new saxual ethics 7th edition (PDF)

America's Guide to Putting Sex Back Into PreMarital Sex
Leaving a Heathly, Sexually Permissive Society, Legacy, to Our Children
For: Single Adults of All Ages, Youth, Parents;
Prospective Licensed Nurses in the Alternative Partner Sex, Sexual Assistant Profession;
Prospective Licensed Female Nurses in the Sexual Assistant Profession;
Prospective "Abishag the Shunammite" (1 Kings 1) Ordained Female Judeo-Chrisitan Ministers;
Professionals in the Social Services and Medical Sciences;
Government Initiated Sex Education Program Policy Makers/Plan Administrators;
Secondary School Sex Education Teachers and Administrators;
by Eric. C. Hansen
7th Edition
copyright Dec. 2011; Jan.-Feb. 2012

INTRODUCTION
It is the desire of this author that the ideas offered in this position paper may be used
to solve or greatly reduce many of the ills effecting our American society including:
unwanted pregnancy, abortion, welfare, single parent families, divorce, unhappy
marriages, sexual disease transmission, youth mental health issues, youth violence
issues, youth school drop-out issues, unemployment, and so on.
I attempt to bust American Civil War myths, Biblical Myths, and Sexual Ethics myths
in an effort to remove the cobwebs around the minds and hearts of the reader, to open
them up to new and exciting suggestions and opportunities. I show the importance of
restoring our humanity (which religion has so often removed) in our dealings with
social issues, and in addressing our own personal needs.
Any understanding of this Nation and our American character has to be based upon
the American Civil War. Please allow me to open with some Civil War history (and
commentary and myth busting) as we work our way into the main discussions of
Sexual Ethics and Sex Education in America - and how to reform them. I will be
wrapping a Judeo-Christian perspective around each discussion. I'll also, hopefully,
make you laugh just a little bit in the process.
Two (2) new licensed nurse professions, national and neighborhood in scope, will
also be presented here for the first time anywhere, that I am aware of, although the
idea (in its infancy) first came to me from a European source.
Writer, Shelby Foote (1916-2005), famous for his commentary in the Ken Burn's film series,
The Civil War (1989), said that:
Any understanding of this nation has to be based, and I mean really based, on an understanding
of the Civil War. I believe that firmly. It defined us. The Revolution did what it did. Our
involvement in European wars, beginning with the First World War, did what it did. But the
Civil War defined us as what we are, and it opened us to being what we became, good and bad
things. And it is very necessary, if you are going to understand the American character in the
twentieth century, to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the mid-nineteenth century. It
was the Crossroads of Our Being, and it was a hell of a crossroads.

First, you might be wondering,
Hasn't the topic of Premarital Sex been exhausted enough? Hasn't the jury decision on Premarital Sex long
ago been reached, and the verdict delivered? I don't see anythng more to discuss from a Judeo-Christian
perspective? There is no Sex in Premarital Sex! It might as well be called Premarital Sex Chastity!"
Let me start by saying:
I have no college degree in theology or psychology; I'm not an ordained minister; not a sex or family
therapist; haven't had a book published on the subject; haven't taught a Sunday school class on the
matter; haven't preached this sermon to a crowd; nor have I been on TV or radio to discuss the topic.

"Then why do you believe yourself qualified to write on this controversial topic?",
you may ask.
I won't claim qualification, however, I'll let a quote from American Civil War veteran Sam Watkins address
that question in a way which I hope you'll appreciate:

SAM WATKINS
"The histories of the lost cause are all written out by 'big bugs', generals and
renowned historians". Well I have as much right as any man to write a history.
Sam Watkins, high private foot soldier in the Confederate Rebel Southern Army, 1st Tennessee Regiment, Company H.
American Civil War 1861-1865.

Of the 120 men who enlisted in Company H of the 1st Tennessee Regiment back in 1861, Watkins
was among only 7 men who survived the Civil War. 20 years after The American Civil War, Sam
Watkins went on to write his memoirs in,
Company Aytch: Or, a Side Show of the Big Show
often heralded as one of the best primary sources about the common soldier's Civil War experience.
http://www.fullbooks.com/Co-Aytch-1.html Watkins is often both pictured and quoted in detail
within Ken Burn's renowned film series, "The Civil War" (1989), which aired on Public Television and
which has since been released on both VHS and DVD. Could Watkins have even imagined this?
Like most Rebel soldiers, Watkins owned no slaves. Most were fighting for their "rats" i.e. rights,
from the tyranny of a National Government which sought to take away those freedoms (States
Rights and Individual Rights - Don't Tread On Me! the official motto). The 1860 Presidential Election
became a referendum on the Southern Way of Life.

