The Disaster of the Sexual Revolution: A Need to Return to Christian Morality, By Mrs Vera West

I was in the 1960s the same age as John Lennon, and looking back, saw the 1960s revolution kick in about the same time their music went "silly" as my mum put it. I noticed that movies were doing the same thing, addressing themes that should not be discussed in polite company. The conservative world was fast being dismantled, especially regarding sexuality, a major weapon of Leftism.

The sexual revolution, beginning about 1967, promised liberation from traditional moral constraints, promoting sexual freedom as a path to personal fulfillment. From both Christian and secular perspectives, however, this movement has proven disastrous, undermining family stability, eroding societal cohesion, and normalising behaviours that harm individuals and communities. By valuing fleeting pleasures over enduring values, the sexual revolution has led to increased divorce rates, dysfunctional relationships, and even the sexualisation of children. This blog piece argues that the sexual revolution's consequences, evident in statistical trends and cultural shifts, calls for a return to chastity and stable family structures to restore societal well-being.

The Erosion of Family Stability

The sexual revolution's emphasis on promiscuity has destabilised the family unit, a cornerstone of both Christian and secular conceptions of a healthy society. Data since the 2000s shows that women with 10 or more sexual partners before marriage are the most likely to divorce, while those with 0-1 partners are the least likely. Earlier studies also link multiple premarital partners to less happy marriages and higher divorce risks. This instability disrupts the nurturing environment needed for children and weakens the social fabric.

From a Christian perspective, chastity is not merely a restriction but a discipline that fosters deep, lasting bonds, aligning with God's design for marriage. Secularly, stable families correlate with better economic outcomes and lower crime rates, as intact households provide emotional and financial security. The sexual revolution's rejection of these principles has led to fragmented families, leaving both adults and children vulnerable to social and economic challenges.

The Normalisation of Perversity

The sexual revolution has not only encouraged promiscuity but also normalised behaviours once considered perverse, with alarming consequences. For example, a 2024 study revealed that 39% of girls and 38% of boys aged 13–17 view sharing nude images as normal, with even 10% of girls and 16% of boys aged 9–12 agreeing. The notion that nine-year-olds would consider such behaviour acceptable is a stark indicator of cultural dysfunction. This trend, driven by the revolution's push for sexual expression without boundaries, exposes children to exploitation and premature sexualisation.

Christian teachings emphasise protecting the innocence of children, viewing such trends as a violation of Biblical principles. Secularly, the normalisation of these behaviours raises concerns about mental health, as early sexualisation correlates with anxiety and low self-esteem. Both perspectives condemn the cultural shift that allows such practices to flourish under the banner of "freedom."

The sexual revolution's rhetoric of empowerment conceals profound contradictions. It champions individual choice yet ignores the societal costs of fractured relationships and eroded trust. Promiscuity, once framed as liberating, often leads to emotional detachment and unstable partnerships, as evidenced by the correlation between multiple partners and marital dissatisfaction. High-profile advocates of sexual freedom, who often tout progressive ideals while engaging in behaviours that undermine family values, mirror the hypocrisy seen in other ideological movements. The degeneracy of the popular music industry is a telling example of this point.

From a Christian viewpoint, the 1960's revolution's rejection of Biblical morality, rooted in commitment and fidelity, creates a void filled by fleeting pleasures that fail to satisfy. Secularly, the revolution's promise of happiness through unrestrained expression clashes with evidence of increased loneliness and mental health issues in hyper-sexualised cultures. Both perspectives highlight the need for a moral framework that values long-term well-being over short-term gratification.

The disasters of the sexual revolution call for a return to traditional values centred on chastity, commitment, and family. Christian teachings advocate for reserving sexual intimacy for marriage, fostering bonds that align with spiritual and emotional fidelity. Secular evidence supports this, showing that couples with fewer premarital partners report higher marital satisfaction and stability. Promoting these values does not mean regressive repression but a pragmatic embrace of structures that benefit individuals and society. Otherwise, things will continue to fall apart.

