What for instance?
I thought my statement and meaning were clear. Clinical sex education may be of value to your community and something that could be acceptable, despite not coming from a standard Biblical viewpoint or including any Biblical reference. Perhaps you hadn't thought about clinical sex education in this way, because of your concern for larger cultural issues as well as entanglements which have occured between SR moral vantage points and Sex Ed programs.
No, it's based on a lack of knowledge. I haven't investigated the agenda of sex ed programs. And a Christian's primary concern is always that nothing that violates God's will be taught, and if I don't know exactly what's promoted and ponder its implications I simply can't have an opinion.
Just to let you know that is exactly the same as "I honestly believe that your hesitancy is based solely on your fear of the unknown." You lack knowledge and fear that it might contain something you would not desire.
If you notice, your default position for not having an opinion was promotion of (or at least defense of) another form of sex ed. And you do not seem to be accepting my statements (which seem pretty much at face value and not requiring much investigation to prove) that sex ed which is limited to factual statements about how the body works does not intrinsically advocate any moral position, and by its nature cannot conflict with your own.
Sometimes mere clinical presentations do exert a permissive moral force, and this is why I'd have to think carefully about what is actually specifically taught.
Look I get that you'd be interested in reviewing any specific program to make sure it is purely clinical, but I am at a loss at how clinical commentary of any kind can exert a permissive moral force of any kind.
In a chemistry class we will talk about acids and bases, and in some classes pharmacological effects of certain chemicals. In no way can that be understood as tantamount to suggesting drinking acids and bases is up in the air for your choice, or using the lab to produce street drugs for sale to other students is fine. Neither does any of it mean people should or should not use their knowledge for making armaments.
That's like saying you have to review a cooking show because Julia Child's not reminding people that they shouldn't gut living people, while gutting and cleaning a chicken, might be morally permissive.
Clinical knowledge is by definition lacking moral force. It is just facts so you know how mechanical processes function in the world on a physical level. I suppose that can act as a rorschach test. If you see the fact that a penis rises during stimulation as an argument that you should do this at any time, that says something about your inate beliefs and faith rather than what anyone is telling you.
And that is why questions about appropriate use should be directed to a person's family and other important people in their lives. Those people will help them understand how the facts of how things work physically, fit into the nature of how they live and view the world. Even my world view requires explanation beyond a clinical description.
I'm certainly aware that there is a history of such ideas that goes way back, but always within a circumscribed and rather elitist social context. What's new is their becoming culture-wide as you are acknowledging.
Ohhh I'm willing to agree to disagree on this, as the evidence can be read in many ways, and practices differed wildly among past communities. But let me point a few things out (and remember I am limiting this to western culture) which I think paints a slightly different, and more accurate picture.
Before the rise of monotheism, sexual freedom was commonplace (even if restricted for some classes of women) and not in the least an elitist form of accepted entertainment and discussion. After the rise of monotheism, sexual freedom was intellectually hobbled and bound but still commonly practiced. Prostitution was no longer sacred, but was accepted and more than commonplace. Even St. Augustine had argued vocally for the existence of prostitution in order to make sure nothing worse could come about.
The enlightenment brought sexual freedom back into intellectual "acceptance". The libertines of the 1700's make the one's of the SR pale in comparison. Sure, it was villified in many quarters, but it existed in greater force than it does today and practiced more widely (even if denounced). It wasn't until the 1800s, after the purging and settlement of the west that the so called "progressives" rose to power and smashed down sexuality, including expression, particularly in the US.
I think most of your vision of the past is rooted in somewhat mythical histories created during that time period, and which existed to some degree in fact during that late time up through the 1950's. This is the period where the great brothel districts were closed down across the US, and the concept of Europeans being more decadent arose.
Homosexuality certainly waxed and waned differently than sexual freedom in general. I'd grant you that after the rise of monotheism, you did not see it in intellectual acceptance (besides a brief stint among the 1700s libertines) until the SR. Also public sexual communication definitely took off to make it more of an every day thing than in the past (post monotheism). Though that may have more to do with improved communication technology and changes in business practices.
