This site is under construction! It´s a google translation. This means if something seems very strange, it may be a wrong translation. So ask the author and webmaster. See Kontakt.

Michael Preuschoff - German Diploma theologian - religious teacher retired

The Third Way!

One way is that of religions: Here is everything what has to do with sexuality and does not take place in a marriage prohibited. Even not allowed is to talk to about it, especially not with children.

The other way is the one which many schools in Germany  (and sometimes in Austria also) go today: not only to talk about everything that has to do with sexuality, but direct guidance, how even very young people can have sexual games up to sex without fear of sexual diseases and pregnancies - up to promiscuity. Often this way even goes towards pornography.

What is missing is the middle way, the Third Way! To this route, which combines the advantages of both paths to each other and their disadvantages are avoided: There is the opportunity to talk about everything, to seek the high love and until it happens to have to fun with innocent nakedness up to harmonious skin contact and at the same time learning good people skills. It is always said, this way wouldn´t be possible, but he goes! But the condition is that young people know about it. He is also the one of the historical Jesus, this means the real Jesus, which he most likely wanted.

For this purpose, an experience of educational practice of the author:

A (female) student's mother had once asked him many years ago at a Parent-Teacher-Day, what was the purpose of his religious education. He then, only once rather flippant therefore said: "The girls are all but somehow schizophrenic." She: "???" He: "Because of the harmless and fun, which could help them in a usable knowledge of human nature, namely before `naked at the beach' they are terrified. But what is problematic, namely sex with too often doubtful partners, which sometimes even will bring them a lifetime trauma, they want and make it". "And," said the mother," what do you do now?" He: "That the girls make the respective other." The mother: "If you will manage this, then you´ll be good!"

If this was not a challenge for a very special educational commitment! And it was a mother who had a real authentic sorrow about her daughter. The problem is the transfer into practice: Because such an idea has only a chance if it gives pleasure to all who are connected. But there is a pseudomoral witchhuntingmentality from which a combination of morality and pleasure cannot be imaginable. Morality and pleasure never will be possible! There a very evil devilry will always be suspected. Look into the website how the author will solve the task!

To The Happiness Of The High Love
Working towards a beautiful success

This booklet is intended for young people without "experiences" and for parents and grandparents and other educators and even for curious contemporaries.

The thesis of this issue is that especially the young man is a highly moral being and wants to do everything right, even and especially in the sexual.

But he learns in our more or less decadent civilizations, the moral potential inherent by nature in him, to invest in shame, so in a hypocrisy place in a truly meaningful morality.

And so young people generally act then sometime anything but useful and of high moral standing.

Just ask once young people in puberty (and earlier): From my experience as a teacher as girls have an almost panic fear that someone might see her nipples and even before the complete nudity. But they seem to have no problems to plan "love" and when the opportunity then "make" also with any boy or man - and if one is "nothing", then just the next.

The Chinese wisdom teacher Confucius said that there are three ways to be smart. The first is by reflection, which is the most elegant, the second is through imitation is, this is the easiest, and the third by experience, which is the bitterest.

In this issue, you now want that young people do by thinking beforehand what makes sense and what is useless for them in terms of a high love and a good partnership and do Straightforward and make the problematical.

It is also quite an intelligent abstinence before marriage, which simultaneously brings not only a good self-esteem, but also a useful human knowledge. Such an abstinence belongs now once and for great success of relationships.

The concept of this issue is inspired by the principle of good advertising, which should also be the principle of good pedagogy: "Never negative, only positive" parents should no longer educate  their daughters against the wicked man's world (which always only wants to have sex), but better to bring their daughters concretely how beautiful can be the harmony between man and woman. When searching for a partner, the daughters are especially geared to the relationship with her father. What they have just experienced in beautiful innocence with him, the same they will want to experience once with a partner!

How did it came to this Issue:

A student (girl, 18) had the author's website found on the Internet and was intrigued by the idea that there is a concept by which the ideal of "No sex before marriage" be fun and can give self confidence. So it came to practice evidence for a common vacation trip that also took place in the form of a harmonious father-daughter relationship.
But the mother was in returning to angriest to hateful, "We (that she and her husband) are compared against nudism and sex before marriage"
Out of sheer politeness there was no continuing the conversation, which would have run if the mother would be honest as follows. It is only recorded because the mother's daughter successfully incited against the author and in which therefore finally came to the same disappointing experiences as earlier in the mother. About hhe experiences of the mother the student got information after it had "happened" also with her.

Here is the fictional conversation. Author: "Then you had so even before your marriage no sex with a man other than your husband?" Mother: "Yes, I had, unfortunately." Author: "And were you even ever been to a nudist place?" Mother: "no. "Author:" How do you tell your daughter so then such rubbish as if there would be a relationship "?

Break up this nonsense, thus a high sexual morality among young people is fun and gives them self-confidence, and therefore they may like to be held, is the concern of the author.

What now have the Navi and a swimsuit in common?

It's simple: Both things make stupid, at least in the long run! Because we rely on our orientation, once on the road and the other time in human nature, these artificial aids. And we forget how to orient ourselves of other identifiers, which are very often more revealing and much safer to lead us to our destination. We lose natural instincts of orientation. Finally, we feel not only unsafe, but even we get anxiety when such Krükken are no longer there, we are directly dependent and even addicted to any support for our backbone. Or different: the shame morality rusts so to speak, our instinct for a natural morality one - so we squander our most cases, at least initially in the choice of our love partner, and all too often the moral high love and relationship becomes less likely that people would be possible for us to actually ,

In this Issue, the author not only everything to the test, what a young person experiences in his education so that he is the way he is. In particular, the HEFT offers a concept of how it would all slightly different.

Anyway, the author tries to omit nothing - except when it comes to religion. The role of religion is studied in an even thinner notebook.
A thick book is not necessary because everything really is very obvious.

Instead of a preface A LETTER

Dear girl, dear boy, dear parents, dear curious!

When I think about the statements of young girl of my acquaintance, that her first love was a pure disaster - despite the fact that the but actually would want to be beautiful, then going on here but something wrong. It is sometimes been so terrible, I was told several times that she had run away her boyfriend. However, with some also the friend had run away after he got what he wanted. It was obvious it was only gone about having sex with a virgin.

My impression is that just something goes wrong in regard to the first love of girls is confirmed by surveys: For 24% of all women, the loss of virginity to the wrong partner was annoying, to put it mildly. When asked by other women, I learned also that really happy to start on its earlier decision, with love, was hardly one of them. So there is unreported. But most say anything about it so as not to embarrass. They were also of the opinion that a bad experience at the beginning would be now again, as needed by simply woman.

Although the 24% is a very high number with a very high number of unreported now and although such disappointments in youth, women often pursue life-long and largely shape their image of men, no one really cares objectively to the problem of how women could make it any better. A student once lamented that no one sees responsible for this problem. "Man" leaves here still everything to chance. Or is it not desirable that young girls from the outset have a better perspective and decide meaningful? This indifference also relates to the religions. They proclaim possibly disabled moralinsaure "recipes" and not work when you need it. It all looks then as if for the religions is important, "behind" the forgiveness of God to convey.

So I felt addressed and looked for the causes and especially for a meaningful concept that is running in a different way. I could not imagine that nature has people so wrong and created so blind that, especially in matters of love must meet only once wrong decisions girl just me. These false decisions must simply be that we somehow violent act against our nature, so that we all collectively make something wrong. Since you have something better to do!

Unfortunately, my time had not been sufficient as a vocational school religion teacher, so it goes then on!

December 2014

Michael Preuschoff

Unfortunately, the first sex, often confused with love begins, all too often a traumatic experience.

In the TV movie Uwe Tellkamp novel "The Tower", a scene is shown in which the young protagonist that is because of his dissident behavior in a penal company, visit a classmate gets that will show him with their visit their sympathy, and indeed the is perhaps even love with him. He likes it simply because of its bold appearance, and they would like to encourage him in it. On a walk, the two come closer now - and finally it comes out in the fresh nature of spontaneous sexual intercourse, as it looks for both of the first one. Both are then dismayed - happened over! And obviously they do not come together well, everyone is certainly alone again or now.

This incident is certainly not far-fetched, unfortunately, is something in this direction too often reality - you just need to listen more closely once! A student once told me about her "first experience" - she had even specifically requested - that it was just awful and that she ran away after her boyfriend and never wanted anything to do with him again. Another just wanted away from home and looking for a friend to whom she could draw. Again, the sex was so disappointing that they finally have always found excuses why it just did not fit her, sometimes it was their "days", sometimes their headaches, sometimes their work stress. A student found my website on the internet, because they once after something useful about "first sex" was looking for. For two of her friends had sex, and for which it was so terrible that she ran away to the boy, and in the other it was probably gone the boy all about the adventure to deflower a girl, he ran away after the girl. About the sort she had never really heard anything Sachliches, not even in their sex education.

I could tell here are other such stories I've noticed and I go all very close, especially since there are always these were very nice and pretty and very intelligent girl - as far as I could tell.

Of course I did - if this was possible - asked how they came to such actions, why could they be so blind and denkblockiert before. And I got to hear all sorts of reasons that fit somehow no common denominator. One was so much in love that she said that it was the great and eternal love, the other was not in love and wanted to get away from home just simple. One wanted to abide by the so-called proof of love her boyfriend, another her virginity simply give way. And again, another wanted to be free and self-determined, another simply did not feel as full-fledged young woman because all her companions had their first intercourse allegedly already behind and not the only one yet. Yet another had started it, so as not to be considered as bound bigot. Also I heard as a reason that the "first time" actually was a disaster over and that it would therefore be better to start "start" with a country other than their own man, so that life with him then unloaded from such a terrible experience is. A variant of this was that when a girl the parents' marriage was just crappy, and would in his opinion it because their parents had not tried it before with each other (the mother had always maintained that there was nothing). When it was happening with the girl, to put it another go as the mother, and that was not running well, it was found that the mother had lied, they did have a disappointing intimate relationship with another man before marriage - so therefore their opposed to the body. The reason for this sex was actually about the same as that of so many other girls: to have the beginning at least once with a man bred Sex - before a life of boredom. I can only say: The poor man later with a setting! I would be a pity to me, at least for a woman with such an attitude. More understandable, I think at least, here was the reason a now old lady who had experienced the war as a young girl: She just wanted to have the first sex with a man of her choice before they would raped by a Russian thing quite time could happen.

For all women who told me about her first experience, loyalty was actually a great value. Your first experience with another man she justified then also so that they would finally know in advance who the right thing, they could be true. That, however, such a tasting experience already raises doubts as to their own ability to be faithful, they were not aware of. Also slipping on bitch is so fluent. How can such a woman then expect loyalty and sincerity of a man at all? Maybe the women falls with the faithful also only in order to put a man under moral pressure? Happy or even radiantly happy was certainly none of the women who told me about their experiences.

Anyway, I was not able to find reasons to convince my students that they are better kept to the rules of premarital abstinence, so they came to beautiful love that also represents our Christian religion, or should represent at least.

So I was looking for a different approach. Eventually came to me now memories - at what was then the little girl wanted (see p. 53).

Yes, and there was also the opportunity to talk to a girl or even with a young woman who did so sorry for what had happened and what they had quite explicitly wanted nor themselves. And it was also obviously willing to talk to me about it.

I see a course that quite a huge urge to have sex is possible against one or woman after all can not do anything. In my questions therefore was not even a matter of principle, all "no" to say about sexuality, but whether because the urge is related to the intrusion. Whether that was it her aim to experience the intrusion? Had there been no alternative for them? The young woman's answer was that in view of the penetration actually absolutely no urge was there (and when I talked to other women about it, I heard the same thing), clearly a harmonious naked extensive skin contact would have done even more and fully , But that had never told her someone. Thus, it did not even come up with the idea to talk with then-boyfriend about it, although it was possible but that they would much rather wanted basically.

