I believe the argument goes that you are getting molded into a dysfunctional / unnatural state under the label of sexual liberation which then makes you easier to control and influence. The former enabling the later. I could be off though, sorry if this turns out to be a derogatory summary / simplification, its not intended this way.
I am getting lost earlier so you or the parent might be able to help.
Which should perhaps tell us something, especially given the disastrous sexual libertinism that characterized the early communist regime of the USSR.
How does that tell us the behavior by those three actors is motivated by him trying to subvert society through weaponized sexuality(to assume for arguments sake)?
Leaving out the US during McCarthy for a moment to reduce the risk of derailing, totalitarian / authoritarian regimes acting against people criticizing them (here in form of his "Mass Psychology of Fascism" in which he also criticized the communist party and later added his orgon stuff) doesnt tell me much about the author other that he isnt a good fit for such systems. Enforcing conformity is what they are all about and at the core of the dysfunctional error correction mechanism that plagues these systems.
And more confusing, how can the second part of that sentence work as a qualifier? Does that mean you would not expect him to get this treatment in the USSR since he showed ideological loyalty on this topic (again for arguments sake)? I would argue looking at the political purges at the time where even complete ideological loyalty and conformity didnt protect you from power considerations its not surprising either.
As some general feedback regarding the rest of the post, reconsidering the certainty about individual statements as well as conclusions might make the post more readable. It otherwise reads as constructing arguments for an already taken conclusion.