Will a Christian stand up for me about this?

[Amittai]

I want to give constructive-minded agnostics a chance to join in this thread but they had better have a better-than-good reason to contradict me.

Exactly 50 years ago, when I and my classmates were aged 14 and we were at a secular state-run school, several new teachers came in and told us, during lessons, we should be having sex before marriage.

This is COMPLETELY different from informal material circulated by us amongst ourselves. I am reporting something that was handed down to us from authority.

Are any Christians going to do what Russ Parker says, "representative confession"?

 

[Lazarus Long]

Nice claim and very funny.

 

[A Realist]

I want to give constructive-minded agnostics a chance to join in this thread but they had better have a better-than-good reason to contradict me.

Exactly 50 years ago, when I and my classmates were aged 14 and we were at a secular state-run school, several new teachers came in and told us, during lessons, we should be having sex before marriage.

This is COMPLETELY different from informal material circulated by us amongst ourselves. I am reporting something that was handed down to us from authority.

Are any Christians going to do what Russ Parker says, "representative confession"?

What is your point?

 

[Desk trauma]

What is supposed to be done about this? Most of the people involved are likely dead by now.

 

[Amittai]

What is your point?

Have you read the last line?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I want to give constructive-minded agnostics a chance to join in this thread but they had better have a better-than-good reason to contradict me.

Exactly 50 years ago, when I and my classmates were aged 14 and we were at a secular state-run school, several new teachers came in and told us, during lessons, we should be having sex before marriage.

This is COMPLETELY different from informal material circulated by us amongst ourselves. I am reporting something that was handed down to us from authority.

Are any Christians going to do what Russ Parker says, "representative confession"?

I haven't the slightest idea what "representative confession" is supposed to be.

 

[Greengardener]

If you are asking which people had sex before marriage, that's totally not appropriate for this forum.

If you are asking which people had similar sex ed class experiences in high school roughly 50 years ago (or exactly 50 years ago at age 14), that might be an appropriate question.

I can say that from what I've read and observed, sex education has been a difficult topic to include in the high school curriculum and that people are having a difficult time figuring out what are the "facts" that should be taught. Parents are the first and best teachers to instruct their children on the realities that make life work and are the ones primarily tasked. Other responsible adults in the community would be wise to take on the understanding that what we teach our young people is what we'll be living with as older adults, so we'd all be wise to consider that we are indeed more our brothers' keepers than we previously wanted to take on in our "live-and-let-live" philosophies. The more we work together, the stronger our societies, appealing to the reasonableness of what works - and what God told us indeed works. But that's just a general observation offered in the general realm of what your post suggests.

Since I can't figure out for sure what you are asking, it might be a good idea to be more direct.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I want to give constructive-minded agnostics a chance to join in this thread but they had better have a better-than-good reason to contradict me.

Exactly 50 years ago, when I and my classmates were aged 14 and we were at a secular state-run school, several new teachers came in and told us, during lessons, we should be having sex before marriage.

This is COMPLETELY different from informal material circulated by us amongst ourselves. I am reporting something that was handed down to us from authority.

Are any Christians going to do what Russ Parker says, "representative confession"?

About that time SAR was becoming influential. It is known sometimes as 'Sexual Attitude Response' or Sexual Attitude Restructuring' or 'Sexual Attitude Reassessment'. The latter name seems to have become the settled name for it. There was a minister who was a prime mover in this program, I've seen his obituary, but I don't recall his name or affiliation. He worked with the University of Minnesota in developing this curriculum. This was tried in my high school, and although many opted out, it turns out now it did real damage to my class as a whole and those not fortunate enough to have opted out.

I will see if I can't find the obit for that minister. Kind of hard until I figure out his name.

 

[muichimotsu]

I want to give constructive-minded agnostics a chance to join in this thread but they had better have a better-than-good reason to contradict me.

Exactly 50 years ago, when I and my classmates were aged 14 and we were at a secular state-run school, several new teachers came in and told us, during lessons, we should be having sex before marriage.

This is COMPLETELY different from informal material circulated by us amongst ourselves. I am reporting something that was handed down to us from authority.

Are any Christians going to do what Russ Parker says, "representative confession"?

Methinks there's a possibility someone only selectively remembered or partially recalled what was said rather than the full context of the conversation.

Not remotely old enough to remember that and I'm not asking my parents something of that nature, because I doubt they'd want to discuss it, but the idea that it's okay to have sex before marriage with protection is VERY different than outright encouraging it regardless of preventative measures for pregnancy and STDs

 

[Amittai]

. . .