Educational campaigns and community initiatives can counter the normalisation of harmful behaviours, stressing healthy relationships and age-appropriate boundaries for children. Policymakers should support family-centric policies, such as tax incentives for married couples or programs that strengthen parental involvement, to rebuild the social foundation eroded by the revolution's excesses, if not degeneracies. In short, we need a return to Christian morality:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/05/men_women_and_the_consequences_of_immorality.html

"We are told, by many people, that matters of right and wrong are situational. They change with the times, with cultures, or with other conditions. They reject the idea that there are eternal, objective standards to which we are all obliged to conform, regardless of our personal opinions or preferences.

Most people seem intuitively to believe that there really is such a thing as morality. We just disagree on which standards, if any, to uphold. So the question becomes, what evidence do we have that there is an objective, perhaps scientific, standard of morality independent of our personal opinions?

Modern science is underpinned by a philosophy called by various names, including "physicalism." That philosophy says that nothing objectively exists except that which is explained in terms of physics. It rejects any notions of spirit, soul, or God. That rejection is well and fine for a philosophy, but it is entirely unscientific. A purely physicalist view of reality has no place for notions of good or evil, right or wrong, justice or injustice. It is entirely neutral, neither preferring nor disdaining either side.

Therefore, to assert that there is an objective standard of morality is not unscientific, it is merely non-physicalist.

Is there, then, some way to prove the matter, one way or the other?

Yes, there is, but society is so complex, the human mind so inscrutable, that it takes years, even centuries, for a social experiment to produce verifiable results. Oftentimes, the outcomes of social policies are completely opposite those that the experts predicted.

The following bit of recent history provides an example.

Up until the 1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate in most segments of society was very small, despite there being no reliable contraceptives available. One overwhelming reason for the low incidence of premarital pregnancy was social opprobrium. For a young, unmarried woman to be known not to be a virgin was considered shameful. For her to become pregnant was scandalous. The prospect of being humiliated was a powerful inducement, for women, to delay sexual intercourse until marriage.

The advent of the birth control pill changed all that, and as history shows, the incidence of out-of-wedlock motherhood, which was supposed to have been dramatically reduced, instead increased intensely. Why?

The birth control pill helped to reduce the stigma of losing one's virginity before marriage. This, in turn, indirectly reduced the stigma of premarital pregnancy. This, in turn, reduced the perceived need for the birth control pill. Once the initial phase of these events had occurred, the floodgates were opened, and what quickly followed was what is called the Sexual Revolution.

This revolution was supposed to have freed women from the injustice of sexual repression. Instead, it led to millions of women becoming pregnant and abandoned, left on their own, to raise their fatherless children. Many of those children were raised in poverty and amid crime. The welfare state sought to correct this mistake by subsidizing single motherhood. This, in turn, predictably increased what it subsidized.

Today, the harm wrought by the abandonment of sexual morality has left us with a society that cannot even recognize the good and natural differences between the sexes, even to the point of denying that there are two complementary sexes, and certainly denying that they are a naturally ordained partnership, one without which society suffers consequences so pervasive that many people call them good.

The illusion is now deeply ingrained that sexual morality is an antiquated notion and that its violations have no harmful consequence.

Worse yet, casual acceptance of homosexuality and transsexuality has morphed from one of mere tolerance to the present state of enforcement. Small, confused children can be subjected to the radical procedure of so-called "transitioning" from their birth sex to the other one. This can be done in opposition to the parents' wishes, as indeed, pregnant teenage girls can have their pregnancies aborted with neither the knowledge nor the consent of the girl's parents.

To interfere is to be accused of child abuse. Even to openly advocate Jewish and Christian standards of morality can bring about significant penalties.

We are now at the point where pedophilia itself is gaining traction as a so-called sexual orientation.

Where will all this end? The experts say at utopia. When have they been right?