New Litany"Well, now that sex and sexuality are personal choice (in theory), food has become the new moral obsession."
First of all: I like your choice of subject! A very thoughtful and insightful approach to an increasingly more important subject.
The form of your writing follows the content. You are able to capture the absurdity both in what you write and how you write it. The questions, the embarrassing details, the guilt the person who asks the questions tries to call upon, the complete seriousness of the speaker, the urgency and utter belief in his/her righteousness... It is all strengthened by your way of presenting us this subject. There are mainly questions, some assumptions presented as 'the truth', there is an organic flow between the questions that echo the not very linearity of natural language. By throwing all these questions at us in a paratactic list, with each question being equally 'very important' and 'very urgent', you confront us with its absurdity. This is further enhanced by the repetition of certain words, like 'and then'. This adds to the casual and natural feel of the language and the feeling of urgency.
Most of all, I really like how you only present us with the 'believer' and his/her questions. You are critiquing by showing us what is (though -I hope- taken to a whole new absurd level), never by stating what you believe. Thus, as a reader, I am left with absurd questions and am encouraged and allowed to find my own answers. This is very powerful!
Therefore, my only remark would be to cut the opening statement. Your piece doesn't need it for one. Moreover, by plunging us full frontal in this absurd situation you create a greater juxtaposition between are own normal life and the situation described in the text. Furthermore, it gives the reader even more freedom in forming their own opinion, increasing the power of your critique. Equally, I am not entirely convinced that the sentences from 'the contents of your own stomach... to hiding away in your belly?' are necessary or even of actual value in the flow of the text. Cutting them could perhaps make the text yet a little more sharper, pointed. The same may apply to the ',not what comes out,' in the second to last sentence. It does not some necessary to argue the point in the sentence. Besides, by removing that, the contradiction between the viewpoints presented in the first and second paragraph becomes even more intriguing. You create a 'Wait, what?'-effect, making the reader jump back and forth between the paragraphs and thus making the speaker appear even more erratic.
In conclusion, I give you full marks, apart from technique (almost full marks there), as I believe the impact of the text could be enhanced a little more by way of technique and form.
Thank you for this piece!