The Case Against the Sexual Revolution

Some feminists are seeing why sex only for fun harms women.


John Stonestreet

Recently in VOX, Eric Levitz disparaged a group he called the “reactionary feminists,” women such as Mary Harrington and Louise Perry who, though they are feminists, reject most of the sexual revolution. He also condemned the conservative Christians who point to them. According to Levitz, “With religiosity and church attendance in sharp decline, conservatives need nonscriptural arguments for traditional social mores. Reactionary feminism offers them precisely this.” 

Or, perhaps, the ideas of the sexual revolution are just that bad, the consequences that obvious, and the victims that numerous. The promises to liberate women instead brought sexual exploitation and violence. And, as it turned out, men, not women, were the true beneficiaries of “consequence-free” sex 

The sexual revolution may have promised liberation to women, but it only brought abandonment and a different kind of oppression. Feminists are starting to see it, and Christians point it out because they’ve been the most consistent force protecting women in all human history. 


  • Facebook Icon in Gold
  • Twitter Icon in Gold
  • LinkedIn Icon in Gold

Have a Follow-up Question?

Related Content