“The French are glad to die for love

They delight in fighting duels

But I prefer a man who lives

And gives expensive jewels”.

Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend, Marilyn Monroe, from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953). 

Introduction

Love is a universal human experience.  At a visceral level, we are all looking for it, and we all need it to survive and flourish.  It is the constant and enduring theme for libraries of literature, the muse for much music and the main story in so many cinematic plots.  Love sells newspapers and magazines.  Its presence or absence in our early years can have a profound effect on the rest of our lives.  We know that for babies, whatever their circumstances, “early nurturing and warmth have long-lasting positive effects on mental health well into adulthood”.[1]  Without that early connection, we are vulnerable and may spend the rest of our lives looking for it.

There has, however, never been anything simple about love.  Ancient Greek has multiple words for all the different kinds of love human beings may feel. One of these is eros, meaning romantic or sexual love, from which we derive the word ‘erotic’. While much could be written about all different kinds of love in the early twenty-first century, I am going to focus here on eros – specifically the uncoupling of sex from romantic love and its distortion into something increasingly dark, damaging and destructive for young people today.

The Same but Different

Sexual mores have always been subject to change.  Historically, these limitations were practical as well as moral, to avoid unplanned pregnancy and to protect children and young people.  Upholding the integrity and sanctity of family life has also played a significant role, across cultures.  While inevitably transgressed by a minority, these boundaries and their associated benefits have, until recently, been broadly understood and accepted by the majority.

There has always been a transactional element to sexual love, too.  This is seen most obviously in prostitution.  Even beyond this, sex has often involved exploitation of the weak and powerless, by the rich and powerful.  This is as true of the droit du seigneur – a medieval lord’s right to have sexual relations with any female subject of his choosing – as it is of today’s sex tourists and sex traffickers.  And of course, we are used to seeing pretty, young starlets marry ageing millionaires, for the diamonds and a lot more besides.

The commodification of sex and romantic love has, however, accelerated in recent years, in a number of different ways and across society.  This has been supercharged by the internet, and in particular, social media. The desire for subscriptions or ‘followers’, and the money available to successful ‘content creators’, drives the production of ever more explicit material.  Never before have we had access to so many sexualised images, so much advice on how we should look, or seen such bizarre and harmful sexual behaviour normalised.  Even Olympic athletes see no reason not to profit from selling “artistic nudes”on do-it-yourself porn site OnlyFans, “to cash in when the product is at its peak”.[2]   The euphemism ‘sex work’ is now frequently used, to give a veneer of respectability to this exploitation.  Increasingly suggestible young people, growing up in a moral vacuum, believe that selling themselves is somehow an acceptable and risk-free way to get rich.  Their feelings about themselves and relationships are being distorted, often with debilitating consequences. 

Through the Looking Glass

Girls seek counselling because they ‘hate’ the way they look.  Some perfectly normal looking teenagers are desperate for plastic surgery, fillers and other procedures, to emulate celebrities or the air-brushed images dominating their thoughts.   Others are too anxious to go out, even to school, because they don’t look ‘right’. Exploring this in therapy, it quickly becomes clear that the young person’s sense of their own value and worth is linked to how ‘hot’ others perceive them to be.  While girls lead the field with these insecurities, increasingly, young men’s views of themselves are being tainted in the same way.  They are feeling a need to fit into a certain stereotypical model of masculinity.   What these young people feel about their own sexuality and relationships is immaterial.   Sexual attractiveness to others is the hardest of hard currencies - in many different ways.

For example, this currency is often used to secure a place in an ‘in group’.  In their book, Hold on to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More than Peers, Gordon Neufeld and Gabor Maté describe a girl who succumbed “not even to the sexual demands of a boy she was trying to please or hoping to develop a relationship with, but purely to the persuasion of her peer group”.[3]  I have heard several times, “I had to do it – he’s the coolest boy in the year”.  Many young people are highly vulnerable to manipulation, unaware of the damage that casual sex, without emotional engagement, is likely to bring about.