Naturally we have chatted more, I came mainly to the enjoyment of their body while then click the nudity and the fun of the nudity as on a beautiful beach or anywhere else in nature. No, not only with the skin contact her no one would have said, and just the nudity had been always held up just as bad and as something impossible and against privacy. Nudity serve but only the Aufgeilerei of tensioners or Glotzern and is a danger to their morality that would have taught her so her mother. Oh how horrible and sinful this is! They had been made downright crazy, as if there were such an automatism that the men turn into unpredictable Sexmonster if they only see her tits and pussy. Then there was none that would have made even true that pussy as much or as little to do with sex was like the mouth with the smooch. And that the shame of all means uptight and has nothing to do with genuine morality. It would have been easy stupid, this moral nonsense to believe so much that they would eventually even internalized it as perverse and disgusting. Therefore, also came a veritable horror about to nudity - and so they would ängstlichst attention in the wrong direction.

My commentary was that the paradise clothes very often but simply convenient, practical and logical would be and that there but nothing happens when you only make sense hires. For both Viewed Become than the reputation of another do but hurt no one.

Sorrowfully they agreed. But here obviously had formed in her head a hypocrisy with a fake, a physical enemy morale and fixed model. Of course, such a hypocrisy exists finally else in our minds. Is this the reason for a lack of naturalness in dealing with sexuality, so for perceived as a nuisance awkwardness of that hope then consciously-subconsciously to overcome the young ladies with intercourse?

If I, however, think of a woman, an absolutely respectable family mother telling me - to my question - had their joy of paradise clothes on a beautiful beach with "which has something to do with the human and the natural" reasons, then that would mean that yes, that all those who always have their problems with the nudity, have simply not fun at human and the natural.

So wrong, a physical enemy-morale model? When he openeth not here an approach to change anything! So how about a overcome the hypocrisy of opposed to the body?

It now is not about that we should constantly walking around in Paradise clothes, we run yes even now not constantly in bikini and swimwear around. But once you're wondering just girls on this topic. You will wonder how obviously wrong with the awkwardness of. Of objectivity and natural relationship to the body is certainly no trace, as the paradise for clothes is probably most girls actually only "disgusting and perverse and even a mach'-The-I-never" - sound does not sound whose setting anyway. In contrast, the really problematic, namely the non-binding sex as something normal and natural is seen that even now may well be, indeed must be "on trial" (as you call today or else). Finally, the adults also assist yes this view, either expressly or by advocating this because they find no conclusive arguments against it. And so have the same girls who are so vehemently opposed to the paradise clothes, then obviously no problem with those really "problematic things" to begin the often really hurt, both physically and mentally.

It is certainly understandable and quite reasonable when young people at some point want to explore sexuality with a partner and try and do something, after all, no one wants to be many years or even "forever" with this partner. But the question arises as to whether this is due to the sexual intercourse calculated. Because of this traffic is perhaps not as good as "tasting measure". The "penetration" may well be a more aggressive and offensive act against the woman or the girl and a border crossing that is not irreversible and then always hangs something unpleasant. And such a delicate and ambiguous (ie doppelwertige) thing is actually supposed only take place if the relationship is really clear, ie when emerging a balanced mutual give and take.

Of course, not enough positive attitudes towards paradise clothing, as more part of it! Just leave out something that does not work.

In the search for other contexts I still came across something: the young ladies with whom I spoke, though always thought all to know about the sexuality, but they knew just not that what is most important to them than girls when it the sexuality goes: you simply had no idea of meaning, function, and above all of the spiritual dimension of orgasm.

The problem here, however, that we have lost our ability civilizations, especially to girls who do not have experience, clearly talking about what is going on. But just who should know it yet, here would indeed - if ever - sampling more appropriate! For it so happens that orgasm with a partner and work with the other not - and very often even lifelong. Two-thirds of all women in Germany never have an orgasm. In contrast, a woman needs the penetration really not to try, because in principle but every penis fits in the vagina, no matter how long and how thick "it" is. Above all, the orgasm and the particular and the uniqueness of human sexuality and the human condition in general, it would be all right, nothing to miss.

Criticism: "That's impossible: It's long been proven that young girls can still experience no such orgasm, women can use it only after a certain age experience - around mid-twenties."

Well then let's look again at how it comes to this view, like that So usually the first sex among girls and women is - and why not experience orgasm.

Previously this was still the case that women do not often know what it was when they got married. The ideal was but that girls should go clueless as possible in the marriage. Because even the knowledge of the sexual intercourse was considered immoral because it particularly girls allegedly seduced even try out what they know because. And now today know very young girls what it rotates and this warning by earlier view is confirmed because the girls want to actually try it now. This Warner overlooked, however, that on the one hand sooner started many girls without such knowledge with sex. And on the other hand, ought also to be understood that, of course, part of the knowledge to get a knowledge on how to deal with it. We all know since our childhood, which is fire, and yet we do not set fire to any houses. After all, we have yet noticed the right use of the fire since our childhood.

Anyway flash through the girls, at least when it comes to the sex going on, still the old thoughts:

  -Will that do now hurt?

  - Is this really the right thing? We really do not know really!

  - Is this really right, what do I do now?

  - Oh God, how the pants and smells and wobbles, disgusting, so I have my never imagined!

  - (Or even :) Such a perfume boy, also disgusting!

  - With such a long life - never! Since I will prefer a lesbian!

  - What if it was all a lie, why am I doing this now?

  - This should therefore be that of which all talk?

  - Actually I've dreamed of the great love, which is now not determined. What if that is now gone forever? Anyway, the love of the One's now       well over?

  - What if the reasonable men, and a sensible man will I pay for life, but on the virginity? Either I get a not so, or I myself must now begin with the lies?

From the basic requirement for orgasm, namely dropping, is certainly no trace! What many here, even in very many, if not happen in most cases, but is a rape with his own consent, that a rape has also willed himself and the one behind is not even allowed to complain. Therefore, regardless of whether the marriage sooner or at today's entry into the sex: liberation from all inhibitions through sexual intercourse? If that is not a single cramp! And that should go well with a view to orgasm? Never! No wonder, does not give rise to a reasonable Orgasm: Pinching - cramped - and (unfortunately too often life-long) screwed up! Psychologists are talking about a trauma that is never or very difficult to work up again. It does also the right one come to write with a traumatized woman, and I will redeem them from their trauma.

Therefore that's now very often so on: The next partner the same thoughts: Whether this is now the right thing? Whether he keeps me if I'm not just an adventure for him? Or: Which I'm really terrible no matter who would much rather make love with another, but he did not get it or not, I am for him only the fool that he believes his Lügerei and join in his Verarscherei. .. In reality, the despised me yet. Drop me at the - never, never! Or: What the heck, earlier, when I was a girl, I had no desire to have sex, but where I happen to have begun ich's need precisely. So I do make the best of. For me, this is therefore only an adventure, I am also interested in anyway no real relationship, because the men are anyway all just puke when woman's looking just a bit more detail ...

In all cultures have always somehow it's the same song: Where is there already a reasonable preparation for the girls to orgasm?

So I have heard of none! A meaningful preparation there is nowhere, either in the past with us, not with us today, and neither the Muslims with their Verschleierei of girls and women, where the girls are then also bartered down from parents to the highest bidder. A reasonable preparation is obviously also provided anywhere.

Of course, at some point, freeing many women and make the most of their situation, they might find the right partner - so they also experience orgasm. I remember: Those who can not do it with orgasm, do here in Germany, after all, two-thirds of all women. That is to say that the women who experienced an orgasm at least once in their lives, make up only a third. Among those who have an orgasm at the beginning of their love relationships, it will probably be pretty much 100%. So this is what, in practice, the reality of the desire for racy sex, so some girls want to start their love life with then. The frustration is programmed.

It is hard to believe that it will be better than elsewhere in Germany, on the contrary!

But how can that be different with sex, how can the sex from the outset to be a fulfilling orgasm?

The nature it is but it has now even set up so that the joy is coupled to the intercourse with the possibility of fertility, so that same sex even a child can be witnessed with joy. That's just the order of nature. So we should finally stop trying to be smarter than nature with the use of pill and condom, but installing the order of nature back into our lives. It has never yet brought something when people have massively violate nature - and it will also bring anything here until we cast off forever only against nature, at least not in the long run! So stop all of today so massive decoupling of joy of sex and fertility!

It is like that: The shared nature of the place is here as before marriage. Of course, this one is hoping for a marriage that deserves the name "marriage", which was so threaded ever by all the rules of art. It must also agree the conditions for a successful orgasm straight!

Of course, this does not mean that sexual intercourse should be after pregnancy only in conjunction with the desire, because even without any precaution against pregnancy happens fertilization average only one out of thirty transports. Nature wants so know that we (with a partner) have far more traffic than is necessary for reproduction. But does the possibility of fertility also specify that the nature of sexual pleasure a strong community wants in this fun not only have "consequences" but in the "Follow" also are quite desirable (if not every time!). And in which the woman can drop really, because she knows that she is the man safe and secure.

And how will that go with orgasm else?

First of all: What ever is the orgasm? Young people usually have no real idea even when there is so much talk about it and then put the desire in all of our bones. Especially girls without experience should make even aware if it really goes to them in their dreams to sexual intercourse, but not contrary to satisfying orgasm, whatever they may they mean.

For this purpose, once the details here: The orgasm has only removed something to do with the moans and screams or Gezucke that we can see something in porn movies on the Internet, everything looks much more worse after more or less acting. He is certainly far more than a nice feeling in the genital area: Especially for the woman he is something completely different, it is a shock to their entire person from their deepest soul out, he is like the force of nature an earthquake!

If even a comparison is possible, and to convey at least a remote idea, then perhaps comes as sneezing into question. Also sneezing is something completely different, so the straight is not only an interesting feeling, but also has something. Se of the Nature of an earthquake And something has sneezing with orgasm together: One can indeed sometimes by "conscious tickling" or even a gentle touch in or on the nose or anywhere else cause the body, but this is somehow unsatisfactory, the best is but if this "earthquake" somehow comes naturally, in any case, with as few taps. Anyway, can be reached by spasm or even violence have nothing. The special feature of orgasm over the sneezing is now that he is prepared to speak. Through an exhilarating feeling to another human being, which is usually the woman to a man

The desire or urge to orgasm from his deepest soul then gets out to speak with us, it seems obvious to belong to the essence of man. And we are here to speak of nature delivered, regardless of whether we have already experienced this orgasm, so know him, or whether we have not seen him and puts only a profound idea in us. We find him easy!

When the man is with orgasm now relatively easy, it's enough if the semen is expelled, the woman is all much more complicated. The deepest reason that women turn to another partner, is in most cases the expectation that they will get somewhere else rather what they miss from its partner. So you want to break out of a psycho-physical boredom. Once upon a time, women found from this boredom, because she had enough to do with kitchen and children and with the Church, they comforted on life after death, if only they behaved their (domestic) met wifely duties. But today, the women let up here - today it is just much more likely to hunt after orgasm, even if they involve breaking the purely externally most consistent relationships.

The orgasm is a high-tech product of human evolution. In order to experience it or try to, there are certain rules.

The advantage is that the nature has given us the chance of a central nervous system induced orgasm here, so that is an orgasm that comes without intercourse and even without any explicit manipulation of the female reproductive organs existence - it rich gentle touch in loving embrace what so for just cuddling heard. However, during orgasm play specific parts of the body, in this case just the genitals, have more of a role. But here, it's kind of similar to when sneezing, with spasm or even violence is nothing to achieve. The real orgasm makes just tired, neither of them still need "more". Yes, that is so special, we can even try innocently without problems, so we do not even need this "intrusion" to experience orgasm!

