Lessons from Louise Perry

The Secular Feminist Who Tested Christian Ethics—and Stayed

Is faith-based chastity outdated? Evidence affirms marriage, chastity, and family stability.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Years ago, as I was running errands with my minivan full of little children, I checked my rearview mirror. I saw the traffic behind me, but I also saw the sweet little faces of my kids. For some reason, that quick glance—which was such a simple thing on an ordinary day—resulted in an overwhelming sensation coming over me. It was so distinct that I still remember the exact location where it occurred. It’s difficult to describe, but the best I can say is that it was a rush of gratitude. I felt gratitude for the law of chastity—reserving sexual relations for marriage—and for those who had taught it to me. Also, gratitude for my younger self who had trusted in it so I could experience the good fruits it bore as I married and had children.

Louise Perry

In an earlier article, I wrote about society’s need for righteous fathers, and I relied heavily on the book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, which is a lesson from Louise Perry. Perry argues that women and children have paid a disproportionate price in the fallout of crumbling marriage norms over the last several decades. While working at a rape crisis center in her twenties, she began questioning the modern secular norms she had previously absorbed. Eventually, she became convinced that Christian sexual ethics work, although she was not persuaded by Christianity’s supernatural claims. 

I found Perry’s writing compelling and have continued to follow her online. Over the last several months, I’ve noticed, as have others, that there’s been a transformation in Perry’s relationship to Christianity. It’s moved beyond a sociological appreciation. In an interview earlier this year, she said:

“I kind of think of myself as an agnostic Christian. I go to church. Some weeks I believe and some weeks I don’t but one of the things that my husband and I have committed to do—he’s in the same boat as me—is, we are so convinced that it’s sociologically true and we would so like it to be supernaturally true, that we want to give our children the best chance possible of believing both truths and the way to do that, I think, is to expose them to Christians.”

And then, in a more recent interview, she said

“And … since writing the book, I have become Christian and have become much … more willing to make these arguments in theological terms. One of the reasons that I ended up becoming Christian is because I realized if it were supernaturally true, you would expect it to be sociologically true. And observing quite how sociologically true it is was very persuasive to me.”

From Hesitation to Witness

It’s interesting to note that Perry married her husband in 2017 and published her book in 2022 between the births of her two sons in 2021 and 2024. She credits her time at the crisis center for initially opening her up to Christian sexual ethics, but the process of becoming a Christian coincided with her early years of motherhood. Perry said she wanted to give her children “the best chance.” Her children were a motivation for her—a common human experience that many of us have as we take on the responsibility of precious souls.

I’ve thought a great deal about Perry’s experience of being drawn to Christian sexual ethics as a young secular thinker, and it has caused me introspection. How many times have I remained quiet about gospel teachings about marriage and sexuality because I assumed they were the least popular aspects of my faith? How often have I jumped to hasty conclusions about who may or may not be receptive to the Latter-day Saint doctrine of the family

We live in a confusing world, and many norms that we once took for granted are being challenged. In Quebec, three men recently adopted a three-year-old girl in a case that is described as a first in Canada. In May 2025, a journal article put out by the American Sociological Association argued that childhood sexual innocence is a “colonial fiction” and that “childhood pleasure is indispensable for an inclusive sociology.” Marriage and birth rates are falling throughout the world. These are just a few of the indicators that point to an obscuring of the divine vision of the family—and Latter-day Saints aren’t the only ones noticing. Many people are feeling the divine tug of truth about the family unit and are participating in conversations about how to safeguard it. 

There will continue to be opposition, and likely even attempts to silence defenders of the family. Still, as Latter-day Saints, we can—and should—join in efforts that foster the flourishing of families. And in the process, we will be strengthened by others, like Louise Perry. They offer fresh outlooks that can inspire us to be more enthusiastic about the eternal truths about family structure that we may have taken for granted. 

About the author

Kristine Stringham

Kristine has an MA in Religious Studies at the University of Calgary.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Sean Astin & Ke Huy Quan Reunite, But “Love Hurts” Doesn’t Deliver

My son asked me what “Love Hurts” was about. I told him it was about how we can’t just move on from our past. “Oh,” he looked concerned, “That’s a bad movie.” Unlike my son concluded, “Love Hurts” isn’t a bad movie, but it’s not a Christian one. The theme repeated over and over is that we cannot move on from the past until we conquer it. Our main character desperately works for redemption, but the film keeps telling him he can’t have it. His aw-shucks charm in “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” combined with the nostalgia for his 80s career has combined to make Ke Huy Quan Hollywood’s “it” man of the moment. And “Love Hurts” is the star vehicle to determine if he can top the marquee of a nationwide opening.  It’s a bit of a mixed bag. The film is set over a Valentine’s Day weekend. Quan, plays Marvin Gable the regional realtor of the year. His upbeat attitude endears him to his clients and coworkers alike. Marvin used to be the enforcer for the local mob run by his brother. His brother ordered him to take out Rose, his unrequited crush, for stealing. But Marvin let her live and started a new life. Rose has decided to come back, delivering Valentine’s to the major players, dragging Marvin back into the life he tried to leave behind. The film, which runs a brisk 85 minutes, is mostly a series of choreographed fight scenes interspersed with just enough exposition to explain the plot and three love stories. So it’s worth mentioning that the fight choreography is very focused on creating tableaus showing off the imagination of the designer. And this does work to create some eye-popping visuals.  But I’m not sure if the trade-off to get those moments was worth it. To get to the visual moments it wants to show off the fights vacillate wildly between grounded brutal realism and physics so implausible it would make the Avengers blush, with no real explanation or meaning between the two. The pacing of the fights was often awkward and halting. And I never felt any stakes in the scenes because I never knew how much risk my protagonists were in.  The film uses a series of intermittent voice-overs from both Marvin and Rose to explain their attraction to one another. But the chemistry between the two never takes off. And while the film explains why Rose would be attracted to Marvin’s kindness and power, we never figure out why Marvin was willing to throw his entire life away twice at an outside chance with a woman who isn’t that interested in him.  The two grunts in the film played by André Eriksen and Marshawn Lynch, spend the time between their fights figuring out how to write a text to repair one of their marriages. The most amusing romance is between Raven, who breaks into Marvin’s office to fight him, and Ashley, the real estate assistant who finds his unconscious body and falls in love with him while reading his poetry in his notebook before he wakes up.  The movie is surprisingly funny. It leans into the cliches of the Asian mob film, and then juxtaposes it next to a bunch of odd things: suburban model homes, an all-American black belt, a poet, a pull-over sweater. It’s mostly just the one joke, but it’s enough for the film’s brisk run. My favorite part of the film was Sean Astin. Astin plays Marvin’s boss, and older brother figure who gave him the job when he escaped the mob. Astin and Quan famously shared the screen in “Goonies.” During the scene early in the film when Astin gives Quan the real estate award, you could feel the dialogue transcend the characters. It felt like Astin was so proud of the success of his old friend Quan, and this was his moment to tell him.  Quan, for his part, does everything right but doesn’t take the material to another level.  If you love fight choreography, there will certainly be some interesting things to look at here. And if you want a classic action romp with a few laughs and a Valentine’s twist this might be the film for you. But for most people, I don’t think it all comes together. It’s too gory without meaning. And while the movie seems to think it has a happy ending, I can’t imagine that most of the people watching will agree. It’s got R-rated content with no compensating uplift to make it worth the experience. Two out of five stars. “Love Hurts” opens nationwide on February 7, 2025.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!