Second Thoughts on the Sexual Revolution

Many of us have said for decades now that the sexual revolution has been a horrific failure, and that it has simply caused untold amounts of damage. It has been a massive assault on marriage and family, it has harmed children, and it has especially damaged women. They have tended to be the big losers here.

But everyone has suffered from the no-holds-barred approach to sexuality which was unleashed in the counter-culture of the late 60s. As Mark Steyn put it in After America: “The wreckage is impressive. The Sexual Revolution was well-named: it was a revolt not just against sexual norms but against the institutions and values they supported; it was part of an assault against any alternatives to government, civic or moral. Utopianism, writes the philosopher Roger Scruton, is ‘not in the business of perfecting the world’ but only of demolishing it: ‘The ideal is constructed in order to destroy the actual.’ Who needs families, or marriage, or morality? Who needs nations, especially nations with borders? We’ll take a jackhammer to the foundations of functioning society and proclaim paradise in the ruins.”


Plenty of more-or-less conservative voices have been saying such things for half a century now. But our voices are so often just discounted and ignored. Thus it is refreshing to hear voices from the other side offer the same concerns and level the same charges and critiques.

Every once in a while a warning will come from the non-conservative side. Let me cite just two such recent voices. The first comes from someone who you would not have expected – especially given that he appeared in one of the most horrific films in recent times. I refer to the famous Irish actor, Liam Neeson.

And I refer to one of the more disgusting propaganda pieces ever put out by Hollywood, Kinsey: Let’s Talk About Sex (2004). And who was in the starring role? Yep, Liam Neeson. Any sympathy I might have had for the man when he played Qui-Gon Jinn in the Star Wars franchise was lost when he took on this role. I reviewed that wretched film here:

Thus it was most surprising to hear him earlier this month come out and decry the sleazy world of sexuality that his kids are now growing up in. Never mind that he never should have glamourised it in his film role, but I am glad he has come around a bit.

He said this in an interview: “I’d hate to be a kid now, because we’re all inundated with so much information about sexuality coming at us from everywhere – the media, the advertising billboards, just everywhere – and it must be so confusing for them.

“There’s a problem that, if you become over-familiar with something, it moves from the sacred to almost the profane. The act is very, very special, you know. It’s full of mystery and wonder, and I’d hate us all to get to the stage where we just treat it lightly, because it deserves more than that?…?but times have changed since I was young, no doubt about it.”

Fantastic – I fully agree. So why did he star in this film glorifying a sexual pervert and a paedophile? Well, maybe he has seen the light. Whatever the reason, I applaud his current thinking, despite abhorring his previous role in that sleazeball film. But there has been another voice from an unexpected quarter coming out of the closet on this.

I refer to Wendy Squires, the Australian journalist who has edited the sleazy rag, Cleo. She too seems to be having some second thoughts here. She penned a piece recently laying out her concerns. She too cites Neeson. She said in part:

“Amid the vacuous dross that spills from the silicone lips of celluloid stars, sometimes – and it is a rarity – a relevant comment will make it to print. This happened recently when Irish actor and father of two teenage boys, Liam Neeson, steered away from the usual promotional guff involving ‘generous co-stars’, ‘visionary directors’ and ‘getting in character’ to deliver an unscripted and highly personal opinion. In Neeson’s case, one I passionately agree with.

“‘I’d hate to be a kid now, because we’re all inundated with so much information about sexuality coming at us from everywhere – the media, the advertising billboards, just everywhere – and it must be so confusing for them,’ the 60-year-old told Ireland’s Catholic Herald.”

She continues, and even makes a confession: “The Australian Kids Helpline counselling service reported that between January and March last year, 500 young people contacted the service with concerns about sexting – 75 per cent female and most under 19. One in three of these concerned youths were aged between 10 and 14.

“As a father of 16 and 17-year-old sons, Neeson is right to despair. The art of learning about sex through trust, time and tenderness has left the building, it seems. And it’s not coming back for an encore any time soon.

“There are myriad reasons why sex has become so debased in society it has been almost rendered an ablution, going from something magical to mechanical, from a gift of love to subservient surrender. About now it’s my duty to raise my arm and declare ‘mea culpa’ because, as a magazine writer and editor who has commissioned and written innumerable ‘how to satisfy him in bed’ articles, I have most definitely contributed to the problem. And I’m not proud of it.