However: the orgasm is now even call it a high-tech product of human evolution (or creation order, depending on your taste), and to experience it, you have to follow the proper rules of the game. The most important thing is just a condition in women are looseness and freedom from fear and a feeling of security. The woman must be able to drop in a mate so right. Because only then they can be themselves so much that really works with the orgasm.

Therefore you can find out something about the souls - there is such a thing as a soul relationship with your partner? You mentally fit to each other? The orgasm is even so that does not happen here without intercourse, which also does not happen with certainty with sexual intercourse. That's the way it is, and you should also accept. The reason for this is that all the nerve cells that have to do with the sexual feelings of women, are located on the external parts of the female genitalia and that inside the vagina are virtually no nerve cells. If this were not so, it would be unbearable for some women to use tampons, they would always be perceived as annoying foreign body, but that they are not just

(Maybe this tip:.. The problem is the fear In an intense emotional relationship is now always in the room that it to sex, so penetration, comes the woman just in no case will the associated fears can then naturally block the orgasm So it seems to make sense, at least initially, to meet in full dress, even if female, or both, and have no other problems with the paradise dress for yourself you can afterwards even talk about it with each other -.. and then see.)

Even if "taste", but then makes sense: "The legs together and God before his eyes!" (A female student told on my classes out this tip that you would have given her mother: "Just as now, she has also said it ! ")

But the boys and men want to but do not want to but the intrusion, but who want sex!

There may be some who want the so - and then from that to which the girls first very often rather difficult, because they are more active in these things. But for the vast majority of other's true in any case not so, at least not in young women, even the boys want at least a first and a beautiful partnership happy love - and they had no objection to a heavenly skin contact. Finally, the skin is the largest organ of the human yes. But they are in a quandary stupid. If they do not want sex, then tell each other but the girls that they were gay or impotent, they mean at least ...

And it's not even the dream of every boy trigger a so to speak, central nervous orgasm with a girl he loves only by his charisma, in any case, if he knows about this opportunity? It is precisely that gives him a huge self-confidence and above all feel real love with the girl opposite him. Because as soon a girl has such deep feelings for no other. And who really likes a girl who wants to do it by no means hurt and fully understands when it wants to live a partnership of the great love in his life and if it is to no traffic, so as not to anything else yet to take the risk, as bitch to stand? Above all, there is of course good, if a girl is otherwise open and unclamped, as that is excited here - and openly says that it is the boy's attitude well.

Nudity and humans (s) knowledgeable.

Yes, what we really hide our swimwear and bikinis? The specific body parts can not really be there, because we know it (at least Images ago) and half of humanity has the same anyway. It's also not about the body parts that have in fact only a representative function. It's about Mental: So we hide our insecurities, our fears, our guilt, our (unassimilated) trauma, but also our falsehood, our hypocrisy, our back-stabbing, our malice.

In addition, there is a great risk if we are not used to the nudity that just in a certain infatuation these body parts are so exciting and so much push to the fore, that the soul totally overgrown and is pushed into the background. So let's start with the "love" to, meant seriously with a. But at some point this is the superficiality over, because even the most beautiful body is boring - and you realize that it does not work with the soul and the hangover is there. Sometimes it is even the trick of women or girls, men to lure the Exciting Make their body parts and build loyalty - or use them only as a sperm donor, because they just want to have a child. (But this is something other than express openly with the self-image of nudity from the outset, what you look like.)

There is therefore a great people (s) knowledgeable effect when young people first of all have the ideal of paradise in mind: Just a woman or a girl unconsciously-automatically sorted by completely different point of view than without the ideal of paradise: Who else has this understanding of the experience of paradise, so for abstinence before marriage on the one hand and for a heavenly openness on the other side? And who does not have this ideal, and whoever is not to get into it, with whom you can not even talk about it, the girl should any reasonable run in any event as soon as possible, for which it is anything anyway!

If something is supposed to work in a particular situation, then it must also be prepared accordingly.

On the Internet, there is a site in which a doctor is a corresponding instruction for girls to experience orgasm, or at least to prepare for the experience of orgasm (!): Girls should be brought only once by nice warm showers in an appropriate mood and then masturbation learn by fumbling on their genitals in order to overcome the hostility body. But is such a method which is obviously otherwise recommended nowadays girls, not only unattractive and primitive, but it's also completely misses the point! The default setting of people who recommend such a thing, is it: The men are all idiots anyway, they can women understand and they do not inspire properly, let alone get through the influence of their person to orgasm not easy. So we do therefore prefer the most personal thing in the world to something purely mechanical, impersonal, independent of any concrete man, and of course of each concrete loving relationship. But that is not typical level prostitution? With a preparation for the great love that has certainly nothing to do. Where but here too: How it resounds in the forest pure even schallt's out: When girls So go to this level and thus make a kind of prostitutes, as they supposed to find those boys and men who reason with avoid them?

And how will that work in practice?

Concerns us, however: Homosexuality is accepted in our free and democratic societies, who is on the other hand, is condemned as old-unresolved-intolerant, porn movies and prostitution are allowed, only the heavenly clothing that is frowned upon, which is as immoral, perverse and even portrayed youth-endangering. If one argues for, then ring the same alarm bells, since all the rain (?) About it on, before that young people need to be protected and preserved, which is prohibited because the police are called equal! This is but the most natural and most human in the world, from the no one is harmed by nobody is deceived. What are we but a crazy and sick society!

So why not here cool and clear and unclamped be - as the children?

Of course, even in children, there are already those who are totally jammed and for the paradise clothing is an abomination. But there are others who have their greatest pleasure. That's all somehow dependent education. I am thinking here of a four year old girl, said during a hike with the family and friends of the family passed the awkwardness and the Hös'chen made wet. As a punishment, it had now run without Hös'chen on - and even before all the other Ange plated. The child is still damaged für's whole life! In contrast, another girl (9 years), actually more introverted and shy acts: It knew the paradise clothes of the family here, even and especially on the ocean beach, and then met in this "costume" on camping one of the friends of the family ever unobserved by others, ie the two knew each other even before that "without". And here there is a change of perspective, and cunning-gleaming sides of the girl, as if to say: Look, I do not look beautiful? And I have something that you did not though, and I can get babies so that you can not though! Sure, it had to of course in family or be otherwise where sensible talk (this here rather to the nuts) - and also the approach of Rigolettogeschichte (rather from the Father, s from p. 53).

Why should this Pride in one's own body and the impartiality not remain so when the girls get older - if they have only really taken the right approach to this?

Attention: Sexuality is addictive!

During sexual intercourse, there are two possibilities: If he maybe not just like a girl the same, so pushing something in him, in many cases at some point, but more on that. For there is also something of an addiction: Just once you have begun abstinence can be like a torture, sexuality urges just simply by repetition. Now what if woman wants nothing more to do with your partner, because they slowly realizes that he's an idiot? And if she lets him run and quickly gets involved more or less with another, because it pushes it just after sex, it shall be considered as bitch or even as a whore? How long it should wait with sex in the next three weeks or three months?

But there is also the other case, that sex did not like it and she has had enough of it. Eventually, however, they generally want then again have a friend and above all a real partner. Also, it's the way that you, just want something with which one has only once had a bad experience repeat someday under better sign.

So she starts but then again so on.

If they are lucky, you will now find the right thing, but what if the can not find - especially since the engine is so aroused now? There are of course just here a sense of honor and decency - at least initially. Therefore, would particularly female not that people are talking about their bed stories.

So why not at an escort service aboard (a modern term for prostitution)? First, it's often very anonymous because the men come from somewhere else and just now are in transit and secondly's even an often pretty good pocket money to boot. Yes, why not take something like that, why only give away for free? Of course - sometime already comes the hangover, if one considers where you landed ...

How practical and beneficial it would be if she had, not made this lousy experiences with one that it was not worth only! How nice it would have been if either "nothing" happened or if it had been only in the skin-contact!

Note that even the skin contact can be addictive, especially if it is a more fulfilling, it also burns like fire. After all, it has a desire for contact with the skin actually nothing dishonorable in itself and straight woman can turn them on again to start from scratch, as if there were "nothing" was ... And the man that is of course the same!

That the shame, the "laughter of the devil" and what really matters - but why no one else says so? (Go to "laugh of the devil" s. Issue 2, p 11 m)

Quite simply, that's neither politically nor society from religion here nor otherwise who willed that the young people wake up in time and really live independently. Because if it were not so, we would have just today not already set this in our time, in each and everything is scientifically researched to the smallest detail, any scientific projects in motion? But nothing of the sort! Consequently: You want just do not think that young people see clearly here. And I wonder why not?

a) No socio-political interest

People who live in very harmonious personal relationships are simply too independent, too pleased with himself to frugal. Just do not give a great new car, with a great new home with the latest fashion, with expensive vacations. For them, the normal tut's - it's different with them important.

Of course, they also want to work and live and spend money on this, but they do not have to and to impress themselves and others and to indicate but simply to lead in community with others a beautiful and harmonious life.

And that happens to be quite interesting for the economy and thus also for our society as a whole or only moderately interesting.

b) No interest on the part of religion

People who also human have a fulfilling life and their humanity without the famous "mistakes and disappointments in personal matters" (in the language of religion we speak of "sins") live, have no feelings of guilt, so do not need any sins repent and to not pray "forgiveness" (formerly of us and in many other religions that works even over Pay) and have no need for a idealerem life after death. They had already here and now everything.

The philosopher Arno Plack (1930 - 2012) once has our need for a life after death interpreted: "We can with the finiteness of our lives not resign, because we have not lived our sexuality properly." So what would happen if we our sexuality lived right? Arno Plack proceeds as well as the vast majority of sex researchers, however, believe that monogamy is a straitjacket that does not correspond to the nature of man, and that man must therefore be released from his Monogamiezwangsjacke. What, though, if man is by nature but monogamous, so only one sexual partner should have to live long? What if only glaring mistakes are made in the implementation - which is assumed here? (Can we, for example, does not prepare the best food so wrong that they are unpalatable or even the most delicious food served so wrong that no one likes me?) So it's with monogamy: monogamy and inhibitions will be with us in general as belonging together seen. But that just does not know true monogamy (ie one that people like to live) and inhibitions simply have nothing to do with each other! Therefore, it is about a meaningful experience of monogamy.

c) No interest on the part of the men who consciously or unconsciously looking for an "adventure". Let us imagine that all girls and women sex practiced only within a loving partnership - then what about all those who, because of their previous morality found no or no real love partner? It would be terrible for her, but she had no more chance of getting at least now and again to a new and exciting sexual experience? A flight to Thailand at least helps in the long run no more, because that is where women will think quite fast as well as here with us so our thanks to globalization.

d) No interest on the part of women, also not the mothers, also not the feminists. Because they would even possibly admit their daughters that they themselves were once so bigoted and stupid, and all the false morality that they had been told, had believed and practiced. Thus, they were the disgraced and who wants to be occasionally embarrassed? But they could indeed bring just the excuse. Where they had it for something else better to know if they had only ever heard of a morality in connection with the shame and no one had seen responsibility to tell them once something more sensible?

The concrete love thread useful!

What would be so if the two in Uwe Tellkamp "tower" "Experience First of paradise while the procedure paradise dress and skin contact and orgasm yes - Traffic no," the idea is, pleads for here, have had and practiced in the head? Then it could have been during the walk on the subject, both could arrange to meet to it and work to make it fit once. You would have been able to cultivate the common paradise clothing and common skin contact - quite a beautiful art of seduction before - from whatever side. So perhaps a mutual Full body massage (but without the genitalia!) Or even a nudist race on a lonely beach? Both could determine if it's all about relaxation plate or even satisfaction, ie whether the male partner wants "no matter how" mainly to get rid of his sperm. Or whether it is true harmony - where you can gently or racy embrace lovingly, in each case, where also quite allowed to stand in men or boys drive to trigger the central nervous orgasm girl. (Even the boy is doing already come to his relaxation and can be used without a fait accompli determine whether she likes it or not.) And with mutual "wrapping around" without a lot of traffic intensive mutual skin contact is anyway possible! In any case, both know more and can plan a future together or have better phase out the relationship with the motto "Where there is nothing, even the Emperor lost his right" and no one needs to complain afterwards, what idiots or what he Pig his innocence sacrificed.

