The Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise Perry

A video that may be of interest to my beloved readers. If you have been following this website regularly, none of these ideas are likely to be new to you, put to hear them presented so clearly, and straight from the horses’ mouth, so to speak, is refreshing.

In case you do not recognize her, the interviewer is the daughter of Jordan Peterson. With him, she shares the rare habit of listening to one’s guest intently, and without interruption or self-assertion. (If Tim Pool could learn such a lesson, fewer guests would storm off his show in mid-broadcast.)

The discussion of the causes of the problem is clear enough, whereas the discussion of possible solutions leaves much to be desired.

It seems to me rational to say that if the loss of family life was caused by the pill leading to abortion leading to the normalization of fornication, which in turn leads to ten percent of high-status males being sought by sixty percent of females, which in turn incentivizes fornication — because any woman unwilling to play the unpayed whore on the first date will be quickly replaced by one more willing — and if this in turn leads to a anti-child culture where the normal expectations and social support for mothers with children is lost, that therefore the solution is not to have maternal women try harder and made more sacrifices than the grandmothers were asked to make.

The solution is to normalize monogamy, which is impossible as long as contraception is not seen as the grave moral evil it is. Hence the solution, as soon as the culture atmosphere permits it, is to illegalize contraception.

After 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglicans spoke of contraception as permissible. The resolution, which passed 193 to 67 with 47 abstentions, is said to be the first instance where any responsible authority – not simply in Christendom but in any culture – had publicly supported, in any way at all, the use of artificial contraception.

Many other denominations followed suit and caved in on this issue.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches, and maintains, that contraception, in addition to being imprudent and damaging to the woman’s long-interests best interests, is a sin.

This is an ancient teaching which reaches back to the First Century. See, for example, the teaching manual of the Apostles, the Didache reads: “You shall not practice birth control, you shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill what is begotten.” — Many scholar translate this as “practice sorcery” or “use potions” because the Greek word “pharmakon” (from which we get our word for pharmaceutical) sometimes has that meaning. However, it also means to use medicines, potions, or poisons, and the term was also used to refer to contraceptive measure, as it does here.

This is a core Christian teaching, and always has been.

The medical knowledge that chemical contraception, aka “the pill”, meddles with female hormones and induces depression and other mental disorders apparently is an insufficient motivator to reverse this poisonous addiction by the whole society.

Does returning to a society that respects women, follows wisdom, and disapproves of sex desecrated to mere recreation, and forbids our womenfolk to be degraded to harlots, seem impossible? Look around you. The sexual grooming of gradeschoolers and the surgical mutilation of their genitals due to sexual neurosis is a direct result of the sexual revolution, as is the abomination and absurdity of Orwellian gay marriage.

It may not be as impossible to convince the public that the alternative of happy marriages is so much less desirable than the hell of sexual self-mutilation, pornography, and perversion seen around us. It is not as if the Left will be satisfied with castration and mastectomy performed on children, once this is normalized. They will move on to the next thing, and after that, the next.

There is no final level. Hell is bottomless.


Both young women here lightly dismiss returning to the norms of the 1950s with a laugh, holding the thing to be impossible. Society cannot be so radically changed.

Please contrast this in your mind with the attitude of Progressives in the Victorian Era, who foresaw, and worked toward, social changes far more radical, such as the dissolution of the free enterprise system, the government take-over of all major industries, state-run education, socialized medicine. They foresaw and worked toward the destruction of the nuclear family, the normalization of sexual perversion, and the perversion of sexual norms.

All of the planks of the Progressive platform of the  Nineteenth Century have been achieved, either domestically or overseas, and far worse things not even conceived.

The Progressive of the Edwardian Age did not lightly laugh that changing the basic structure of society was impossible. Nor did they hold that it was excusable to surrender before the battle was joined.

Likewise, we should hold firmly in mind what a Christian civilization should look like, which, after all, is the only civil and rational and sane form of society, the sole example in all history of attempting a social hierarchy based on service to others, not based on the strong brutalizing the weak.

We should hold firmly in mind what a society should look like which is devoted, not to increasing gross domestic product by infertilizing women into worker drones, but first to making women happy and fulfilled, productive of children rather than merely productive of taxable income.

We should hold firmly in mind what a society should look like which is devoted to children and supportive of child-rearing. We have seen what a society devoted to selfishness looks like, and supportive of child-murder.

We can see it by looking out the window: It is a suicidal society.