The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “kinky” as “relating to, having, or appealing to unconventional tastes especially in sex”.

“Churchgoing dominatrix” Melissa Todd, recently profiled by The Telegraph, claims that “Christianity is closely aligned with kink culture”, and ought to be more so.

Todd, who attends the “liberal and progressive Union Church in Margate”, has urged the Church of England – with which she is not affiliated – to “get with it” as regards matters of the flesh. But in attempting to market herself as a trendy subversive, Todd has revealed herself as perhaps the ultimate conformist.

It is Christian marriage – a lifelong covenant uniting husband and wife as “one flesh”, outside which no sexual activity is sanctioned – that is far more out of step with current consensus than the sexual culture Todd is at ease with. It was revolutionary in the ancient world, where wives were essentially the property of their husbands, sex slaves were tolerated and divorce was common. It remains so now.

Other sexual behaviours are obviously nothing new: they have been a feature of every human society, ostensibly Christian or otherwise. While our level of comfort or discomfort with them varies, they are more qualitatively in line with the culture than the Catholic, or indeed historic Protestant, approach to sexuality.

Todd, who said she became interested in faith again over the past few years, plainly does not share this view. While many Britons would avoid boasting à la Todd about their sexual preferences, it is indeed the case that non-marital sexual behaviours, from premarital sex to pornography addiction, are now commonplace.

“It is vital that the Church has these discussions and doesn’t just hide away from talk of sex and sexuality, because I think too often the Church sees sex as a problem to be solved or an issue to be ignored,” Todd remarked. The Telegraph noted that the Church of England did not respond to requests for comment on Todd’s claims.

Todd’s suggestion that Christianity should totally reshape itself to appease modern views about sex is at odds with the very essence of the Faith. Christ teaches us to place others’ desires before our own and to value lasting, selfless love rather than focusing solely on fleeting passions. It is not always easy to live by these standards, but that is precisely why churches should remain steadfast in helping people to get there.

Moreover, Christianity already has a vast and rich tradition of commentary on the complexities of sexuality, for obvious reasons: most people are interested in it. The average parish priest – Catholic or otherwise – often finds himself ill-equipped to apply this teaching to his flock, but it is all there, should they find the occasion and courage to draw on it. Take Pope St John Paul II’s work on the Theology of the Body, which has proved vastly influential in the post-1960s era.

“A person’s rightful due is to be treated as an object of love, not as an object for use,” he wrote in Love and Responsibility. “Love between man and woman cannot be built without sacrifices and self-denial… [it] consists of a commitment which limits one’s freedom – it is a giving of the self, and to give oneself means just that: to limit one’s freedom on behalf of another.”

Who has heard a homily along such lines lately? It seems we are indeed missing a trick. Instead of presenting the fruitfulness of the full Catholic perspective, we are leaving a vacuum that the likes of Todd are more than happy to fill.

Todd’s promotion of “sex work” – which she has been involved with for 30 years – under the guise of compassion is also concerning, and not just for Christians. The global majority involved in this pseudo-industry are not middle-class Oxford dropouts like her, but impoverished or highly coerced individuals. Most of these victims are women, and millions of them are children.

Julie Bindel’s 2019 book The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth details chilling cases of women trapped in this “work”, begging “sex-positive” NGOs to help them leave the horrors of prostitution into which they had been forced by extreme poverty, and simply being offered pills and condoms in return. I am sure Todd would stress that she prizes consent and would not condone such practices, but they are the direct product of a situation in which sex is commodified. Rebranding prostitution and other paid-for sex acts as simply another form of “work” is therefore dangerous and untruthful.

Todd stresses that people of various sexual preferences must be made to feel “welcome… loved and necessary”. Indeed, Christians should welcome every person. All are invited to redemption in Christ.

We should also invite Todd, and all those formed by the assumptions of the sexual revolution, to enter a much richer tradition of love: one in which human beings are not reduced to instruments of appetite or self-gratification.

‍