THIS AUTHOR
So Please, think of me, this author, as a high private foot soldier in the Civil War on Premarital Sex
as one who has experienced first hand the daily struggles and realities of that battle. What side am I
on? The Rebel side for sure.
Is the Civil War on Premarital Sex a lost cause from the Rebel perspective? I don't think so.
This is one war, in my opinion, which the Rebels can win. Am I advocating violence? NO.
Am I in favor of slavery? NO.

SLAVERY & CHILD NEGLECT
I leave the issue of slavery to the proponents of Abstinence-Only and Abstinence-Stressed Sex
Education. With the advent of these 2 types of sex education norms across the country, America is
now overburdening her youth by putting the full weight of the responsibility of dealing with the
social issues of: unwanted pregnancy, abortion, single parent families, sexual disease transmission,
and welfare upon their fragile shoulders.
Like some Great Societal Hitler, America brainwashes her youth into believing that sex outside of
marriage is morally wrong and/or dangerous, and in America's doing so, attempts to solve or greatly
reduce the societal burdens just mentioned.
At the same time, America is guilty of criminal child neglect, on a grand scale, sweeping the sex lives
of her youth under the rug, neither acknowledging nor addressing those sexual needs, nor
providing her youth with the adult supervised opportunities for guilt/shame free expression of
those natural God given desires (and urges), in appropriate ways, as they continue to mature
towards young adulthood.
In fact, the inflamation, Abstinence-Only-itis, may infect our society in such a way that the virus
follows society and society's children all the way to their graves.
Once more, it is Unconstitutional in that it seeks to deprive our youth (and unmarried) of: life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at all life stages.
Radical Slavery Abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, may have stated my position this way:

Abstinence-Stressed and Abstinence-Only, Sex Education, are sin, and those
who maintain it, criminals. Although I would clarify by saying well intentioned criminals perhaps in some cases at least. I'm just issueing a wake-up call.
Religion tends to blind people, so I give some people the benefit of the doubt here.
- adapted from "Slavery is sin, and those who maintain it, criminals."

Former President Abraham Lincoln may have stated my position this way:
Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are
created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except the unmarried" When the KnowNothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except the unmarrieds, and gays, and lesbians"
When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty, where
despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.
- adapted from an Abe Lincoln letter discussing the Black man's rights.

And speaking of Religion blinding people. . .
Slavery Radical Abolitionist, John Brown, once stood up in church, raised his right hand, and swore
before God and witnesses, that he was dedicating his life from that day forward to the destruction
of Slavery. Destruction is exactly what he intended. Perhaps Brown should have taken notice of
Jesus' reaction to Saint Peter at Jesus' arrest when Peter drew his sword to cut off a slave's ear.
"Put your sword back in its place!!", Jesus shouted. Brown, with his sons, had once hacked 5 proslavery men to death with broad swords, all in the name of defeating Satan and his Legions.

SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR
IN BRINGING ON THE CIVIL WAR
During a later: anti-slavery, armed uprising/shootout, which John Brown had initiated; Brown was
captured and hanged for treason against the State of Virginia (Dec. 1859). Brown was captured by
Federal troops, led by none other than, Robert E. Lee, a Colonel at the time.
Just over a year later, Lee would be offered high command of the Union Army. Lee turned it down
and was immediately offered high command of the Confederate Army, which he accepted. This all
transpired over the course of just a couple of days.
Radical Abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, said about John Brown:
"In firing his gun, John Brown has merely told what time of day it is. it is 'High Noon'. Thank God."
In other words, bring on the war!
Ed Bearss, former Chief Historian of the National Park Service, said that,
John Brown was the single most important factor in bringing on the war.
The militia system in the South had been a joke before this. Now, it became a viable instrument, as
Southerners started to worry about Northerners agitating Blacks to murder them in their beds.
-Ed Bearss

It was the start of the Confederate Army.

Author's Ties to the Civil War
100 years after John Brown was hanged (Dec. 1859), the last Civil War veteran would die on Dec.
19, 1959, the exact same day, this author, of the position paper you are now reading, was born
(Dec. 19, 1959). His name was Walter Washington Williams. He was born in 1842 and lived to be
117 years old. His father had lived to age 119. Williams' goal in life was to reach 120, a year older
than his dad. Williams was a Texan, just like this author. His secret to his longevity, he says, was
this:
I never et much. I get up for breakfast, turn around for dinner, and go to bed for supper. When I was riding up the
Chisholm Trail the range cooks sort of held it against me because I was a light-eating man. I've always drunk lots of
coffee, chewed plenty of tobacco, and haven't tried to avoid any of this good Texas weather.
sources: http://www.franklintexas.com/waltwilliams.htm; The Civil War (1989) a Ken Burns film.

I always thought it was weird that I had dreams as a youth of being shot in the right shoulder by a
musket ball, in slow motion, during the Civil War, until I was over 50 years old and my mother
mentioned to me that my great, great, great grandfather, Eli Harnish, had been shot in his right
shoulder at the Battle of Antietem (Sharpsburg, Maryland). Antietem, was the bloodiest singleday battle in American History (23,000 casualties in one day). Perhaps painful memories do get
passed down, in our genes, from one generation to the next? I'm not talking reincarnation, don't
get me wrong. The Union had enough of a victory at Antietem to inspire Lincoln to issue his,
Emancipation Proclamation.

THE REBELS COULD HAVE WON
THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
I do believe that the Rebels could have won the American Civil War, but mistakes were made. And
if not mistakes, then things done or left undone were done on purpose (i.e. a conspiracy). Why the
Rebel Army, high command (Jefferson Davis, generals Lee and Beauregard) did not immediately,
aggressively, initiate the taking of Washington (the Capital) after routing the Union Army at Bull
Run (Manassas) is questionable. The London Times newspaper (embedded journalist, William
Russell reporting) asked the same question, and they didn't even attempt to guess why not.
Washington was 25 miles away. "Black Monday", "The Great Skedaddle", had just occurred. The
first major battle of the Civil War in the Summer of 1861. The South could have taken Washington
with 5,000 troops, Rebel general "Stone wall" Jackson was reputed to say. The Union Army had just
suffered thousands of casualties. The Union Army had just been disgracefully: whipped, beaten, and
routed by successionists. They ran panic stricken back to Washington. What was left of the
demoralized Union Army was in total disarray. General George McClellan, who would take over the
Union Army in 5 days, said he found, in Washington, officers and enlisted men all drunk, and men
absent without leave. "Perfect pandemonium". No defenses at all.
But when McClellan ("Little Mac", "Young Napolean") got through raising and training the new and
improved Union Army in the months ahead, he had transformed it from what was a "green" machine
into a formidable fighting machine. Now the Confederate Soldiers had their work cut out for them
in what would become the bloodiest war in American History (600,000+ lives lost in all; 50,000+ at
Gettysburg alone; and in 1864, at Cold Harbor, 7,000 men died in just 20 minutes. From 1861 to
1865, Americans killed each other wholesale, without restraint, in their own corn fields and peach
orchards, along familiar roads, and by waters with old American names.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE
THE WAR,
GET OUT OF THE TRENCHES?
In other words, the argument goes, in the case of Premarital Sex, stop complaining about not getting
to have sex outside of marriage, because that's just part of the territory when you are unmarried;
and besides, it's saving your life (i.e. keeping you from sexual disease, keeping you from sin that
leads to being thrown into hell).
Sort of like, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen", where cooking heat is just part of
the territory, and if you can't take it, guess what? you get to starve.
If you don't like the war from the safety of the trenches, let's just see how much you like it better
from outside the safety of the trenches, you ingrate! Perhaps you'll change your mind once on the
outside (within the hail of bullets) and want back in fast?

But it's easy for politicians (and the naive) to direct and/or glorify war from the safety of their
comfort stations. Just like it is easy for the married and naive to direct (push) and glorify sexual
chastity for the unmarried.
Rebel foot soldier, high private, Sam Watkins, wrote in his memoirs the following account at Bull
Run/Manassas (1861):
But the Yankees are advancing on Manassas. July 21st finds us a hundred
miles from that fierce day's battle. That night, after the battle is
fought and won, our train draws up at Manassas Junction.
Well, what news? Everyone was wild, nay, frenzied with the excitement
of victory, and we felt very much like the "boy the calf had run over."
We felt that the war was over, and we would have to return home without
even seeing a Yankee soldier. Ah, how we envied those that were wounded.
We thought at that time that we would have given a thousand dollars to
have been in the battle, and to have had our arm shot off, so we could
have returned home with an empty sleeve. But the battle was over,
and we left out.

21 year old, Sam Watkins, and his Company H (1st Tennessee), had yet to experience the true
horrors of war for themselves.
William Blackford of the 1st Virginia Cavalry: Tables about breast high had been erected upon
which screaming victims were having legs and arms cut off…the surgeons and their assistants,
stripped to the waist and bespattered with blood, stood around, some holding the poor fellows while
others, armed with long, bloody knives and saws, cut and sawed away with frightful rapidity, throwing the mangled limbs on
a pile nearby as soon as removed…

Many of us have experienced for ourselves the true horrors of living a sexless (or near sexless) single
life. While others, who preach against sex for singles, perhaps have never experienced those
horrors for themselves, or not for any real length of time. Not everyone is lucky enough to marry
young. Not everyone is lucky enough to have had a romantic partner by their side while growing up.
Not everyone divorced or widowed is lucky enough to find someone (or find someone soon) to
replace a former spouse. That each of us look to the needs of the widow, is high priority, according
to Jesus. Yet religion (and its spokespersons) are harming the widows and widowers by holding
them in bondage to the same dogmas wrongly imposed upon our youth and adult singles, the
dogmas of premarital/postmarital? chastity. Abstinence-Only Sex Education may likely follow
society and society's children to their graves.
[Discussion: Perhaps that is the plan of government to reduce the population explosion? ]

As Union Calvary, general John Buford, was reputed to have said (i.e. something like this) about
politicians who aren't in the battle themselves, but love to send other men into battle - to their
destruction:
"(Union General) Meade will come in slowly, cautiously. New to command. They'll be on his back in Washington.
Wire hot with messages 'Attack! Attack!'. We will charge valiantly... and be butchered valiantly! And
afterwards men in tall hats and gold watch fobs will thump their chest and say what a
brave charge it was."

WAS ROBERT E. LEE, a TRAITOR?
Was Lee a traitor to the Confederate Nation? Perhaps. Confederate General Pickett, after losing
his entire Division at Gettysburg, later said about General Robert E. Lee, "That 'old man' had my
Division massacred". Further, why did General Robert E. Lee, not listen to General Longstreet's,
and other general's, advice at Gettysburg and take the high ground there at Big and Little Round
Tops? After this was not done, why didn't Lee take Longstreet's solid advice to redeploy the Rebel
Army to a different location, on a ground of their own choosing, where they had the advantage
again? Lee took that advice as a sign of retreat, and Lee never retreated. Lee wanted Gettysburg to
be the FINAL BATTLE. Lee was against the dissolution of the Union, and Slavery, but chose to lead
the Rebel Army because he felt his loyalties lay with his home state of Virginia. Lee was willing to
sacrifice everything "but honor" to keep the Union intact, he said.

WAS LEE, "GONE IN THE HEAD"?
Union general George McClellan once said that Union general William T. Sherman was "gone in the
head". Sherman was judged insane and temporarily relieved of command. Both sides thought the
war would would be a 90 days war.
One politician went so far as to say that he would be able to mop up all the blood that would be
spilled during the war with his hankerchief. Sherman had said, "You might as well try to put out the
flames of a burning house with a squirt gun. I think this is to be a very long war, much longer than
any politician thinks." Sherman, where were you when we needed you in February of 2003?
McClellan was obviously mistaken. Sherman's grandiose predictions regarding necessary troop
strength, length of conflict, the enormous cost of lives and treasure, actually proved to be low, not
insanely high. Yet, because Sherman was judged to be insane (Sam Houston too for the same reasons as
Sherman), Sherman contemplated suicide. Sherman was lated reinstated to the Union Army and
played a key role in the Union victory.
But was Robert E. Lee "gone in the head"? Did he perhaps think he was Jesus Christ? Rebel foot
soldier, and high private, Sam Watkins, wrote in his memoirs that he once grabbed the reins of Lee's
horse, which was loose. Upon taking the horse back to Lee, Lee said to Watkins, "Thank you my

son". Watkins wrote also that he wanted to go up to Lee, about that same time, and say, "Hi
Uncle Bob!", and wasn't sure later if he hadn't done just that. Watkins wrote that General Lee
had no sword or gun on him, and no rank insignia.
On second thought, Lee surely couldn't have thought himself Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ never said
to any man, "Thank you", never said, "Please". At least, these were not recorded in the Bible that I
can remember? It may be a cold hard fact that to maintain any semblance of authority, one must