If you are asking which people had similar sex ed class experiences in high school roughly 50 years ago (or exactly 50 years ago at age 14), that might be an appropriate question.

. . . Other responsible adults in the community would be wise to take on the understanding that what we teach our young people is what we'll be living with as older adults, so we'd all be wise to consider that we are indeed more our brothers' keepers than we previously wanted to take on in our "live-and-let-live" philosophies.

Thank you so much Greengardener, firstly this was not "sex education" this was civics. The biology lesson was fine. And these weren't the "live and let live" brigade, these were destructive cynics.

This is why I was so set on not making it a "denominational morals" question.

It was their level of authority - very different from kids informally circulating materials amongst ourselves.

I wasn't a "Christian union" type yet then but when I later joined it it wasn't supervised because the designated teacher was carrying on with a boy, at which we merely rolled our eyes.

When authority goes that way - sooner or later Christians should be lifting up the nation - not too late to start now? Me Too week (coming from some boys & men too).

 

[Amittai]

About that time SAR was becoming influential. It is known sometimes as 'Sexual Attitude Response' or Sexual Attitude Restructuring' or 'Sexual Attitude Reassessment'. The latter name seems to have become the settled name for it. There was a minister who was a prime mover in this program, I've seen his obituary . . . He worked with the University of Minnesota in developing this curriculum . . . although many opted out, it turns out now it did real damage to my class as a whole and those not fortunate enough to have opted out.

I will see if I can't find the obit for that minister. . . QUOTE]

Minnesota - I might have guessed!

Yes "Re-structuring" is what it is all about.

Well I just "unrestructured" myself. Will they like this?

 

[Amittai]

[appear not to gave posted itself - am re-trying, slightly amended]

Methinks there's a possibility someone only selectively remembered or partially recalled what was said rather than the full context of the conversation . . . and I'm not asking my parents something of that nature, because I doubt they'd want to discuss it, but the idea [comment added by MBowen: of kids saying spontaneously amongst themselves] that it's okay to have sex before marriage with protection is VERY different than outright encouraging it regardless of preventative measures for pregnancy and STDs

Thank you Muichimotsu for your sympathetic response. I hope I have picked up the contrast in authority all right, which certainly was the main "thrust" of the context all right.

In regard to the scope of your last phrase I deliberately wanted to address Christians in your "hearing".

I could have added to begin with, this was the week we heard about Epp-stene, Wein-stene, Polansky, Cyril Smith and several others, a large number of girls and women are indignant even though they have not been left pregnant or STD, and a large number of boys now fear it is inevitable they will become predators themselves.

In my paper yesterday was about when the good old Women's Lib projected rotten veg, ink etc at Mrs Morley, Bob Hope and Dame Joan, and I do genuinely remember thinking to myself at the time, "good for them".

If churches missed a trick before now, they can still start asking God to help everyone now.

 

[Amittai]

I'm saying, yes there has been hand wringing and nagging, but not standing in the place of those people. I wanted to know, would anyone want to join me in doing so (however quietly) and now I know, thank you so much.

 

[Amittai]

Pardon my semi-inarticulacy earlier, for a fuller picture here are some more thoughts. It appears some of you know what I mean.

At one time, some decent people were allowed to have the upper hand in affairs, who would want ordinary boys and men to have the scope (if their families allowed) to develop their own sense of integrity and their own discretion in what in religious jargon is termed "purity".

Alongside this there were and still are the repressive moralising and finger-pointing involving shaming and put-downs in families and sects.

Enter the goons who use the latter as excuse to undermine the nascent integrity and discretion of those less powerful than themselves (but kid us into swearing they are "empowering" us).

(This was reinforced by the television images being filmed with the hands of a personality out of "camera view" but not out of cameramens' view and knowledge, where they shouldn't have been about the person of girls hardly older than me, in order to simultaneously subliminally and openly degrade them, in relation to largely indifferent "music".)

I've never been comfortable with the sort of hand-wringing, nagging, megaphoning and victim-blaming that has been coming from churches. Nor with the "moral equivalency" that I have witnessed: a clergyman told us he was very nearly as degenerate as us and "regaled" us with an instance of his "fantasies" (turning us into his "confessors") and very strangely has moved to another country.

