Making real choices in a virtual world

Note: This is the second of two papers on similar themes. (Read the first here.) I wrote both in the second year of my MA in English at Bob Jones University, the fundamentalist Christian school I attended for my BA and MA. Both capture well the moral tenor of my upbringing and of my beliefs at that time. I was raised in evangelicalism and on a diet of Rush Limbaugh. But since that time and these writings, some of my views have changed in important ways. At the time I wrote this paper, the term “sexual preference” was still commonly used throughout society to refer to a person’s sexual orientation, and it would be ten more years before reading Andrew Sullivan opened my eyes to the reality of sexual orientation as an innate characteristic of a person rather than a preference chosen willfully. This piece mischaracterizes that reality completely in ways that are homophobic. Very strong condemnatory language about sin was common in my sphere and vocabulary then (and for some time afterwards), and I believed the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual behavior is sin. For that reason, this paper will no doubt be offensive to some readers. Although I no longer think or speak of homosexuality in the homophobic terms I used here, there’s no doubt that I did for a long time. This piece is a reflection of that fact about my past. In regards to the piece more broadly, some of the core philosophical thesis still resonates with me. I still believe America suffers the social effects and disruption that come from lack of a shared moral center or objective foundation for shared morality–we have spent decades growing increasingly divided over morality. But I’m no longer certain to what extent such an objective foundation exists or how to find it if it does, and lacking that certainty, I find it harder to be a moral dogmatist on many matters, not only sexuality. In addition, having been thoroughly disillusioned by many right-wing sex scandals since and also more historically informed, I no longer see Bill Clinton as uniquely bad in his behavior or the GOP as ingenuous in its moral outrage. But for the record, I still think he abused his power in immoral ways and that Esquire’s cover photo was an inappropriate, sly celebration of his ‘prowess.’ As a side note, after researching for this paper, one of the dean of men’s staff confronted me about my late-night Internet searches on my work computer that were apparently related to homosexuality in some way. Looking back, amusing, but awkward at the time. (DL, Sept. 18, 2021)

Perversity is acceptable in America; it’s the new freedom. Our honorable President has underscored this sobering reality yet again with his cover appearance on the December issue of Esquire magazine (a glossy purveyor of trendy American hedonism). The photo has been unofficially titled “Monica’s View,” and as incredible as it would have seemed to me two days ago, Clinton has indeed suavely offered his crotch to the American people.