rid themselves of all politeness? Can you imagine a drill sergeant asking his recruit to,
"Drop and give me 50. Please.", then, "Thank you", when completed?
In fact, Jesus told us that we should not expect a "Thank you" when we are only doing our duty.
Perhaps a "Thank you" is deserving only when someone goes above and beyond the call of duty?
Retrieving a calm, loose horse, i.e. "Traveler", in the general vicinity of it's owner, i.e. Lee, is hardly
above the call of duty. Perhaps Lee should have said to high private, Sam Watkins, something more
like, "Good work soldier, now get your ass back over to the camp fire! NOW!! Move it, move it."
"Sir, yes Sir!" would likely have been the reply, not "Hi Uncle Bob!"
Acording to descriptions by Sam Watkins in his memoirs, there was a stricking contrast between
Rebel generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stone wall" Jackson. Jackson, Watkins wrote, was
such a harsh disciplinarian, that he would have one of his own men shot at the drop of a hat, and
Jackson would drop the hat himself.

CONSPIRACY THEORY

Was Lee's stripping himself of weapons and rank insignia, and his politeness, subtle, subconscious
(or conscious) ways of compensating for his own sense of guilt, perhaps disowning his own actions
(i.e. helpless victim syndrome)?
Did Lee later decide that he really wanted to be on the Union side after all?
Or was Lee secretly on the Union side from the start, but now feeling guilty for his treasonous
(UNFAITHFUL) behavior against the South?
At Gettysburg, Lee had Rebel general George Pickett's Division massacred.
Pickett: "That 'old man'" (i.e. Uncle Bob!) " had my Division massacred."
Was Robert E. Lee purposely crushing his own Army, sending them to "hell"?

"See you in hell, Billy Yank." [salutes]
"See you in hell, Johnny Reb." [salutes back]
We all salute you.

Lee actually did attempt to resign after Gettysburg, but Confederate President Jefferson Davis
would not hear of it.
[ Discussion: Why might Jeff Davis not have considered Lee's resignation after Gettysburg?
Did Davis feel the War was almost over with by then, so why worry about changing the commanding General? i.e. it wouldn't
make a difference anymore? ]
[ Further Discussion: Was Davis happy about how Lee had caused the destruction of their own Rebel Army at Gettysburg? Was
this meeting between Davis and Lee to discuss Lee's resignation just a ploy (i.e. a deceptive tactic) to give others in the
Confederacy the impression (or appearance) of good intentions? Did Davis and Lee have the destruction of the Confederacy in
mind (as their plan) from the beginning? Did Davis and Lee work for the Union? Remember, Lee was against slavery and the
dissolution of the Union, and Jeff Davis had reviewed plans (as U.S. Senator) just prior to the war, to complete the Capital Dome
construction. Abe Lincoln took the continued construction of the Capital Dome during the war as a sign that the Union would
also continue. ]

Was former U.S. Senator Jefferson Davis a traitor to the South? When Davis learned that he had
been elected President of the Confederacy, his wife remembered that, you would have thought, by
his reaction, that some great evil had befallen the family.
And there is the issue of Jefferson Davis (a former Secretary of War, and West Point graduate) and
Confederate general Beauregard, competing against each other both for the office of President of
the Confederacy, and competing against each other for the glory at Manassas (Bull Run). Perhaps
that competition for the glory played a part in why Washington was not aggressively taken after
the Battle? Perhaps neither Beauregard nor Davis would yield the glory to each other, so the
compromise perhaps became, no glory for either of them? This seems childish for two grown
men. But the reality is that it may have played a part, at least to some degree, if not to a large
degree.
[ Discussion: What if your own church were pro abstinence-only-sex-education and you were pro comprehensivesex-education valuing a person's freedom of choice? And let's say your church asks you to lead a citywide ralley of
support for abstinence-only-sex-education. If you accepted, your loyalities would be split between church and your
own values. if you were to lead that long drawn out ralley, could that potentially drive you crazy? or trouble you so
deeply that you might appear "gone in the head"?, perhaps wandering around in a daze i.e. with your head in the
clouds? Pehaps even cause you to consider suicide? Would you be seen as a traitor to your church if you secretly
sabotaged that ralley? How do you feel about general Robert E. Lee's predicament? ]

Where Are Your Loyalties?
To your Church or Denomination? To your Parents?
To your Grandparents? To your Family? To your Nation?
To your State? To your School District? To Society?
To Your Style of Upbringing? To Yourself? To your Children?
Are you willing to sacrifice, your own, or your child's, sexual well being in order to
please others? Did you want the advents of
Abstinence-Only-Sex-Education
Abstinence-Stressed-Sex-Education
in our Society to be the FINAL BATTLE in the War on Premarital Sex? Have you
sounded the retreat? Are you willing to redeploy and face the enemy on a ground of
your own choosing?