The Sexual Revolution: “You Can Be Whoever You Want to Be; You Can Live However You Want to Live — But You Can’t Do That”

Broken mirrorOne of the hallmarks of the ongoing “sexual revolution” has been that “I can be whoever I want to be; I can live however I want to live” with respect to my sexuality and gender identity. That is, regardless of my biological sex, I am free to live and love and make love to whomever I please, be that boys or girls or both or everyone or not at all. Even if I don’t like biologically being a boy, I am free to be a girl instead. Such personal choices — any such choices — are hailed and praised by my liberal friends as liberated; and that’s the key: liberation from social and even biological constraints and definitions and freedom to be whoever I want to be and live however I want to live. But this “freedom” and “liberation,” I’m finding, only applies one direction: I am not free to be and live as I please if such choices contradict the rhetoric of liberation or constitute what “advocates” would deem “repression”: if, having opposite inclinations, I choose to be heterosexual or “cisgendered.” But I thought you just said I was free to live and choose and define myself?

Last week it was announced in the media that actor Gary Sinise and news personality Bret Baier had withdrawn from speaking at a conference for Legatus, an organization of Catholic businesspeople, because of that group’s “anti-gay” views. Those “anti-gay” views (as few in the mainstream media reported, but the linked Washington Post article did) amounted to alignment with and support for the [Courage](http://couragerc.org) apostolate, a Catholic group that does not condemn people who experience same-sex attraction, or suggest that they can or should seek to change those tendencies, but offers them love, hope, and support in living a celibate lifestyle in accord with the Christian faith — a message that homosexual “advocates” will not brook. In other words, you’re free to be whoever you want to be and live however you want to live — unless you feel same-sex attraction and are unhappy with that.

Today I read another story about how Mount Holyoke College, a women’s liberal arts college in New Hampshire, has cancelled its “traditional” performance of The Vagina Monologues, a play about the liberation of women’s sexuality, because of concerns that it might exclude and offend the “transgendered,” those who “self-identify” as women but have no vaginas at all. A leader of the theatre group stated that the cancellation was due to the “extremely narrow perspective,” “inherently reductionist and exclusive,” that the play offers “on what it means to be a woman” — gender being a “wide and varied experience, one that cannot simply be reduced to biological or anatomical distinctions.” In other words, you’re free to be a woman and be liberal in your sexuality, even to celebrate it — until that message runs smack into the reality that not everybody who wants that can have that, or shares the same understanding of it, and your being-who-you-want-to-be in fact oppresses the somebody else’s being-who-he-wants-to-be.

These are just a couple of vignettes in a tableau of cases that is becoming increasingly rich: the common theme being the increasing intolerance of sexual revolutionaries to any contradiction of their message, even to the point of the revolution devouring her own young; even when that intolerance reveals the message’s self-contradiction. So, I’m free now to be who I am want to be and live how I want to live — even if (especially if) that being-who-I-want-to-be and living-how-I-want-to-live contradicts age-old societal norms (e.g. heterosexuality, marriage, monogamy, fidelity) — but as soon as “who I want to be” and “how I want to live” is traditional and acceptable (even to the accepted traditions of twenty years ago, e.g. the sexual liberation of The Vagina Monologues) — then I become anathema.

There is a lot more here that I want to unpack and write and think about. But all of this hits very close to home to me, as somebody who has struggled most of my life with gender identity and sexual issues, who wants nothing more than freedom to live how I want to live — a good, holy, traditional and Christian life. My “liberal” friends have repeatedly scoffed at me, at the very idea that pornography and masturbation could be things that one would find it desirable to have freedom from or temperance in, let alone that they are things one could be addicted to. But if who I want to be is a happily married, heterosexual, cisgendered male, free to make healthy choices and live a life of love for all people — then ought that to be, per their own stated agenda, something they should accept and support?

Advertisements

Published by

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s