While the failed traffic - and many first transports fail unfortunately completely - never ever comes to a harmony, is the the harmonic skin contact in the foreground. Both partners are - quite unlike the traffic, where the female part is very often only used - on an equal footing, which is the most important requirement for a good relationship before. And with this skin contact occurs quite something of a mutual energy transfer - everyone is from the other without losing yourself of what he has something. Yes, here at least there is more chance for a dream partnership - and certainly after the time-honored (game) rules of our Christian religion!

A boy or man who is reasonable and really loves is, with such a "method" be in full agreement, he knows that there are many "cheaters", which is all about the sex, and it will only would like to differ from those types.

If only the nudity and the associated high morale of love is the natural and typic of men, how is it that the nudity has such a bad reputation and is often made devillike even perverse moral hazard?

The elimination of this morality of "high love" just the girls so that they join because, now possible with an extremely effective diversion after the loop "Stop thief": The one who does something really bad or even properly Criminal, pointing to a, of not being bad and maybe even very natural-basically normal.

The true pigs it is all about really not so much as a kiddie nudity with the associated "staring", in which women and girls generally have an almost paranoid fear. Rather want to simply just penetrate, so they want the irresponsible and non-binding intercourse, where people have no interest. Your attitude to girls and women is like the prostitutes. Of course, they have little or no say so openly, because then no one would even join in, but they hide their setting behind a drivel about love and emancipation. In any case, their attitude - as I said - more to do with possessiveness, indifference, hypocrisy, disdain, bullshit, manipulation and domination of men over women.

It is thus somewhat exaggerated totally harmless and natural to something bad and disgusting and unnatural and Nichtnormalem basically and then also denounced as harmful to minors and destructive moral, namely the paradise clothing. According as it is presented as something childish, from which mature adults should have freed. This may sound paradoxical and illogical that something is simultaneously viewed as childish and destructive as moral, but in many people with logic here anyway not align. And yet just natural nudity rather something with the harmony of human relations, ie, with enlightenment and emancipation, with equality of the sexes, with knowledge of human nature, intelligence, reason, look through, openness, honesty, reliability, responsibility, self-control, naturalness, humanity partnership, high love and also to do with joy and harmless fun.

The voyeurs and the tensioner and the "peepers" or the exhibitionists are so demonized the evil and deviants, so that especially young girls to be "stared" solely on the idea that if the paradise clothes "bear", already paranoid -hysterisch respond. The advantage: Then it no longer falls to specify that the irresponsible and exploitative sex that they themselves practiced and therefore also seeks, the real is problematic.

Thus, the ability of the people and in all probability is manipulated his natural disposition to a high morality of love and partnership in a way that this goal is not only not reached, but that man is diverted directly from that goal.

If this making devillike of paradise clothing is not a gigantic people dementia, after all, make it then even with all, even and especially the particularly good will!

Yes, especially the good will fall even on the fascination of "morality" in, that is not a real one, but rather a hypocrisy (or a substitute morality). For what it otherwise, if not a hypocrisy when we see the paradise clothing as something sinful and dangerous and so avoid anxious and keep the more or less casual sex to try for something normal? My mother always said if we wanted something not attract as children: "It is not something you look the other way" - and this fits here certainly much better. Instead of that now especially the mothers downplay their daughters against the fear of paradise clothes and give them tips on how to naturally and emancipated deal with it, and also encourage them to make them the people (s) knowledgeable effect (see p. 18) can use it, make it even more generally bitchy and stuck. As if they did not know that "it" finally getting quite different happened. The "initiative" is but experience has shown just for the "first time", ie for the "Introduction to the practice of sexuality," rather by the girls, and this home has nothing to do with any clothing paradise. Because they can obviously them andre ized in our civilization or culture tightness in the long run simply not stand. For many men do then mostly without conscience problems because superficiality and lack of concepts of the girls with them now once already cause no protective instinct. These girls just earn their opinion, no honesty and no sense of responsibility.

Even otherwise, all to do with anyway! Thus, some speak out about them to say anything because they want to be considerate of the feelings of the girl. But it does not realize that they thus prevent just that the girls noticed the reality in its full clarity and can be set up accordingly. And so the girls live sex but then instead in a questionable dream world where paradise clothing and bawdy talk negatively, look positive. Thus, these "consideration takers" unfortunately complicit when watching girls finally have a fear of innocents and do exactly what caused the real problems. These culprits moreover includes all typical Religions: Just the religions live so assume that the rather harmless demonize ("sin of Unschamhaftigkeit") and ensuring successful it this way, that people finally do exactly the non-Harmless thereof then get a bad and guilty conscience. Actually is clear that a reasonable actions and corresponding information or specify a suitable education belongs. In law, there are the principle "nulla poena sine lege" ("Without Law no penalty"), which means that they can only be punished for something when there is a law. This principle can certainly be applied by analogy, that: "Without such information no sin." And if there are no such information, and is not even research object, then it must be assumed that the sinful action with the corresponding guilt is expressly intended, because a corresponding repeat business is the more important. There's also this: Forgiveness is but the business model typical of all religions with the promise that the "repentant sinner" go after death to a better life.

And finally developed the twisting what's really good and useful and bad and unnatural, such a momentum, so that no one dares to go against it. You could not get the reputation of evil for many people yes. (Note theologically interested: The Greek-Latin word for "devil" is "diabolus" And that literally means "confusion throwers", or "twists"..)

Traumas are like germs or viruses to penetrate the people affected by them until their final body cells and impede genuine work-up and real recovery.

The problem is that it also is a collective trauma in our case, an indication of this may be our compulsive use of at least swimsuit and bikini, so clothes if they are rationally not necessary. This collective trauma is also passed as a disease-like illness from generation to generation.

Of course parents and other people who are not un- or even malicious, but who simply do not want anything to stir up again what they have ever experienced. You want the only forgotten. But they a see that their children need all these ideas - and so they are quite open when other educators with their children talk in order to work this trauma.

A teacher from my early school days had us what's going on here, even in the simple example of a swing, how is it about on a thick branch, said: The village Depp tried to rock the daughter of the village mayor on as a hanging swing. He shakes like crazy on the ropes and then caulked in the sweat of his brow, the girl with force upon her seat upwards so that it screams even before afraid of heights. Everything a single seizure, the swing with the girl just will not as he wishes. But then shows him the little girl how to do it with the rocking "easy", if only the laws of nature, a little known and respected. So the child leaves him, which is much heavier than itself, to sit on the swing - and it hits him in the rocking rhythm of swing - and in this way it creates the child without great effort, this village idiots up high in the air to "push". And both have not only not afraid, but even the highest enjoy this game!

Yes, that is the same with sexual morality, as it is generally taught to the young people. It is certainly not only religion, so depp village way of lining up when it's especially annoying even with her. We do not pray the Lord's Prayer that God's will (and not ours!) Might happen? If we return to the example of the swing transfer: Which of the two has probably understood the will of God, the little girl or the village Depp? And it's like this: Just as we do not preach sexual morality today, not only makes them not fun, but young people have even complexes when stick to it. That it would otherwise many is no longer imagine. Therefore, they can not stop thinking about it objectively, too. (I see it as the curse of original sin We can, however, of the free but.. We need a corresponding sampling time only really want Lastly, one certainly here: How are our traumas that prevent us from our liberation, hardly blame themselves - and even if we "something" were deliberately slipped into it, we knew it not better)!

How girls shape men.

If a girl, and just one that still had no sexual experience, a boy or a man gives sex, so the defloration, then that also means a gift for the person concerned. And a gift is even provided a kind of reward. With rewards and people will now always been (and not only that they cover all living things) coined. Because when we realize that we are rewarded for something, then that means for us "good experience", so let's move on so - and if we realize that we are not rewarded for something, then we will change our flat.

But what is sex - and just the first - for a gift and for whom? In this sex occurs for many girls did not matter whether the boy or man is responsible, whether he deserves it or whether he just can adjust only be good. The main thing he is "sweet" or something. But sex has also something to do with sexual urges - and the applicant shall also rewarded for his impulsiveness and possibly also for its sophistication to be able to adjust. If so start a good relationship? And why are women and girls complain because then afterwards about the irresponsibility and treachery and superficiality of men - and that but in the end all pig? The question we must ask yet again: Who has the men made by the process of "imprinting through reward" like that?

In contrast, the Paradise Clothing (clear, meaning the "complete"): If the "granted" a girl, then you have a man can muster, he must have under control. He has to be able to chat objectively and seriously. And it is at or with a girl he likes and he respects for which he feels responsible and he does not want to hurt to do so only to happy.

Who "of the two varieties of man" probably has more of the high ideals that a girl or a woman would also like in a man?

With the joy of (innocent) Paradise clothes men and boys would therefore shaped in a completely different direction!

But because the real bastards so now no interest - so they demonize the paradise clothing. And the stupid people of good will be dazzled by this hypocrisy and make. Sorry. (Perhaps they are indeed self not so good as they do?)

Here is the approach of this Web site, change the setting of girls. Of course they would have to be used to the paradise clothing, and everything should then noticed the boys so that they can set early and on time it is.

And do not worry that behave in particular young girls now uncontrolled shameless, just because the are so inherently high moral beings! Only you no longer waste their moral disposition now by being pointless paranoid-jammed, but by act smart-smart.

Notes: The one with the "true pigs" was formulated deliberately stilted. On the one hand, no one should be unnecessarily burdened (somehow we are all "victims"!) And on the other hand is no longer figure out anyway, as once it all started. This was so even earlier. Therefore, the Bible also pushes all evil on the snake.

But it does not say, "Who is playing with fire, which comes to it?"

The question is, who is playing with fire. Is this the one that young people especially girls and for good behavior of ignorance, boredom, uptight, naivety and educates opposed to the body, or who educates them on openness, cunning, self-esteem, self-confidence and courage? Playing with fire is above all the disregard of the hidden fire, which is much more the super explosive. In an education of young people and especially of girls to this good behavior are - especially in our time - (sexual) experiences but programmed so to speak. Therefore: Dear little risky (or even what sounds risky because unfamiliar) begin with an open mind and thought-out concept, seeking the good in boredom, naivety, ignorance and opposed to the body!

An animal experiment confirms it: we are all fetishists! So we should rid ourselves as quickly and thoroughly as possible from this fetishism! 

