not An End.

This might be a hot take, but from what I can tell, people do not have sex for sex’s sake.

Think about it.

There is always something on the other end of sex be it reproduction, pleasure, intimacy, power, money, employment, a promotion, revenge, distraction, etc.

Sex itself is not the end goal.

It’s a means for achieving a myriad of ends, and therefore, it cannot logically be ultimate.

However, even if you could somehow successfully argue that people have sex for sex’s sake, devoid of babies, pleasure, profit, etc., I would still say that sex as an end comes up relatively, if not absolutely, short.

In Kant’s Foundations on The Metaphysics of Morals, he writes, “In the realm of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity.”

Two words: Porn & Prostitution.

Clearly, sex has a price and is not, inherently, dignified, so even if it were an end in and of itself, it would be a lesser–not a higher–one.

So…

In sum, we have a three-fold rebuttal to the claim that sex is a “higher love” on the basis that it is:

1. A depreciating asset.
2. Bound to the lowest rungs of the ladder of love.
3. A means–not an end.

Where does all this leave Mr. Kygo?

Sorry, sir, but sex is not the higher love you’ve been thinking of.

Q. E. Freaking D.

P.S. If you want to get email updates when I post, make sure you’re subscribed! I promise not to spam you 🙂