I don't know, maybe you can agree with that assessment. If not, its not critical.
There is a definite morality that is promoted by many such supposedly morally neutral practical presentations.
You can keep repeating this statement, but that does not make it true. Xian doctors learn the same clinical facts, and that did not change them, or their opinion of what is right or wrong with regard to sexuality. I can agree that any specific program may CLAIM to neutrality, and actually contain moral content. But that is different than saying clinical sex ed promotes a moral position, including a moral relativism based on not mentioning morals.
In any case I think I've made the point that even the clinical factual side of sex ed is not some kind of free zone in which we can expect to find common ground as easily as you seem to be suggesting.
Actually, you didn't. You made one argument along those lines, the rest were assertions it was true. Here is your singular argument...
there would be no need to present, say, the graphic particulars of the danger of AIDS from anal penetration to an ascetic I would assume. And would you deny that such a discussion tacitly validates anal penetration by emphasizing how to do it in a way that minimizes the health risk? There's an example of how mere supposedly value-neutral facts can carry a moral message -- always a permissive message of course.
This description is inaccurate. The realm of sex does contain anal sex, whether one is an ascetic or not. Thus it would be described, though it doesn't have to be done graphically, along with the risks involved. The idea that an ascetic is not aided in knowledge of things he does not perform is not apparent to me.
That would be like saying since no one should immolate themselves and want to burn themselves, no people should be taught about burn wounds?
What about ascetic doctors who may have to deal with people that have already had anal sex? Its sort of too late to say "say no". Or with people that are practicing it and are not willing to change their practice? Granting them knowledge to protect themselves from harm would be more than the Xian thing to do. Indeed lack of knowledge regarding that might lead to misdiagnosis or understanding of something going on.
The facts of it existing and what happens within it, do not go away by turning a blind eye to it. And it almost seems to indicate a lack of faith or willpower to think a person might be turned based on a statement of facts. Indeed one would think knowledge regarding anal sex would be welcomed by Xian advocates. It is by far the most risky of sexual behaviors, with condoms or no.
Isn't it better for a Xian... instead of saying "I don't know about that, I just don't do it"... to be able to say "Yes I know about that {laying out the facts so knowledge is seen on that subject}, and beyond its physical risks which are greater than other practices, there are moral and spiritual repercussions discussed within my faith. That's why I do not practice it."?
And that is without the issue that some people will fail. The continued mystery of anal sex might heighten a person's interest, rather than defuse it. And the lack of knowledge regarding how it can be practiced in a safer way, could lead to more devastating circumstances than anyone would desire. Acknowledgement =/= validation of a practice. However ignorance = potentially greater threat from a practice whether one acknowledges it or not.
Do you believe that if you were given the clinical facts about anal sex, you would abandon your own faith in order to engage in it? That it would tempt you? I know I have read plenty of clinical facts regarding sex I would not want to engage in and it certainly hasn't tempted me in the least.
And finally, I should add that the Bible itself describes sexual activities. It even describes some lusty encounters that some girls were enjoying as involving men hung like donkeys and cumming like horses (or is that vice versa?). Thus the Bible itself mentions possibilities of what people can do, and pleasure they may gain. It then mentions risks they faced... though some never really did such as King David whose wild sexual practices are legendary and lauded (to some degree) as examples of his greatness.
If the Bible can mention sex acts, it seems strange to claim that people cannot discuss their existence and factual repercussions of those activities. Such instruction would seem to fit nicely with any ongoing Biblical instruction.
As far as my worldview goes, clinical instruction is actually inhibitive of true absolute hedonism. Instruction is not simply going with the flow of what feels good at the time. Sure it doesn't say stop, but while one is learning one is not doing, and knowledge about the world of sex makes one understand it is not (just like any human activity) completely carefree.
I hope I didn't come off too edgy or pointed. I see something that is of value to use both in this. More than advocating my philosophy I am interested in reducing a plague which is hitting everyone.
Edited by holmes, : minor fixes
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2