In the GEO magazine (Feb 2015) reports on a study with rats, which had a completely unexpected result. They had dressed them different colored jackets, to distinguish them from each other in an expreriment. So they had sex with each other perk, just with this jacket. When they then took these rats for another experiment, this time without the jacket, it was found that they were sexually listless. The explanation: This jacket had when the rats they wore on her first sex, as it were a fetish action - and without fetish lust had disappeared on sex. Obviously we can not transfer the results of animal experiments to humans easily, but if they are a confirmation of other established and well-tested theory as in this concept here, this transfer is likely to be well accepted. The conclusion: All clothes we wear in our "clothes cultures" (or civilizations), not just lingerie, also has a fetish effect and disrupts or even destroys a normal or natural approach to sexuality, depending on the species. Therefore, there is then also all the forms of "mistakes" in our peoples, may be that we want to have sex on trial with someone who is not the spouse, and not even for an option, it is that we later infidelities drive, it was, that we are looking for new pleasure or sexual partner. Anyway, this seems (rather random) rat experiment, a confirmation of the thesis of the concept "Towards to the happiness of  the high love" that changes in attitudes towards nudity would make our whole sexual behavior of natural and scenic. Of course, there must be a corresponding pedagogy, but that would be easy to do, because young people without this fetishism are anyway open.
 Specifically: Straight girl throwing with the traditional "moral shame" or "fetish morality" very often sometime like a compulsion helter-skelter all over the pile and begin intimate relationships. In contrast, the same girls were, if they had joy in paradise clothes, here incomparably more critical, thorough, accurate and intelligent before. You are talking about a potential partner once and otherwise try everything possible to find out more about him and to see if paradise is actually possible with him. So dealing with the opposite sex and then a mate choice in a non-terminal direct and fetish free setting is the corporeal from the outset by completely different point of view instead! See also page 46 centers.
 Parents could their children about not say "nudity is something bad or indecent and disgusting" but they could teach their children to distinguish different people by whether the Paradise Clothing them to be better or not. Namely that they might give them a knowledge of human nature, which is useful for them in later mate choice then but of course happens automatically. The concept for this is quite simple: "You will have noted, when and with whom you feel comfortable and safe you if the paradise for clothes at all is up for discussion. And, at least initially, anyway we are also close by. "

 And the others if  their parents think differently? The need to educate itself according to yourself. Girls, who are about to pity for any painful and unnecessary experience and want from the outset good relations could do about once clear that they are very mercy of their feelings for the request (in which man is just "BOOM" making), rationality and even best intentions help them further here hardly. There is no shame, that's only natural. Of other than our previous attitude to morality and nudity, so with a more natural setting, our emotion on the (meta) level of nature's violence is now actually (ie at a higher level) influenced or even completely revamped. Our emotion or our spontaneity selected at a fetish free for more natural setting or just after paradiesischeren viewpoints!

 Now that a lot of adults have absolutely no interest in changing, you young people already have to get care of yourself! The usual adult will not make any event bother to mention that they are afraid that their work could be misunderstood.
 To YOU it is thus to change that - and we all benefit!

And one more thing!

Nudity in art is quite "normal", even with biblical themes. But in the praxis of life "bourgeois-decent" people want none of it - is not that strange or ridiculous? The author is here not satisfied and thus builds the nudity in its ethical concept a - he's just too inspired by the visual arts!


Bathsheba bathing (Artemisia Gentileschi, the most important painter of the Baroque period, 1597-1652 / 53), Neues Palais, Potsdam


1. Critical Questions and Answers

Clearly, in a rush I have not written anything and of course I have often doubted whether all this is correct and that I especially "spread" the can. But I became more confident, not least because it seems to be because a "baseline" on the track I'm obviously. I always find really only confirmations - and if dissenters allegedly find reasons not to do, then that's never really real arguments, but only "facts" with the motto: "If science has found out that all or at least make the majority so or so powerful, then it is normal and correct that. "that would be so even if the majority of the population for the burning of witches and Jews, then this is" normal and correct. "I do not understand how intelligent people (or people who think they are smart) can bring such arguments, this comparison would but they also have in mind - but they have not obvious.
A friend said to the original manuscript for about 16 years, making it very very well be yes. But his daughter, who is ten years old, had in school sex education. As far as he can tell, this tray is aligned very biologistically. Could I not to write once something more human complementary arriving even at this young man? He had tried such a conversation with his daughter, but he failed. He was probably too clumsy, she did not talk to him about "these issues" obvious.
So that's why the Introduction for the younger of young people.

And now the points of criticism and the answer:

"This concept is still unrealistic."
 That said, someone who expressed his disgust on trade with nude photos of infant's or boys and then even fantasized about what a man would still be able otherwise, of such images worried secretly. The problem is that we will never solve the moral problem with the extinction of pedophiles or with still so sharp laws, because it is here an ethical matter, and because laws ultimately help only a little. In addition, hardly ever a problem with an alleged extermination of evil has been resolved. We also do not live in a zoo where "wild animals evil" can be locked away. We should prefer to view this pedophile phenomenon once as a call of God to teach children a real morale and make them thus immune as against those "Retailer" and "Voyeur". In this sense, see the Rigoletto story page from 53rd

"The concept is unrealistic even for another reason: It is never going to reach all."
This is me quite clear that you will never reach everyone. It is like that, experience shows that thirty-nine people a general chase my rut, even when the path is an obvious errors. But one goes another way. What if the concept is good and is also a trend-makers, the other eventually run after? After all, there is the chance that those who want to make the bad experiences and have to remember later and then raise their children differently.

"The problem is to motivate children to such issues. Children have other issues in mind. "
At boys, this may be true, but girls are very open. Now if they do not want to talk about these issues and especially not with their parents, so that is in the nature of things. Read more on page 58th

"You should probably start in a children's classes with positive things, but the Rigoletto story and the other examples are negative."
The positives have young people here anyway in the head, of which they are dreaming. Thus if the user does not need to start over. It makes sense now that children learn, how can their positive ideas fail. Is the object of a meaningful education that children receive suggestions on how they can prevent the failure, so that they really get creative on their own initiative, to develop strategies against failure. When, however, been nothing but positive, they will be more naive and the failure is programmed.

 "You advocate a very harmful  Frühsexualisierung (Early Sexualisation) for children , it's never good and useful if children know all that about sexuality."                                                                                                                                                                                           Well, or not. The question is, what else is there to tell children when a lump sum, any meaningful "Enlightenment" is referred to and rejected as "Frühsexualisierung". Something you have to tell I suppose. So they tell children (not only from religion!) to be the of the shame and that they must therefore be wary of nudity. Because that is indeed against privacy. If we now assume that children in particular are highly moral beings, then automatically leads to the fact that the shame becomes morality and that they get fears that someone unauthorized could see them naked. Just little girls develop downright paranoid fears that a man could take off her panty - and yes, it is sufficient alone the idea that someone wanted to do and could, then the result is a trauma - and often lifelong. But that what is at real morality actually mattered, namely not to have sex with the wrong partner, which is a suitable occasion no problem for them. Young people are so hostile physical but not moral. It really is that: The fun of innocent nudity is equated to young people with the fun of pornography - and they want nothing to do with this. Therefore, nudist later never comes into question for them. But sexual experiences up to adventures are accepted and perceived as normal. So who's to blame for this twist in the minds of young people, what is good and what is not good?

"They are playing your attitude to nudity children but only pedophiles in his arms."
The problem is: on the one hand, there is actually a legitimate concern that our children fall into the hands of pedophiles. On the other hand, we want to raise our children but without fears and sexual Cham is now even a fear. The intelligent nudity here is now a sign of fear freedom with excellent people (s) knowledgeable effect, profits from which the young man later in his dating. And it does not make sense to the young people to educate priori something for their lives usable instead of only once and then again so different?
What to do?
Take a look please even the reports of the offense of pedophiles in more detail in! It was nowhere so that "it" began about a hike with the joy of a group of young people on a naked swim in a mountain stream. Rather, yet the abuse of children always started with the pedophilia individual children secreted under some pretext from the others, then attacked them about the panties and sought gratification. The kids had so watch out with their basic fear of nudity in a completely wrong direction.
And along the way is done another problem: Little girls who are accustomed to the heavenly clothing, can no longer be seduced by pedophiles who want to show them "something good".

"Many people have the association in the head.` Children + nudity = Pädophilie' "
If everything was always so easy! Please refer to the previous point. Yes, whoever throws everything into a pot and makes no difference and may not be factual and wants, which is eventually no serious interlocutor more and should ask himself whether he is not himself, who here has problems send raw. Because then he sees their own problems ultimately just getting to the other and they are finally also to young people on.

"To lay hands on children, but is the worst."
 Beware of people who are very emotional and irrelevant in such condemnation. We know that child molesters are in prison at the lowest position, who are despised by all the other prisoners. These other prisoners now have no clean slate and need for self-esteem someone against which they are better. In freedom there is such a problem, the better-be-willing than others. So who here too his own being better be intimated and especially in unserious manner in which you should perhaps look even closer, if not only needs someone along the lines of "Stop thief," he can condemn. Whether the so everything is really pedophilia, which is considered by some as pedophilia, or serves only one that is even good there? See also page 18 under "Stop thief!".

"How does the now harmless or even from Paradise?"
For example: One mother told me that her five-year-old daughter had ever wanted a naked Breakfast in the family circle. Or if one at a campsite on the way to and from the shower, the daughter of the neighbors met - both in Paradise costume - and in a good mood. Where is the problem? Those are really wonderful paradise experiences that have absolutely nothing to do with any pedophilia! Honi soit qui y pense times! ("Evil to him who evil thinks this!") There is just next to the association nudity + child = pedophilia and the association "father + child + nudity = intact family, Heal the World". The difference is that in the pedophile relationship nothing else comes or for a high morale Disabled, while a cure-world relationship nor a sensible concern for true morality is added. Just fathers know very often (from wherever) that the "pubic morality" is now not even leads to a high morale, so that it is not advantageous for young people. Unfortunately, many fathers and even many parents are in practice but then very often rather helpless, even though they are very willingly and very basically integer. This issue is now to give suggestions how realistic-intentioned parents (and other teachers) to implement their concern useful in practice.

"There are more important things in life than young people's sexuality."
There is the question of an overall concept. Useful educated young people have their heads for what is free otherwise important in life. You will find it easier to mature and develop their individual systems. This should have a positive effect on school performance then.

"But why always just this topic? There's probably more, where can suffer just young people. "
Of course, there's more, it is also clear to me. But if in a very important area is a good self-esteem associated with the appropriate knowledge there before, then just know hopefully also help in other areas of the young person. In addition, if we want the young people to advise in all possible and impossible things without anything concrete is applied, then such an education is very fast over-anxious and inedible - and ultimately achieved the opposite.

"The approach here's totally out of fashion, girls and women have now freed from the old constraints and sex with different partners is but a sign of their freedom and emancipation."
 My experience with the comrades in the army, so times with "really normal people "who say what they think (and I note again and again, their thinking shines even today in the world of men by): When girls give the sex, especially the first, from whatever reason, is almost always rather contemptuous talked about it. However, my impressions come up more of what is talked into "lower classes". Whether here maybe a truth to light comes to the motto "Vox populi, vox dei" - ie "voice of the people, voice of God"? Anyway, I think the girl "for something" are too good.

"Well, the` lower layers' where perhaps one should not be so oriented. This simply corresponds with sex before marriage but the emancipation of a modern woman. The make all but the case today. "
If that's what all make the sign of emancipation is, well, then" good night emancipation "! Is not it much more the sign of a successful emancipation, when especially women freed from senseless fears and pressures that but only signs of inhibitions and useless and counterproductive for high morale and a reasonable knowledge of human nature are (ie, the shame, of course, only where that is not misunderstood)? And if she has a good knowledge of human nature, and so from the outset that fails too often what brings trauma, ie sex with someone who is not yet the right thing? And if it is able to motivate others to join it, the more likely to refrain from Negative and Positive to do that?

"It is only reasonable if already know young people especially girls and everything about contraceptives and sexually transmitted diseases. Because then they can be much freer and need no more fear of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases to have. "
Nothing against information also about such things, knowledge never hurt anyone. But if it is only when such information such as when the current school sex education and not on the high love and how to threading which is added, then the saying goes, is maintained especially girls from the start, especially for operational control and stupid for the high love (expressed brutal: "Girls have their brains wenn's so far, anyway between the legs"). Therefore, it is also not worth worrying about a concept of moral high love. If such termination would not deeply Girl and thus also contemptuous woman?

"The aim of the presented concept is but a new manipulation."
The philosopher and theologian Rupert Lay distinguishes the influence in education and manipulation. This education is intrinsically beneficial, ie they use is the one who is affected, and manipulation strange expedient, it benefits just the other. Please evaluate yourself now, if what is alien and therefore is useful here manipulating the target or is intrinsically useful. Besides: The trick in manipulating thing is that the people who seek to manipulate only one solution is put before and will otherwise have done so, as if there is only this one and no other solution. Any acceptable and attractive alternative as - for example in today's sex education - a smart and clever abstinence while possibility of paradise openness is totally concealed or ridiculed or even bad.

