Professor Abramson has written a book arguing in favor of student and professor relationships. Abramson's argument flawed, developed in a mindset that does not understand human nature and sin, and is simply morally wrong.
Dankprofessor has attacked my post in several ways. So, let's go over my basic argument. First, Abramson's argument is flawed whenever he argues that the relationship between a professor and student should be allowed along as it is consensual and does not affect grades or each party's performance in the classroom. This is where we meet our first problem. Such a scenario is impossible. How can a student having sex with the professor not affect their grade? If I were a professor and one of my students were my wife, I would definitely give her good grades because she cooks me meals, shares the same bed with me, and will bear my children. I will obviously show her favoritism.
Abramson lives in a delusional world were such a scenario can happen. Here is the second problem with his argument: he does not understand human nature. A big difference between liberals and conservatives isn't politics or policy, but rather human nature at it's core; is it evil or good. Liberals proclaim that we are, at our root, good. Therefore, whenever men sets itself on a course, only good will result.
This is one of the results of evolution. Evolution implies that things will only continue to get better. Survival of the fittest implies this. We will continue to evolve, they claim, in order to meet the needs of our day and to make things better for us. The main problem with this argument is that it hasn't happened. Where is the evidence of things getting better? It seems that as man progress, crime, war, death, disease, etc. only get worse. The industrial revolution and the birth of modernism and the enlightenment were confident that man's future looked brighter (especially in hopes of exterminating religion, but that's another issue). But in fact, things have only gotten worse. The wars in the 20th Century killed more people than every war in human history combined. For every disease we cure, hundreds more are added. Things are not getting better, they are only getting worse.
Therefore, we have the conservative answer to the question of human nature: mankind, at it's root, is evil. When was the last time you saw someone teaching a child how to be selfish? Never! Why? Because children are born with a "selfish gene." We are born with a desire to be selfish. Therefore, through years of training and disciplining, the child grows up to be a responsible adult. It doesn't happen by luck or by chance. It is a long process that takes a lot of work. Why? Because human nature, at it's root, desires rebellion over obedience.
With that said, let's look at the argument of Professor Abramson. He argues that it is possible for a professor and a student can have a relationship and everything will be all honky dory. But it won't be. The professor will show favoritism on tests, papers, quizes, etc. and the student will take advantage of that. It is virtually impossible for such a scenario that Abramson puts forth to happen. Our selfish, rebellious human nature won't allow it.
And here lies where Dankprofessor and I differ. He sees my common sense view on human nature "extreme." Because I argue in favor of traditional morality, common sense, and (oh my gosh) Biblical standards, I am apparently too extreme for our society. I wonder if Dankprofessor ever sees his own views extreme. Probably not, which is typical of closed-minded leftist. They can preach about Conservative Christians like myself being intolerant and closed-minded without even seeing their own bigotry. I would argue that professors like Abramson and Dankprofessor are themselves extreme. But something tells me that I won't get the fanfare that the left gets.
I guess I should now apologize for defending traditional values and common sense. I am sorry for exposing the truth and the motives behind such arguments and actions. I am sorry for taking a stand against lunacy when I see it. And I am sorry that Dankprofessor was unable to see the truth for what it is.
I further argued that Abramson's argument is just another example of how man will do everything he can to rationalize sin. Thus why I called my blog, "Rationalizing the Irrational." Whenever human depravity (a dirty word apparently for Dankprofrossor) is topped with postmodernism, what you get is a morality of "make it up as you go." And this is exactly what we have here. Postmodernism allows man to rationalize any sin (yet another dirty word) he wants to. We try to make ourselves innocent by blaming others ("it's not my fault I'm fat, it's McDonalds fault), explaining things away ("well, it was a big deal then, but now society has accepted it, and it's normal now), denying the very existence of truth ("well, that's your opinion. Just don't expect me to believe it too."), etc.
Many of Abramson and Dankprofessor's own arguments prove this point. It doesn't matter if what they argue makes no sense, the important thing is to just love one another and make sure it's consensual. I'm all for love and being consensual, but I am also in favor of marriage and commitment. Chances are the student will likely split once they get that passing grade. so much for consensual sex!
I find it amazing that even the idea of saving sex until marriage is now "out of date." Without chasing this rabbit, let me just say that it further proves my point that postmodernism with human depravity can so rationalize sin that even what was traditionally held in this country for century is now looked at as being too old school for the modern world. Let me ask you, what is the purpose of marriage whenever every benefit of marriage is already present before a couple gets married? And I'm not only talking about sex.
Anyways, I want to also debunk one of Dankprofessor's misinterpretation of my words. He writes:
So when the pastor thinks of student professor relationships he thinks of child adult sex. The professor becomes the child molester because the student cannot be an adult. I believe that this is the default assumption held by many persons going way beyond Christian evangelicals. It goes back to our childhood when the teacher is always the adult and the student is always the child. Many persons just can’t get beyond this framework. No matter that the student is 25 or 35 or 55; the student is always a child and always a victim. The idea of student and professor studying and learning together as two adults and loving each other as two adults and as marrying each other as two adults and parenting as two adults just goes beyond the mental capacity of those holding this hardcore default assumption.
For one, I never said such a think, and two, he only proves everything I have just said. First, let's deal with the whole child-sex thing. I never said that, and he is simply misinterpreting my own words. Apparently, he thought he saw something that was between the lines that wasn't there. I am not that dumb to think that most college students are under 18. I am a college graduate and am currently working on my masters, I know what a college student looks like, and how many varying ages there are. I never said that the professor was a child molester, and the further comments that he makes on this false assumption are ludicrous at best.
Secondly, the argument that Dankprofessor lays out here proves my previous points. Notice the Utopian worldview. It seems just normal to him, apparently, that a college student can walk into class, fall in love with the professor, and they go off and get married and have "consensual" sex, and none of that would affect the professors professional opinion of the student. Somehow he can make the assumption that the two can be both sexual partners and then be unbias in grades and favoritism in the classroom. Such a world doesn't exist!
Finally, what my argument against Dr. Abramson's book have to do with homosexuality, I have no idea. Dankprofessor writes:
Note the similarity in rhetoric of the Pastor to the rhetoric of the extreme anti-homosexuality of the 1970s. One of the leading 1970s homophobes was psychoanalyst Abram Kardiner. In 1971 in an open letter to the editor of the American Journal of Psychotherapy he stated:
“Homosexuality cannot make a society, or keep ours going very long. Homosexuality operates against the cohesive elements in society in the name of a fictitous freedom…And no society can long endure when either the child is neglected or the sexes war upon each other.”
Essentially Pastor McDanell and those of the anti-homosexual genre of Abram Kardiner see themselves standing at the abyss both fighting The sexual outsider united in a stand that they believe will save our children.
Apparently it is also extreme to oppose homosexuality. Apparently what is "mainstream" to him, and how the typical liberal like himself would define freedom, is liberation from all shackles of morality. That is, except for the morality that he defends, like opposing extremist like me. That is the moral thing to do apparently.
Again, how he goes from me being against student-professor relationships to anti-homosexuals is unclear to me. Perhaps he could clarify for me. But I hope that it is obvious how right I was in my original posts concerning Professor Abramson and how Dankprofessor has only proven me right. I stand by my first post, and I welcome others to a friendly debate.
As Dinesh D'Souza argues in his book, "What's So Great About Christianity," one of the sacraments of secular left (like Dankprofessor) is the orgasm, and apparently, he is feeling threatened by extremist like me. And I am happy to oblige!