Family First

Sex, after all, was designed primarily to ensure babies and bonding, and for mutual benefit.  While it has become very fashionable to treat sex purely as a recreational activity, and many young people live in fear of ‘catching feelings’, we know instinctively that “what sex binds together cannot be separated without some pain”.[4]  This is particularly true for girls, although many young men also suffer.  Human beings are not – and were never intended to be – disposable.  Many now seek refuge in substances of various kinds to relieve that pain.

In the past, social trends and outside influences on young people were mediated by family and friends.  Now, many children are navigating these stormy seas, without the benefit and protection of a secure family structure to support them.   Analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study by the Marriage Foundation has demonstrated that by the age of fourteen, 46% of first-born children were not living with both parents.[5]  In Great Britain, 3.8 million children live in separated families.[6]  While many single parents and ‘blended families’ are very attuned to children’s needs, the more complex the social arrangements are, the more likely it is that parents and care givers have their own emotional, financial  and practical struggles, which leach away time and attention.  Many parents have also found themselves lost in this sexual free-for-all.

‘Sex Positivity’?

We have lurched blindly towards ‘sex positivity’, which urges us to embrace a non-judgemental attitude to all kinds of sexual behaviour, be open about sexual needs and desires and which advocates for any sort of consensual sex without shame or stigma. No doubt, many people may feel that this is a good thing – evidently forgetting that we have been living in a society largely devoid of taboos about both heterosexual and homosexual sex for over half a century.

What is actually being promoted here is something new – a society in which we have no boundaries at all.  We are witnessing an attempt to bring what was previously niche or private adult behaviour out of the shadows and into the mainstream.  ‘Sex positivity’ disputes the use of terms such as ‘deviant’ or ‘perversion’. As a BBC article discussing this phenomenon makes clear, “at its core, the term is about openness to a variety of sexual orientations, interests (or lack thereof), identities and expressions…and its influence extends well beyond the realm of sexuality into society at large”.[7]

This has led ultimately to a situation in which a young woman, Lily Phillips, decided it would be a good idea to have sex with 100 men in one day, for public consumption.  Undoubtedly she knew that this would help maintain her supremacy on OnlyFans.  Her reach was boosted further by her collaboration in the making of a YouTube documentary about this experience.  Evidently, nobody involved saw any shame at all in showcasing to the world what was once a private act, on an industrial scale.[8]

Over to the Dark Side

It may be difficult to accept, but we have collectively made a choice to arrive at this point, even if inadvertently.  This is the final destination of being non-judgemental, of our strident insistence that any form of discrimination should be rooted out and that the only thing that matters is whether or not something feels good to us, regardless of the effects on other people.  Any sense of ‘the common good’ or the protection of the vulnerable – even from themselves – has been lost.  We currently put a premium on ‘safeguarding’ – but without judgement and discernment, without being able to draw a clear line between right and wrong, there can be no effective safeguarding.

Comments under the film about Lily Phillips say it all.  One reads, “It wasn’t glamorous, it was grotesque… where are the responsible adults in her life?!?”.  Another writes,  “This isn’t empowerment.  This is self-harm.  She and those men are doing terrible harm to themselves”.   Other observations include, “It’s like watching someone commit suicide, but they are still alive.  Her soul is crushed, only a void left in her body”.   What in fact we witnessed was a tearful young woman’s utter degradation for public entertainment.  ‘Be kind’ evidently left the room some time ago.

Goodbye to All That

The normalising of extreme behaviour has serious repercussions for our children and young people – physically, mentally and emotionally.  This can be seen most acutely in the number of teenagers, particularly girls, wanting to ‘identify’ out of their biological sex, or declaring themselves ‘non-binary’.  Who wants to be a girl, or a boy, when they are told that hours in front of a mirror and a multitude of products is a basic requirement to have the confidence to leave the house?  Or that your only value lies in your sexual availability?