"You are misogynistic. Rather than use them against the sexual relationships of young girls, you'd better act on the boys and men, that they no longer bad about people and especially about girls (and women) talk that have different ways of life. "
As you can still talk, what you want. Substituting for something that does not correspond to the nature of man, then tell the person addressed "Yes - yes," and keep your mouth in the future, so that we learn nothing and thinks it's all done now. In reality, however, it does not change the settings. However: It is in the honest circles is about girls who behave according to the concept presented here, but then spoke appreciatively basically about: "She knows what she wants!" One student told me how she had once approached a fellow student "is that what you told about you that you at nudist mitmachst but no sex before marriage have want?" And she said yes, seemed high for their fellow students initiate recognition by the motto "cool woman"! What is important is that the boys are well aware of the overall concept!

"There is but this research, as children grow up in primitive cultures. The children drive from an early age to sexual games through to sexual intercourse. And thus they grow freely on fears and constraints and are so happy. This is then continued when they get older, so there is in these cultures also a partner stress, no battle of the sexes, no jealousy, no aggression. "
Recent research has shown that these former researchers (especially the famous Margaret Mead, 1901- 1978 were with her book "Coming of Age in Samoa. A Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for Western Civilisation" 1928) with their research in the South Seas very naive, they only saw what they wanted to see. The reality is that is completely different: there is in these crops particularly much jealousy, aggression and partners stress. The suicide rate is among the highest in the world. Of real science can at this time as epochal existing research be no question. Of course: you can always find reasons that the research was still serious, that it came to the erroneous trends about only through contact with Western civilization. To do this: There were among these islanders also western educated residents who spoke English. And who later read the book particularly mentioned and the hands closed over his head, which had just written Margret Mead is nonsense about their culture. What she described was never like this!

"I suppose you is not unknown that children quite figure out saying that it feels good to touch on the genitals. Little boys and little girls do, big boys and big girls too. This has nothing whatsoever to do with how these children were raised as to whether or `` narrow' or not-narrow'. "
What children out of itself, written in the stars. Even when the wheel was not invented in many cultures, how are children then come on much of what goes on the nakedness of your own? You will probably have seen something or otherwise noticed. But probably you have never heard of the "Naked Kindergarten" in Duisburg. Children were there to come from the idea to walk around naked and playing with each other. What should the children educators do otherwise than to let the children and give them isolated from the other children who did not participate? The thing flew only when a boy wanted to touch a girl in this direction or do something with it. Only the told the girl home and parents were so attentive and active until it came to the resolution of the kindergarten. Apparently see children so quite the same difference I see here. For her nudity is obviously something normal and does not have anything to do with touching and the like.

"It's all just the boys who are still those who only want one thing. They must therefore be moral but once. "
It is not for the boys! If I umhöre me, there were 9 cases out of 10 girls who fed her virginity and thus "brought the ball rolling," the sex had. And then the boys have the impression that the girls strutting among themselves about them if they do not want sex, that they are impotent or gay then. If girls want something other than sex, then they have already explicitly let the boys - or raise the issue in this sense, as in the classroom.

"You talk too much about nudism'. "
Psychologists, however, would accuse me after reading the pages 2 and 3 that I am hostile physical and yet again producing only the old fears of sexuality. Therefore, I have to bring something that not only raises these fears, and what is better than the joy of nudity or even, in the beautiful clothes? In the way, what is probably an indication of sexual anxieties of young people when they compulsively bikini or swimsuit need - or if they can also be fun and omit all well? So Whose education concept is based on fears of who makes the need for swimwear and bikini untouched or who questioned everything and a concept advocated, the base of the mind and the heart is - as presented in this issue? And also it is a rule of good marketing psychology (and here it's all about publicity for some): "Never negative, always positive," And if I already have to bring something negative, just to have a home, then I have to at least offer something positive!

"The shame of it is also a matter of our culture."
 In our Judeo-Christian religion shame (Issue 2, p 11 s.) Is considered a "curse of sin", otherwise it is a decay product of of failed real morality. If you have done something wrong, then one is ashamed I just. It now has never worked to build a decay product, comprising approximately grate or ash, a bridge or an automobile. Why should it succeed, then, on the basis of sexual shame to construct a high sexual morality, which is attractive to young people and really works?

"There is but a natural shame."
 Oh yes, there are books in which it comes, whether innate modesty, so naturally, or is instilled. But my knowledge there are no books, whether it is actually useful for the ideal of sexual morality in the sense of high just love young people. And if it is not useful for young people, whom it benefits as an irrational fear that is so, then? However: Man needs now even a sexual morality, if necessary, he chooses the disabled substitute morality of shame, which offers itself, and keeps the natural.

"But nudity is still perverted, immoral and disgusting."
First of all: Nudity is something completely natural, and supernatural is never immoral or perverse. Everything comes down to what you are doing with it. Who teaches the young people with the perversity or immorality of body parts that do not want them good. And for nudity: The is now easily associated with unappetising and with disgust, because even a connection with the organs of excretion is there. If, however, all that has to do with excretory organs would be disgusting, then the hands were so disgusting with which they are washed. And that's nonsense. Why, then, should we overcome the feeling of disgust towards our body parts? Because otherwise there is a risk that we will never experience a period of Impartiality and harmony with our bodies and these negative feelings eventually be a healthy experience our sexuality and even our humanity in the way.

"To see nude exercises as the highest sense of the practice is for my wife and me simply unacceptable."
You can pick out a detail and then mock naturally from all ideas. But you can also be reversed by underwear or uptight scraps fetishists ("UWF" or "VFF") talk. The question is, what is probably more natural and what is not, and where more of a mockery is attached. (Note: What are swimsuit and bikini else as underwear?)

"Among the ancient Greeks, the statues of women, so the Kores were always clothed."
The anthropologist and sexual explorer Ernest Borneman (1915-1995) sees the reason that the nudity was a sign of sovereignty and freedom. And only men were regarded as free and sovereign, therefore, were the Kouroi, so the men statues, naked. In contrast, women could never be free and sovereign, but only as a possession (of a man) imagine. Thus, the Koren, so the statues of women, dressed or just "packed" were. In contrast, the statues of the goddesses were quite naked, because after all goddesses are also free and sovereign.
The image of man in early Christianity was accordingly revolutionary. Here, as both men and women were baptized naked.                                                                                                                             





"The problem has other causes. It's not the clothes, not the paradise nudity. It's just the wrong information of children and young people and adults about the nature of women and men and how they can complement heavenly "
Let me come back to the text of the booklet back: Clothes prevented." Meaningful intuitive orientation "of morality as just a Navi "meaningful intuitive orientation" in the field or corporal punishment prevents a reasonable education. as long as "Navi" or "corporal punishment" or even just "clothes" are felt to be necessary, the (young) man is never really open be for information regarding a working model of thinking otherwise. For he knows in his mind always everything better and gets into a false sense of confidence that makes him directly snooty compared to other ideas. He looks indeed confirmed because he about disgust or even revulsion against everything that has to do with sexuality feels. So he said also to have everything under control. Of course, it is not enough now, "to drop their pants", it must now be added a little. Just as it is not sufficient to abolish corporal punishment or the Navi, now a meaningful education or a (land) must map reading skills are developed.

"But still, we think differently!"
The problem is that it is not a matter of indifference whether just in the things of emotions once something wrong is the young people who are all highly moral being taught. For falsities clogged ultimately sustained openness to the right.

"Nonsense! The shame is just normal! No discussion! "
The shame is but an indication that man does not live in accordance with his nature. The man just seems to be monogamous, and if he lived right under this by its very nature, including without fears and constraints, then these compulsive Selbstversteckerei'd probably would not by itself.

"When it comes to such openness, such as when two adjacent despite paradise clothing abstemious spend the night, without leading to` sexual action', then that means but harmful stress? "
Harmful Stress? On The Contrary! In a large stress of the human body produces namely an anti-stress hormone to withstand this stress. This anti-stress hormone now resembles drugs - both the chemical structure and the effect of her. The man sits down "on such occasions," as it were drugged, but this time it is generated even so "real-natural". And this "real-natural drugs" are in many respects much more advantageous than the "artificial", ie as the ones you are taking about, they just are closer to what the human being is created.

"Many people find themselves but just not nice enough for the nudity in front of others."
But why do even the most beautiful girl problems with nudity? And also, if we have not beautiful enough happen, why hide we calculated the genitals, should we not rather hide those body parts that are not so nice? That with the Sichverstecken for failure Beauty is only as a dummy argument.
"If young people and especially girls reach puberty, they are now beginning again to feel ashamed. This is perfectly normal. "Normal is here but nothing. If there are too ashamed young people start at puberty, then this can also mean that you are looking for a morality of love and partnership, because they do not want to waste a falsity. There is a parallel here to the language that man is a linguist and open to all sorts of languages in nature. He now takes over the language of his environment. Just as man is "moral gifted". If he will notice no conscious and meaningful morality because no one brings him close plausible, it takes just the one that is fooled him from his environment. So that is the shame - even if then not proven in practical life. But he did not know for now.

"But what if young people do not want to talk about all this?"
Refer to page 51/52.

"As if the display of the small difference would be the important thing."
Do not be so, as if you did not know that hiding the small difference is much sexier than the complete openness.

"But women and girls in particular are still more interesting when they're not completely naked."
That's an embarrassing argument against nudity because cheap and revealing. What is it like the girls and women who want to work in this way to men? A beautiful partnership probably not.

"Sure you also know what has been done in the past decades / centuries with the taboo of masturbation and the generation of relevant guilt among young people. This was worse, MUCH worse than when parents teach their children concealment of certain body parts. Therefore, I can absolutely not understand why you encounter the same tune as these old Schuldgefühleinreder. You do that too most "passing" in your notebook, and the horn sounds neither flashy nor loud, but it's clearly the same tune. "
Substantial you can do that probably does not say that the shame, that the veiling of body parts trump card macho par excellence with which they dictate others and especially the women their dirty will. Yes, they are the ones who are afraid of the paradise nudity have invent the devil before the holy water and the ever-new excuses why nudity is not good. Besides: What is this "Sure you know it ...?" Forgive me, who argued so who wants to foist something to the other, which is not necessarily understood, and thus reveals itself as not serious interlocutor. I know here - unlike you - nothing for sure! In the life of a young person so usually happens first, the taboo of nudity. This is a deliberate and controlled process on the part of the adults in our cultures or civilizations. In contrast, masturbation is something that is certainly rather taboo on the one hand, and on the other side later becomes an object of interest. Against the denigration of masturbation am I, but it is completely unclear how young people behave when Paradise Dress (in appropriate situations) would be usual. Whether then the Sichzusammennehmenkönnen even would not be very attractive and an indication of successful masculinity (or femininity)?

"Abstinence before marriage is but a typical Catholic particularity, the other non-Catholic people of no concern."
Oh no, the ideal of abstinence before marriage are in principle in all cultures and religions. However, this ideal is almost always so amateurish, represented the forces upon the suspicion that she's not really wanted and that it's all about the guilt feelings that arise when crossing the commandement of astinence. An exception was obviously the historical (or real) Jesus.