Sorry I don't have the title of Russ Parker's book any more. What he is talking about, is a kind of intercession - a kind of carrying the world on our shoulders - that I think some denominations used to do, from time to time, a long time ago (last heard of in Austria in 1955).

 

[Ophiolite]

I want to give constructive-minded agnostics a chance to join in this thread but they had better have a better-than-good reason to contradict me.

I like to think of myself, on odd numbered days, as a constructive-minded agnostic. Of course your implied threat is not exactly the best way of encouraging "us" to join.

I have no reason to contradict you, since you haven't provided sufficient information. I do have serious reason to doubt you, since you have offered zero supporting evidence and (until later posts) essentially no meaningful detail.

If I understand you correctly (and I ask to be corrected if I have it wrong) at the age of fourteen multiple teachers in a Civics class advised you all to engage in premarital sex. You do not explain if this was done en passant, was the focus of a lesson, was part of the curriculum, was presented formally, or informally, in detail, or in general, with justification, as a command, or a suggestion. It would have been helpful if you had provided this information.

Beyond this you were, reasonably it would seem, appalled/disgusted/upset by this, in large part because this was coming from authority figures. What I am not clear about is what you want done about this. Perhaps you feel you have explained this, but if so it has gone over my head. Would you take the time to clarify that now? Thank you in advance.

 

[Amittai]

Hi, because it isn't a threat, it means, I would like you to . . .
Secondly this was one teacher in a civics class backed up by several others when going off topic in other classes.
It seemed to be considered part of a new curriculum.
Thirdly the new thing then was to make all classes look informal, especially the trendier subjects.
We weren't equipped to make sophisticated critical judgments about what was being presented.
I think it was a strong suggestion, insufficiently backed up by justification in principle, and I think was part of a typically cynical move of those times, to undermine young folks before we were ready to make choices on what firm grounds we could ponder for ourselves as we grew older. In retrospect I am dismayed (at school one just sits dazed).
I inarticulately felt we were being undermined, most of the other boys were swept along (a bit) by curiosity.
The sneer on these teachers' faces reinforced their wording, that there was no gainsaying what they were heavily implying, piggy backing on our not being very articulate.
Of course we had our own knowledge in detail and our own morals (if we bothered to tell each other) which were supposed not to bear any stamp of authority.
Obviously there always was going to be some sex before marriage with some people - and varied conceptions of "consent" among young women - it's just that the bias was suddenly strongly increased with these sly and unexplained compromises of authority (I think much of the truth isn't out yet).
Seeing the state of the generations now, I see the fruits of that campaign - lots of women are on the warpath because it is assumed they have to be targeted by males, some boys are now scared because they don't want to be turned into predators and there is no longer modelling of a Holy Spirit filled, prudent life.
I wanted it to be a thread for everybody because the majority of people that have got hurt are non-Christians, I merely didn't want a nihilistic campaign to pooh-pooh my bringing up the issue, and there hasn't been.
From non-Christians I was hoping for a degree of moral support or thoughtfulness - which I consider has been given - thank you everybody - and from Christians a resolve to (somehow and somewhere) increase prayers to safeguard the integrity of young people of all denominations AND none.
Essentially Christianity got all but wiped out by the First World War and the subsequent lessening of prayers, prudence, tact and all sorts of such needed things, weakened the influence of good souls I remember (including some agnostics).
There was too little balance, outside a few good souls I wasn't close to, between rigid wishy washiness and undiscerning harshness, both of which I intuitively found boring. Trendy religion is not supposed to be prudent or discerning or to promote integrity, it's supposed to be "exciting"!
This is a very "potted" version of events and I have been extremely inarticulate up to now, as I believe almost everybody has.
Thanks so much for eliciting clarification - I tried to prise it out of myself bit by bit and you have helped!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Essentially Christianity got all but wiped out by the First World War and the subsequent lessening of prayers, prudence, tact and all sorts of such needed things, weakened the influence of good souls I remember (including some agnostics).

Huh? Who determined or ever said they were good souls? (that's not in line with any Scripture, and is opposed to all Scripture)

 

[SkyWriting]

This is COMPLETELY different from informal material circulated by us amongst ourselves.

I can't imagine what this materials was.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Are any Christians going to do what Russ Parker says, "representative confession"?

??
Why would they ??

 

[Amittai]

I can't imagine what this materials was.

Sorry if that sounded "comical" - while not "hypothetically" excluding actual materials (at any level), I was mainly referring to conversational information!

My point anyway was in the distinction in authority.