If you reduce erotic life to self‑expression, the pursuit of short-term gratification, and choice alone, you detach it from the deeper goods of commitment, responsibility and flourishing.
Our culture’s elevation of individual autonomy and sexual freedom (as licence) has reshaped love, marriage, and family—and these are the costs.
• Marriage rates in Canada are collapsing—fewer than 1 in 5 adults under 30 and 2 in 5 under 35 are married.
• Our fertility rate has fallen to 1.25.
• In Quebec, only 31 % of cohabiting couples remain together 15 years after a child is born, compared to 75 % of married parents.
Louise Perry joined the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and Andrea Mrozek of Cardus for a bold conversation on the fallout of the sexual revolution as part of MLI’s Voices that Inspire series.
Louise is a great advocate for a renewed vision where committed love—not merely choice—is the richest soil for human flourishing.
I also had Louise on our podcast earlier this year. Check it out below:
Peter Copeland 
What I simply don’t understand is how this wasn’t something foreseeable in the first place. It appears like they hold onto a similar mentality that a child has whenever they fantasize about everything purely imaginary and not realistic in the slightest because the child has yet to experience life. All amazing as an initial idea, until the reality hits everyone in the face later down the line.
Everything for the pursuit of sexual gratification may as well be the promotion of sheer materialism just for the sake of itself. Instead of rejecting the place of billionaires, they may as well be adoring them.
Everyone ends up dehumanized in the long-run because this ideology centered itself around utilitarianism. The funniest part of it all is when the supporters of this ideology use the word “love” with whatever they talk about in reference to whatever movement is a part of the whole matter. Love and lust are two different things entirely. Lust is utilitarian, by its nature. Love is not utilitarian, because a loving person to their own family is not there to treat those they love like objects. It’s the difference between seeing a slave as a slave and seeing them as a person. The slave is a tool under one’s view of them as a slave, while to view them as a person means to side with the notion that they have their own free will that enables them to live their life without someone else determining that.
It was all going to fall apart eventually, much like how you would use a dish towel until it becomes a useless, discolored, tattered rag. Then, you have no choice but to throw it out, like how we’ll end up disposing of this ideology to replace it with a new one.
LikeLike