“But it takes more than magazines to turn what should be a spiritual act into a routine release, a sexier version of a sneeze. I blame porn. I blame advertising. I blame Western religion. I blame the endemic rise of narcissism as the norm. I blame the near extinction of respect and romance in society. Sex sells may be a marketing truism, but the cost is often self-esteem, safety and sanity.

“Teenagers should not be worrying that they can’t stand on their heads to perform certain positions, or that they won’t know who puts what where in a threesome. They should be learning about their own bodies through trust and love, gradually peeling away layers to reveal the depths of their sexuality and boundaries.”

While I am not quite sure what she means by blaming “Western religion” as being part of the problem, that was certainly some confession. She was a major contributor to the problem, and now she sees the error of her ways. It is hoped that others will also wake up, and see what utter devastation the sexual revolution has been.

Given the tremendous amounts of harm it has done to our children especially, we need more such confessions and warnings real soon.

[1115 words]

13 Replies to “Second Thoughts on the Sexual Revolution”

  1. I don’t see that there has been a sexual revaluation as opposed to a moral dismantling. Instead what has really happened has been a push for rationalization and justification to make deviated sexual choices to appear as a morally decent practice.

    Leigh Stebbins

  2. Yes, I must say I wondered at her chutzpah in blaming Western religion along with all else…

    John Angelico

  3. Hello Bill,

    The following piece of news came through on AusPharm(e)news to-day:
    “Gonorrhea Resistant to Cefixime Found in North America,
    Medscape Pharmacists
    Growing global resistance by “Neisseria gonorrhoeae” to cefixime, the last oral antibiotic used against it, has been documented in North America with a Canadian study that showed a nearly 7% treatment failure rate.”

    The chickens are coming home to roost!

    Donald Battaglini

  4. Hi Bill,
    Good to learn that Liam Neeson is beginning to see the light. Kinsey’s so called research in the 40s and 50s nearly got him arrested in 1954 but the FBI didn’t know how to cope with him. In 1990 Judith Reisman et al documented how Kinsey began the indoctrination of America with his evil agenda against Christianity and the traditional family, by fraudulently enlisting science as his chief support. Unfortunately Reisman’s work has been virtually ignored by the MSM, perhaps they will now start to take notice.

    Alan Williams, UK

  5. Bill, there is no true repentance until restitution and reformation are added to confession. “I’m sorry!” may be a step in the right direction, but until actors refuse to act in pornographic movies, and editors refuse to run pornographic stories, there is no true change of direction, merely a pang of conscience – remember Judas?

    Lance A Box

  6. The reference to western religion might mean the attempts by it to accommodate: contraception, divorce, abortion, SSM, euthanasia,…

    Dunstan Hartley

  7. Actually if the church wants to be a force for positive change then it needs to have the courage to have a good look at it self. Me thinks that “western religion” does have a few things to answer for.

    I also think that Christians in general have a way or tendency to confuse causes and symptoms ie all the problems we see around us are a result of the church failing its mandate a long time ago.

    We need to see the situation through the eyes of Daniel……………O MY GOD……we and our forefathers have sinned…….

    Hans Madsen

  8. Western Religion, or more particularly the church in the West has dropped the ball and no longer defends Biblical values with conviction, if at all.

    Despite Christianity being the driving force behind the development of science and western freedoms, the churches failure (our failure) to defend the Bible as being the source of those immense benefits to society, (see The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi) makes us complicit in the decline of morals and the decline of Western civilisation.

    A few days ago I wrote a parable that I think gives one of the reasons for the decline in the Western church. Here’s the central part of the parable:
    The Fall Updated (after Darwin)
    Genesis 2:16-17 adapted and with 2Timothy 3:16 and Revelation 22:18-19
    And the Lord God commanded the man, “All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. But if anyone adds anything to them, or if anyone takes words away, that person will certainly die.”

    Genesis 3:1-7 adapted and with Exodus 20:11
    1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day’?”
    2 The woman said to the serpent, “Yes, he did, 3 But God said that was why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy and a day of rest for us.’”
    4 “That’s good, but we all know that God actually took much longer than six days,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “And God knows that when you accept long ages of evolution you can be like God, knowing science and theology.”
    6 When the woman saw that the theory looked good for worldly acceptance, she swallowed the long evolutionary ages. She also gave the theory to her church and they swallowed it also. 7 And they were blind to the problem that stitching together truth and error left them naked and exposed to further lies.”

    So if we deny that Genesis is factual history then, with apologies to 1 Corinthians 15, are we not then found to be false witnesses to God, and we are of all people most to be pitied?

    Peter Newland

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *