Again. These exercises are dangerous, they hurt people, they can corrupt morals, and furthermore it is extremely difficult if not impossible to find proper instruction in them in the West.
Too many issues here.
These exercises are dangerous
These practices are not inherently dangerous. They are what they are. Just as 400lbs of weights are what they are.
If you know what they are doing, they are fine. If you practice an incomplete or incorrect method, THAT is where the danger comes from.
they hurt people
Incorrect practice methodologies hurt people. It may be that a teacher just never learned the proper methodologies. Or maybe the teacher did learn the proper methodology, but did not learn how to properly adjust the technique for a student. Neither are the faults of the technique.
they can corrupt morals
A large portion of mainstream thought thinks most of the stuff discussed on this board is immoral. I don't think it's wise for us to be using the same argument that is used against us.
What do you mean by moral? Is having group sex immoral? Is having group sex for spiritual purposes immoral? Is hooking up with a 16 year old Taoist qigong student immoral? Is hooking up with a 16 year old outside of the context of Taoism immoral? What about 17? 18? What if I'm 17? 25? 35?
There are charlatans and con-men (and con-women) everywhere. Sylvia Browne has been caught on video spouting bullshit which is proven to be false, but people still listen to her "psychic" readings. Does that mean that legitimate practices of scanning or clairvoyance (taught on this board!) are dangerous or lead to the corrupting of morals? Absolutely not.
furthermore it is extremely difficult if not impossible to find proper instruction in them in the West
Which has nothing to do with the practice.
Frankly I'm surprised that you strung together that series of statements as reasons.
I never said sexual energy isn't important. Sublimating and turning the sexual energy inward to nourish the organs and induce Qi flow in the spine is possible without these techniques. I achieved this on my own at the age of 17 through Kundalini yoga. I didn't need any sort of tantra or sexual practices to do it, and I still don't. All I needed was Yi and a mantra. If I can do it, I believe anyone else who is so inclined can. And because of the dangers of the sexual techniques I am going to stick to what I said, that they are particularly dangerous, and ultimately unnecessary.
It's possible to sublimate sexual energy without engaging it. It's also possible to sublimate sexual energy while engaging in it. That you can do one does not make the other unnecessary.
I can achieve orgasm with my right hand. Does that make sex unnecessary?
Exactly, the sex practices aren't taught here because they are taboo.
Which says more about society than the practice themselves.
Again, you can have powerful transformative experiences without them.
I'm not saying you can't.
My point is that there's more than one way to skin a cat. One way is not better or worse.
As far as teaching an "incomplete practice", I'm unsure as to whether to interpret this as a low blow against me (again), or if you're just saying it literally.
When did I give the first low blow?
The specific case I had in mind was Mantak Chia's practice. A good number of the original members of The Tao Bums were from the Healing Tao forums, and one member in particular talked about having to go in for an acupuncture adjustment after doing sexual qigong found in Mantak Chia's books. Sufficed to say, the dude's body was pretty messed up.
Through much debate and back and forth, it was pretty much acknowledged that while Chia's techniques may have been legitimate (similar techniques appear in other traditions) they were not taught within the greater context of mental stilling methods (to ensure the mind is not thrown out of balance by the increase in energy) or in energetic circulation methods (to prevent the stagnation or chi) nor diagnostic methods (so students or teachers could detect problems before they occurred).
Hence, their practice was "incomplete."
That does not mean that methods that engage in sexual energy are inherently dangerous. But practicing them in the incorrect context is.
Like much of Taoism, timing is important. The right action taken at the wrong time can be the wrong action.
Someone can be taught to throw a proper straight cross punch with minimal effort. They can use this effectively in self defense if they have to. However, you're basically saying that if someone didn't learn every boxing punch, train 3 hours a day in a gym, jump rope, run, lift weights, take supplements, that they could not punch. This is a logical fallacy. Sure, they wouldn't be able to beat up a pro boxer, but they could still learn to hit someone hard with one particular punch.
I used the power lifting analogy for a very specific reason. Powerlifting, like working with sexual energy, is inherently "higher grade."
If someone decided to do pushups, but were doing them kind of wrong, didn't have perfect form, you know, they might get some soreness, but overall, they might not get a whole lot of development with the practice. They may even get some muscle gain, and that could lead them to bettering their form in the long run.
Same with most regular sets of qigong. Even if they don't do it perfectly right, in the worst case scenario they won't get terribly hurt, and in the best case scenario, they might seem some benefit.
But powerlifting and sexual qigong are working with dramatically higher volumes. Poor form in power lifting can get you (and others) very hurt very quickly. Working with more intense forms of energy provides the same risks.
I'm speaking of sexual qigong specifically, but you can also extend this to physical yoga (exerting yourself beyond the range of motion your body can handle) as well as energetic yoga (people getting burnt out from a kundalini awakening).
I hate to use such a tired old phrase as "playing with fire," but it kind of is. Fire helped humanity rise to where we are today. But if you don't know how to handle it, you are going to get hurt.
Is fire inherently dangerous? Would I dissuade people from using fire? No. You could start eating raw foods and make the argument that fire is "unnecessary" to being healthy, and houses burn down all the time from kitchen fires.
Or you could just teach people how to properly cook using fire.