"Some sounds very good, but in the end it runs only on abstinence before marriage also with all its fears and compulsions, which represents the church. Ultimately, you are still a slave to the church. "
The question is, who is the slave of the church here. The church may tell some mischief or told not only in the past, but even today. But why is or was not all wrong. I find, for example, the marriage of high moral love and relationship (also called "high conjugal morality") very good and timeless-to-date. And as it is propagated here, it has nothing to do with fears and compulsions. By contrast, those who accuse me of a slave mentality opposite the church, once even asked to what extent they have taken over the body of hostility to the absurd constraints and fear itself, the Church teaches as the basis of sexual morality. I am thinking in particular of the "moral shame" - so if you are the real slave of the church, even if he does not want to admit it?
And also: What if young people obviously take pleasure in the high conjugal morality because they are "not doing anything" does not feel as forced and concentration, but as a sign of reason and emancipation? It looks here as if "old people" in their own interpretation of a rather sexist and nonsensical-hostile physical point of view in young people.

"The concept presented here is a step backwards."
At some point we are today "free moral" fed up because they anyway does not mean better quality of life. Whether it be a wave conversion to Islam are with obfuscation and forced marriage? Should not we make time thinking about a really good, meaningful (sexual) morality us?

"What an old dog can not learn, Hans learns nevermore":
The sexuality must be learned and as early as possible. This may apply elsewhere, but certainly not in sexuality. There are two events in humans, they do not need to learn which one is the sucking reflex after birth, the other is the orgasm. Who wants to learn something during orgasm, which may be destroyed rather something when he wins something. If because once traumas incurred as a result of sexual frustration, this shall an unbiased experience of orgasm - even with a disappointing not loving partner certainly not easier. Make no mistake about it: "copulate" Many people only (ie have a little human sex), a unity of body and soul can be no question.

"That woman just can orgasm without intercourse test, of which I have never heard of."
This is not surprising! The fact that a woman can experience orgasm without intercourse, probably the best kept secret of patriarchy is (ie the "Old-Men-rule"). It would be even nicer if just the girls no longer possible to readily mitmachten the sex-hand-becoming, but instead had a fulfillment in sex in mind and this fulfillment sought from the outset with knowledge and intelligence.

"The idea that a girl should test in the proposed manner before marriage, whether it be experienced with the elect an orgasm, is very far-fetched. If have two like each other, determine whether they fit together, whether they "smell" can, what you should prevent AFTER find the consummation of the marriage means and ways to reach orgasm? The claim that it almost is subject to Divine Providence, whether with a certain man an orgasm for the woman is possible or not, is not more than that: a pure assertion ".
Aha, "AFTER the consummation of the marriage," Since you have let the cat out of the bag! So first let others ignorant, so it works with the Überrumplung, no matter what happens. If this is not typical macho negative thinking! And this attitude has something to do with possessiveness, but nothing with the objective of fulfilling (permanent) relationship. Of course, such men (like you) have mind if girls just BEFORE the "fait accompli" meaningful test (want to) know where they stand in a man, and if he really brings them to fulfill. This book was written just so, so that girls and women see through from the beginning a relationship and thereby have avoided disappointing relationship boxes. Understandably, typical macho men have something against such an early and timely Durchschaut becoming.

"But can not make me, what all do?"
Who will force you to actually join the body contempt and opposed to the body of the other, no matter what problems arise from this Participate? What is it otherwise as the body of contempt and hostility body if you do not bear the naked body and certainly not enjoy in all innocence can - perhaps eventually with beautiful skin contact? How could you not only yourself, but also motivate others positively, if you had a different attitude here? And also: The usual inhibitions scraps of morality and finally sexual intercourse creates the doofste blonde, this woman needs namely really absolutely no mind. But to enjoy the nudity and then also for fulfilling skin contact with a man, in which a girl or woman can drop really, but heard this a good common knowledge and intelligence, that spirit.

"You talk so much talk of orgasm - is that so important?"
By the organism of the human body's own drugs, so as endorphins, dopamine, seratonin are formed, that is, man sets himself up by the experience of orgasm so to speak, even among drug , These drugs have a positive effect on intelligence and creativity of the people (especially women), and also have excellent medical effect. Man is, so to speak his own medical provider. There are studies that women with orgasm experiences rare cancer than women without such experiences. Disadvantages are certainly not known. However, we must remember that many women her orgasm experiences only come to a greater or lesser number of traumatic experiences with sexuality. And these traumatic experiences cause indeed stress and hormone distributions, but this time rather negative and therefore disease-promoting.

"The concept is against the sexual autonomy of young people."
As you can see it. Consider yet again how we deal with children. When the fun of nudity have, and have just the little girls in general, then let's try in every possible way to destroy them this fun. It really is yet to harmless. Where is because sexual self-determination? And when the children are older then, and they can not be acts that really bring them problems and are not so harmless, dissuade, we shrug our shoulders. Because apparently that is the nature against which nothing can be done - and now we talk about sexual self-determination. The question is, who it because driven into this problematic and non-Harmless and in the order of sexual self-determination has no idea.

"You just young people, especially girls are persuaded guilty."
At first glance it does look as if the girls are the culprits because they "reward" the wrong partner. But who brings them because this whole jammed hypocrisy in, so that they can not develop their natural morality: Who bears the liability here, those are the adults who might know better and should and inform young people incorrectly or not and shape.

"Why should you as an adult at all interfere with how the young people find their partners - to whatever they do?"
 The problem of finding a partner is too often the fraud that it is the honest and willingly seekers (and especially for to see through the young!) will apply. It is for the fraudster rather about the sex, for the impostor rather to get to the "wallet" and / or the social position of the man. It is no way that you look at a naked man, whether he is honest or dishonest. However, as a deal with the nudity? If a girl an admirer offering (he may have as an offer but really feel great and as a special award!), But these do not want for any reason whatsoever, and instead wants sex, then it ought to be suspicious. The man can tell if "in this state," a girl or a woman feels very comfortable with him. However, this is only one indicator among many, whether it fits together as husband and wife. It can act father-daughter relationship, as well as a (replacement). I know at this point two examples, one positive and one negative, ie one where the girl had given to the concept presented here and one is not. This last girl had allowed himself to "persuade" against the initially recognized as a useful concept, and Mother and sister and her (Free Church) pastor. And it occurred in both cases exactly what I said, once a visibly happy marriage partnership and the other time a terrible disappointment. That the brainwashing (the part of the mother, etc.) could work here was certainly also the fact that the "concept" was not yet mature. It just was not (yet) good enough. I see myself here guilty, at least subjectively. Also under this impression I have written this book.

"Without the joy of sex with the possibility of a new partner, it is much went back to the old boredom."
Oh je, ever, if not even more so boring when it's all about the "in-out"! Sex takes at most a few minutes, so a "stressful night" with self-generated "natural drugs", however a few hours. Already in duration that it is so with the "natural drugs" a multi - even in intensity - and especially if then this is still the orgasm (s ex p. 12)! And what can be with nudity and skin contact not make things, you could have a massage about each other and / or shave. It can also just as they determine whether (and how) he is gentle and trustworthy. Also has to be said quite clearly that sex relationships without marriage are now once (still) for many people at their level, women and girls about just want to be no Samenmelkmaschinen for men and boys, from which they are then but despised, and men no stallions for women who want a child with an uncertain outcome. With the method of "anti-stress hormone through abstinence" do here but attractive options for classy "closer relations without intercourse" on! Of course, this works only if the concept is held with absolute certainty if it were, it is considered as a divine concept, all else being anyway back to normal.

"You look suspiciously much to young girls."
Aside from being just always be treated as objects, and so you have to do something here, I think the thesis of the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset in his book "On Love" (here DVA, Stuttgart 1954, p 24) absolutely correct, that's what 15 year old girls have in their heads, "the centuries deeper traces" digs "than the steel of the war god". In other words: What are the girls choose their partner, they decisively shape the men and thus they indirectly affect what men are and do. So but the girls are exactly the right person if you want to change something in our world!

"We have here but as a problem as a self-fulfilling prophecy before us.  Something is only perceived as so bad because it denigrates it. If you do not speak ill of sexual intercourse to the sample, it would not be perceived as bad, "
I know enough people who were certainly nothing negative about -. And they suffered and still suffer under it.
They all say it but that also disappointing first sex is not a problem. Who likes to admit that he was - had ridden into something, but then what was not so great and what he would rather have been spared - especially since often receive warnings? Again, the story fits of "The Emperor's New Clothes": Just do not honestly say that you yourself have experienced something completely different!
Somewhere that's the same whether "intimate" or "left out". I see very well make a huge difference. Anyway, there is the "Intimsein without marriage" rather parallels to prostitution. In contrast, a man can rather assume a commitment to high morale and seriousness, a very important condition for a marriage when a girl fundamentally "outside-front" insists on (not times and times as it fits, respectively).

"My wife and I had sex before marriage - and has not harmed us!"
I refer to the cases on pages 2and 3. There is some talk, which is, however, obviously very hurt. It is probably as close as with the seat belts when driving. Of course, who has never built an accident, which it has not hurt if he has never flipped a seat belt. But others had already harmed - and all it would have done no harm if they had ever flipped a belt. And so it is with the No-sexual intercourse-before-marriage also a nice safety thing. In addition, harmonic skin contact something wonderful - and without recourse to the pharmaceutical products or rubber industry, without pill and condoms. And just mothers (and fathers) would later pass on to their children, as it can be done before marriage, without there on pages 2 and 3 such stories or could come. For they must also always expect that not so harmonious starts with their children as they themselves also may "them" as they did, enthusiastically tell -. On the other hand I have certainly never inspired by the intimate process reports heard. The silent especially dear woman, even and especially towards their children. So wonderfully seem to be well not have been. How beautiful it is to behave so that you can always tell the truth!

"But can a girl (or woman) in this comprehensive skin contact not easily be raped?"
First of all, studies have shown that perky and cheerful girls more likely to be raped as opposed to retaining and good girls. Perky and cheerful girls seem to have a special aura about him, so do not even dare address the "corresponding types" to the. And more generally, sexual intercourse: I can only say that all girls and women who had me "thereof" reported it at least had also approved wanted express or implied, though in a few cases with prior persuasion. In any case, a mere skin contact has never previously been expressly agreed in the then "suddenly" "more" was. Incidentally, Nature has probably no coincidence places the divide between the woman's legs, so here nothing can happen against their express wishes between its strongest muscles. Also, when paradise costume indeed advantageous that the female partner "the masculine man" very good has before him when "he" so importunate, then "they" can still hit it, "it is" to touch and bring him to relax or "it" bend over. In any case, "they" will rest once and can be made out of the dust - and she knows what she has to think of him.

"You worry too much about this" first sex-theme "would not be much more important, how to live together, so that a partnership succeed?" First, I'm a bachelor/single, and as such hardly competent in matters of coexistence. And second, if just chose a love partner a girl, then it looks at him anyway everything through rose-colored glasses, so how it wants to see it, so it will throw all his previous notions about the. I therefore give me any "advice" about living together and go only to the problem "love partner" field.

It is this: on the one hand, you criticize the inhibitions that is inoculated children by implicitly or explicitly informed them, nudity is something disgusting and immoral. On the other hand you are building a new "no-go area" with the requirement that private parts must not be touched, neither of other people, even their own. "Unaesthetic and primitive" is the self-satisfaction, you write on page 19. That does not sound as bad as "disgusting", but it comes out to the same thing.
 It's really something completely different, if I go to a sauna and there see other people naked and I am seen by them naked, or if I touch these people, or will be touched by them. I also refer to the beautiful ballet in the performance of the opera "Les Indes gallant" in Bordeaux (see google under Bordeaux / Opera / Rameau / Medici). When I contrast images of masturbation exercises imagine ... Strange that you throw everything here in a pot and see no difference. An objective interlocutor You're not well.

"Nakedness (so also the paradise dress) is decadent "
nudity has something to do with naturalness - and is probably not really decadent! Is not it much more decadent, if the young people is classified as destructive and dangerous against something and then before that have an anxiety while being held up really problematic as either irrelevant or even concealed? Note: Even decadent societies have a sexual morality, morality refers only is their sometimes rather trivial and / or Unproblematisches and sometimes even to basically ridiculous. However, they neglect the basics. Therefore, it just comes in decadent societies ever to moral indignation when a politician says the bust size of a journalist.