If being a man or woman involves degrading, possibly violent, acts of humiliation, why not opt out?  I have met young men who can’t believe that a woman would ever consent to sex, such is the ‘content’ they have consumed.  With the growth in fatherlessness and an absence of decent male role models, ‘influencers’ such as Andrew Tate hold sway over impressionable boys.  As Professor Caroline Giroux of the University of California explains, exposing children to pornography is “violating their spiritual boundaries and evolving beliefs around body, sexual development and intimate relationships, in a similar way that direct sexual abuse on their body does”.[9]

Some highlight that ‘consent’ is central to all of this sexual activity.  However, it doesn’t take much research or reflection for the attendant shortcomings to become clear.  Increasingly, young people describe how they felt compelled to do what was asked of them for a variety of reasons and did not feel that they had the power or authority to say no.  Many young women say ‘yes’ because they feel that they have no alternative.  As Louise Perry makes clear in her book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, “consent has more layers to it than that”.[10] 

The Law of Unintended Consequences

How did we get here? It all started with such good intentions.  We were rightly appalled at the ostracising of young single women who accidentally became pregnant; at the persecution and criminalisation of gay and bisexual people for following their hearts and desires; and at a culture which overlooked so many who suffered in silence, bound inextricably into violent and abusive relationships.   We all wanted to end the scourge of racism, as our country became ever more ethnically diverse.  We wanted what former Labour Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, in the 1960s called a “civilised society”.

By the time of his death, in 2003, it was already clear that his “permissive society” was not, in fact, a “civilised society”.  Following his death, commentator and fellow Labour party member Neil Clark, wrote, “What Jenkins failed to see was how the freedoms espoused would lead to the degeneration of British society and the selfish, me-first libertinism of today”.[11]

Blurring the Boundaries of Childhood

Increasingly, there are those within our society who believe that children and young people should be free to make ‘consensual’ choices on the same basis as adults.  From the recent harrowing reports of the rape gang scandals across the country, it is clear that the police and other officials did nothing for fear of causing racial offence – but also, sometimes, on the grounds that the girls were making a choice and were even complicit in their own abuse.[12]  And yet these were children – whether or not they had agreed to any part in what went on, they were below the age of consent.  They deserved adults who were prepared to protect them.

It is not unusual now for children to attend Pride events – in the interests of diversity and inclusion, of course – where men in fetish gear walk alongside them.  As journalist Jo Bartosch writes, “unbridled (or indeed bridled) displays of male sexuality have long been a feature of Pride.  But as the parade becomes increasingly family-focused more people are questioning what place fetishes have at parades”.  She also observes how “drag queens have sashayed in their high-heeled size 10s from niche gay clubs into mainstream children’s entertainment”.[13]  For many young people, this is not titillating, but intimidating.

Younger children love bright colours, glitter and sparkles, music and dancing, not to mention people apparently dressed as animals. There is something peculiarly distasteful about adults exploiting children’s natural acceptance of others and their willingness to join in the fun, and using it to promote an agenda entirely focused on sexuality, sexual orientation and the highly contested and nebulous concept of ‘gender identity’.

Where are the Responsible Therapists?

In the therapy world, we should be on the front line of child protection.  We should be holding back the tide of unscientific, activist-inspired propaganda and working in the best interests of young people.  However, much of the medical and therapeutic world remains committed to the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK.[14] This document makes no distinction at all between working with adults and children on issues relating to gender confusion and sexuality.  Traditional psychotherapeutic exploration is reserved only for those who have “uncertain” feelings.  Many gender-confused young teenagers, however, present as absolutely certain about being ‘born in the wrong body’.  Any responsible attempt at exploring these feelings is therefore likely to be ruled out as ‘conversion therapy’. 

This stance has been steadfastly maintained even in the light of the Cass Review, published in April 2024, which advocates a cautious and exploratory approach towards gender-questioning children.  The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) made a principled withdrawal last year, on the grounds of child protection – only to see concerted efforts now being made by some members to re-sign the Memorandum.  The British Psychological Society (BPS), which includes many educational psychologists among its members, continues to be taken to task for its “unquestioning and controversial position on gender”.[15] Evidently, ’diversity and inclusion’ trumps safeguarding for many practitioners in the psychological field.  

