Douthat makes the case while engaging my arguments:
The idea that it’s possible to incorporate just a little bit of quasi-adultery into your online routines and then go no further seems to me deeply untrue to the way temptation actually works. Of course there may be some individuals and couples who can make the “it’s just the occasional sex chat, honey …” solution work: Human nature is diverse enough for that. But for the greater part of mankind, sins tend to compound rather than forestall one another, and giving in a little bit is usually a good way to ensure that you’ll eventually give in all the way.
Ross is referring to a new technology that can provide instant and new temptation to ancient human impulses. His view is that cutting online sex out of one’s life entirely is the only way to avoid its temptation. I tend, in contrast, to think that human nature is so flawed that a sane moral life cannot and should not insist on constant perfection/abstinence, but constant attention to morality, to conscience, and to what human beings can reasonably expect to achieve. If your standard is never to commit a venial sin, you will almost certainly fail. And you may set up a destructive pattern of perfection, failure, depression, more failure, more depression, a new commitment to perfection, failure … and so on: rinse and repeat. I think that cycle is horribly destructive and believe that moderation and risk-minimization is a safer guide to avoiding sin than total abstinence. That’s why diets fail; and why the Christianist South has higher rates of divorce and illegitimacy than, say, “barbaric” Massachusetts. Yes, you can get lost in an online hall of mirrors and addiction and narcissism.
Yes, there is a lack of dignity in what has happened to Weiner – but only because what was meant to be private became public. If videos of all of us taking our Morganscheisse were streamed live, a few of us would lose some dignity as well.
But if a married man jacks off to porn, I don’t think we should consider him an adulterer, let alone on a route to what Ross calls “barbarism”. (And if it is considered adultery, what percentage of American marriages would be intact?) Ditto if someone “kills” real-people-acting-as-avatars on World of Warcraft. That does not convict someone of murder. And if a married man chats online with a paid sex worker, and jacks off on his laptop, is that adultery too? What if he is just playing at wooing or preening with online strangers or fans but with no real intent to, you know, have sexual relations with any of them? In the grand scheme of social ills, these do not rank high on my list. The real-virtual distinction is a meaningful one.
Yes, this is a santorumy slope in many ways, but the element that Ross (and the Vatican) dismisses is that sex need not always be deadly serious. There is a vital part of the human experience that we call “play”. Fighting the need for play gets sex and work out of proportion and can distort our moral lives in ways far worse than the occasional victimless online flirt. And that’s what this technology has really opened up: not the potential for sin, which is always with us, but the potential for play. From Angry Birds to anonymous chat rooms to World of Warcraft to Chatroulette or Grindr or OKCupid, this is a safe zone for unsafe things by virtual people. That’s why we call it play. It is often a balance to work or lack of work. It is not the end of civilization. It is, in fact, the mark of one.
The Dish 