The same is true regarding sexual practices.  The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) offers guidance on, among other things, “kink-affirmative therapy”. Their Gender, Sexual and Relationship Diversity (GSRD): Good Practice across the Counselling Professions 001 guide declares that some people find “kink practices to be healing and/or therapeutic, for example as a form of stress reduction, as a way of dealing with past shame or trauma, or as a way of accessing different sides of themselves”.[16] BPS guidelines, meanwhile, declare that “GSRD identities and practices – just as heterosexuality, cisgender, and monogamy – are not considered to be pathological and will usually therefore be accommodated”.[17] 

The lack of professional curiosity is breath-taking, as indeed is any sense of concern about the damaging consequences of some of these practices.  The fig-leaf of consent is again mentioned, but there’s no understanding that when clients find others “unaccepting of their kink” those people might be following Louise Perry’s wise advice that if a man can “maintain an erection while beating a woman, he isn’t safe to be alone with”.[18]

Conclusion

In our rush to be accepting of everyone and everything, we have forgotten that there are some very unsavoury aspects of life which we need to reject, and from which it is duty to protect children and young people.  Our wholesale acceptance of sexualisation at every level of society is leaving lonely young people confused and distressed, and unable to form the trusting and meaningful relationships which will be vital to their happiness.  We need to remember that when the psychosexual stage of development has not been properly protected, respected and nurtured, it may affect how a young person “perceives and deals with sexuality or intimacy throughout the lifespan”.[19]  The consequences are likely to be a lifetime of loneliness and disillusionment, with all the social and emotional issues to which that is likely to lead.

“Oh-oh, what’s love got to do, got to do with it?

What’s love but a second hand emotion?

What’s love got to do, got to do with it?

Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken?”.

What’s Love Got to Do with It?, Tina Turner, from the album Private Dancer (1984).

[1] Maselko, J et al, Mother’s affection at 8 months predicts emotional distress in adulthood, BMJ Journals, Vol 65, Issue 7, July 2011.

[2] Mitcham, M, I’m an ex-Olympic champion who pioneered using OnlyFans - there’s nothing wrong with it, Telegraph, 29 July 2024.

[3] Neufeld, G and Maté, G, (2024), Hold on to Your Kids: Why ParentsNeed to Mater More than Peers, Penguin Random House.

[4] Neufeld, G and Maté, G, (2024), Hold on to Your Kids: Why ParentsNeed to Mater More than Peers, Penguin Random House.

[5] Benson, H, Sources of family breakdown in the UK, Marriage Foundation, July 2023.

[6] gov.uk, Separated families statistics: April 2014 to March 2023, 21 March 2024, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/separated-families-statistics-april-2014-to-march-2023/separated-families-statistics-april-2014-to-march-2023

[7] Klein, J, BBC Lovelife, What does ‘sex positivity’ mean?, 20 August 2020, https://www.bbc.co.uk/worklife/article/20210818-what-does-sex-positivity-mean

[8] Pieters, J, I Slept With 100 Men in One Day: Documentary, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFySAh0g-MI

[9] Giroux, C, Early exposure to pornography: a form of sexual trauma, Journal of Psychiatry Reform (Vol 10, #15), 7 December 2021, https://journalofpsychiatryreform.com/2021/12/07/early-exposure-to-pornography-a-form-of-sexual-trauma/

[10] Perry, L, (2022), The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, Polity.

[11] Clark, N, Roy Jenkins made Britain a far less civilised country, The Telegraph, 9 January 2003, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3586178/Roy-Jenkins-made-Britain-a-far-less-civilised-country.html

[12] Ashworth-Hayes, S and Peters, C, How the grooming gangs scandal was covered up, The Telegraph, 8 January 2025.

[13] Bartosch, J, Dark side of the rainbow, The Critic, 21 June 2021

[14] BACP, Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (Version 2, Revision A), July 2024, https://www.bacp.co.uk/media/21242/memorandum-of-understanding-on-conversion-therapy-in-the-uk-july-2024.pdf

[15] Critical Therapy Antidote, British Psychological Society Guidelines Reveal “Gross Ideological Bias”, 15 August 2024.

[16] Barker, M-J, Gender, Sexual and Relationship Diversity (GSRD), BACP, April 2019.

[17] British Psychological Society, Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Gender, Sexual and Relationship Diversity, June 2024.

[18] Perry, L, (2022), The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, Polity.

[19] Giroux, C, Early exposure to pornography: a form of sexual trauma, Journal of Psychiatry Reform (Vol 10, #15), 7 December 2021, https://journalofpsychiatryreform.com/2021/12/07/early-exposure-to-pornography-a-form-of-sexual-trauma/