"I'm probation officer of sex offenders. I find this concept some parallels to the views of these sex offenders "
You do not have to look far certainly, as they will also find plenty of parallels between Adolf Hitler and Albert Schweitzer -. It all depends probably much more to the differences in! And also: Maybe your sex offenders have sometimes not so wrong, maybe they are just victims of decadence with us, maybe they are thus actually quite healthy, but come up with the hypocrisy not clear with us?

"By being propagated here openness especially between father and daughter is a danger of incestuous relationships."
This concern is unfounded if the "relationship" natural-normal expires. Because by trusting openness and closeness, as is typical for father and daughter from his earliest childhood, or should be, formed a so-called incest taboo, namely life. If there is this openness of children to another, such as friends and relatives of the family, then the incest taboo is also effective for those.

"Here is an outdated purity delusion is represented."
He who has an interest in ensuring that it does not come to the propagated here ethics in particular young people? Who benefits from this defeatism? Are these really well-intentioned - right?

"It's really inhumane to make such advertising for virginity, many have not. If you think that does not infringe the principle of equality? "
Even on the highway Paradise will be achieved if any remains are more, because all are already. So, if we have only the principle of equality in the head, so we depend on those who can not or something that a certain property (not more) have, for any reason whatsoever, there will never be an improvement.

"But if all do but, as with the pre-marital sex, this can not then probably not be wrong?"
This is a typical "naturalistic fallacy" and certainly no proof! Didn´t even all agree the removing of the witches or the Jews out of the society? And even if all were sure it was still wrong. In general, if a broken morality is once in fashion, even if it is the greatest mischief, how to change the matter? Who would dare to stand up for a change? And once again the fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes": If only once every fool, then no one dares yet more to say what is real. Except for a child just - we ask so once the kids! (Or a "ver-engaged" old religion teacher!)

"So even if it was a mistake, when a girl had her first sex with the wrong person - so what? What's in a single error, if the person is otherwise okay? "
On one hand, I agree with, but then no one commits yes this a mistake like that. You just have to take a closer look: This error is but an indication that something was wrong, there were certainly opposed to the body, blindness to real dangers, lack of enjoyment of real morality. What would be so if the goal of education would be to avoid seizure without just exactly this a bug? (That is the concern of this concept!)

"Recent research has shown that women love the variety in bed (s. The book of Daniel Berger" What Do Women Want ")."
The problem is not the change in bed, but the orgasm. If women do not have the case of a partner, they dream of just another thing they now often translate into action. If they had a partner, in which they experience their orgasms and is a good partner otherwise, they would have no interest in other men.

"When I look at some specific movies, the young people take all of this was very loose with their sexual adventures."
Well, who does because these films? As yet there is a serious intent - problems may of course not be shown, at least not that young people are held by their adventures. What do you call but such a one-sided presentation? Manipulation!

"Where is the freedom, especially young people?"
Consider again that the right driving on our roads was not actually a forced and thus against the freedom of man. However, the associated "unfreedom" has the great advantage that you can rely on others to also go this way so a brisk traffic and even very fast driving is possible. And just as it is but with a high and principled sexual morality. However, this morality must be really internalized. Let us imagine how great it would be if we could really rely on our fellowmen us here! When I think alone on school trips, such as are often quite cramp to keep boys and girls in the night apart. Or at boarding schools. Since everything would be much easier with the pedagogy high morals, because young people do on their own, have how to behave. Last but not least would be information for young people with the goal of high morale and the best protection for educators such as priests and teachers. The young people would which could then cut on the finger when they wanted from them something.

"All well and good, what you say. But I think it is reasonable, like other only once to live with a man to the sample. "
In contrast, certainly not objectionable. But the principle should apply: no intimacies intimacies belong to the marriage! There are societies in which of hosting sex without marriage prostitution, and we are by no means free of such attitudes in our society. You just have to listen once more precisely what is spoken. It is after all a difference between the ingress and the clean Let the penetration takes place outside the body, but the clean Let the body. And if woman takes no money for it, then that is surely a sign of even greater stupidity be that it "makes" it for free. You should also consider: What kind of man you want once for the marriage? Could it be one with a level-from which it is not indifferent to him what you had for past?

"When girls about their early twenties, are still virgins over a certain age addition, they will still bitchy and inedible-conceited and often downright crazy."
Because sometimes seems to be something to it. But this is certainly  awareness not so much that they are still virgins, but how they are. It is so: "We are not moral because we are so strong, but because so far the temptations were just too weak." So at those virgins is the problem that their morality is a real morale, while it's only a shame or hypocrisy. Because thing, but that for them the "right thing", this is their moral overcome (or break) could simply not yet come. Their morale is therefore not a fundamental attitude, but rather only a swimsuit- or bikini morality and therefore quite superficial and somehow ridiculous. However, everything looks different when virgins represent the morality of Paradise and practice, and others, in particular, of course, boys and men who try to inspire them. Such girls / women seem by no means imaginary and crazy, but serious and courageous.

"But some churches have moved away from the stubborn attitude that there should be sex within marriage. For just gave this stubborn attitude and there is so much hypocrisy and pronounced suffering. Important since been teaching young people that there are different ways of life and to take people with different lifestyles seriously and respect. "
I was on a work by Kurt Hutten" The sexual revolution or mere corruption of morals "of 1966 (Protestant Association noted for ideological issues).
The setting that is installed on the morale of the high love behind the waiver, sounds very much like the quintessence of the Äsopschen fable of the fox and the grapes. Reminder: In this fable, a fox is scornful of the grapes hanging too high for him and which he therefore can not reach ". You are too immature and too sour and I do not like sour grapes" The fable caricatures the dishonest handling of defeat: In order not to have to admit that it can not reach the grapes, claims the fox, not to want to achieve. Likewise, the attitude of the author Kurt H. morality of high love, instead of worrying about the he says she is not wanted anyway because they only there is hypocrisy.

"I've actually if any men stare just something about it to other naked humans, and especially children sick."
Do not be so, as if women and girls and also children do not like to stare! And yet is mild times! Is not it quite natural as people once seen and heard? Feel this "staring" but even as a normal and necessary for the "self-satisfied-see-storage-reduction" and as a natural transition stage for the normal Become a jammed and yet never overly moral society!

'It is but the natural and the vitality of young people that they will eventually also want sex. "
If the sex of naturalness and vitality of young people really correspond, then not only no problems, but even express fun with Paradise costume would. But exactly they have not this fun flat. This is probably a sure sign that today's sex education, which indeed looks the sex and not the nudity as natural and normal for a single pseudo-scientific spasm.

"So, you mean as a Catholic catechist you know everything better than the sex educators."
The usual modern sex education based but on a "naturalistic fallacy" (see p. 41 o) and therefore is contrary to a truly acceptable science. When sex education really want is all about that premarital sex is normal and healthy, and how young people lose their fears before. You are here regarded from the outset as unpredictable-compulsive and incapable of meaningful knowledge of human nature, is to choose a suitable partner for them from the beginning. Abstinence and enjoyment of heavenly clothing are not interested. Of course I take inspiration from this "science" on, but it is for me after all of the basic conditions not produce serious science. So I prefer the theology, because if the were correct, one would come on this topic. It's all in theology for paradise here and now, or at least it should be about. So I'm in the right place - even if today's theologians do not like me first of all.
"You mention that the going the wrong way in the choice especially the first lover's trauma entails. However, it is noted in everyday life nothing or almost nothing "end experience in other areas. Or where all residents have when in a war all women and girls are raped If all women lose in wars sons and husbands or fear of terror bombing, then there it's a kind of collective consolation effect, so it is easier over it, as if to mourn alone and suffering. And so it is even with the love of trauma. But this is all good so far not. Especially bad is that in science education, sociology, psychology and theology explains this going a wrong way as a norm and then also encouraged to make this collective effect consolation for special cultural reality.

"However much heterosexual traditionalists yearning: The never really existent heal hetero world is lost. She's never coming back "
Thus, in the article" Freedom in appearance - because of subculture., Without homosexuality our lives would be ugly and barren "in the newspaper" Die Welt "15. 02. 2014. The author, Ulf Poschardt refers to the heterosexual as the unemancipated, boring, uncultural: "Just because there's a gay high culture, life as a hetero is at all bearable. There is nothing to separate. The cultural lives of their lewd promiscuity. Inspiration does not follow a catechism. Fortunately. "Dear Mr. Poschardt, I can only say, you speak of the decay or by the immaturity of" apples "and make it all a (probably unattainable) ideal of the health of" pear "against. Here's but really is not! Here you go: Where is there a reasonable general heterosexual parenting? Where there is an education of young people, and I am thinking particularly of girls, in view of the subsequent experience of a single large lifelong love and the experience of orgasm? Where there is an education to a conscious high sexual ethics? Where there is a realistic and viable information as they can not distinguish meaningful for them for them sensible of men? Where there are suggestions on how they can influence their male comrades positive in their development? Where there is an education to be proud of her body, so also conscious nudity? Instead, it is now mainly an information about birth control pills and condoms and an encouragement not to be hostile physical (and below is then almost always understood the sexual intercourse), and these "agents" also be used. Where is pray tell anything Culture Sexy?
Let's start at once so that to make something correctly or at least correct - and then we'll see if not yet a beautiful and culturally full heterosexuality is possible and what still remains of homosexuality!

"You say, somewhat hidden and implicit, but clearly states that homosexuality is a" perversion "is that would disappear in an appropriate way to deal with nudity and sexuality (s. Previous criticism). Thus you position yourself against what is now regarded as reliable knowledge. It would be an urgent need to provide for this claim evidence: namely investigations recognized anthropologists about the fact that homosexuality does not occur among primitive peoples, and a rationale for why homosexuality occurs in higher mammals (and therefore there is "natural"), in humans, however, arises only through alienation from nature (ie "unnatural", "perverted" is).
"What do you mean" certain knowledge "? Who is "recognized anthropologist" who ever gets involved in such a discussion? Anyway, sounds like your criticism then, as if you want to foist something to me. In all societies there are always power structures, so that it is precisely here not really free choices of individual gibt.Im ancient Greece were 99% of men homosexual and the genes of that men were certainly not different from that of today's men. So that means that the former homosexuality was not genetic, but also largely culturally determined. I doubt whether homosexuality in animals, even when those in the wild, as something natural can be considered. The "pure nature" Surely there is nowhere in the animal world there are power structures. I doubt even if there are "pure nature" in animals are loners. So there is probably always theory to theory or belief to faith
"You support you, when it comes to the crucial ideas of your concept, essentially on their own experiences and on what others have told you, and sometimes the products of a single newspaper. This strikes me as an overly narrow source basis. "
That's just it, clearly write the authors of the usual sources only differ, in any case contradicts what I my have noticed over thirty years as a vocational school religion teachers such as in the course, the usual source of base , Where on earth can I find in the usual sources an indication that the Adam and Eve story is a story against the fertility cults, where can I find an investigation into whether the fear of nudity for a high morale is actually conducive where I can find about the central nervous system induced orgasm without intercourse? I have found nothing or only after a long search, and then only by chance. Therefore, although I have taken the usual source base note, but I am gone their own way, where it appeared reasonable to me. And the "single daily" What I have taken from the is verifiable basically common knowledge over the Internet and in other publications.

If you want to change something in our society, then there is really no longer important areas as the problems of small girls. I think of the unemployment especially young people, to the portrayal of violence on television, on the ubiquitous pornography.
 I certainly agree with you. But it is when you want to change something, especially about what is feasible at all for oneself. What a help the wildest ideas if you can not put it into practice? But we can think of evil as a "wheel of evil." And to change something, you have to sand in the wheels or throw into the spokes. Many things can not just here, but many can. I refer to the discussions on page 4: As you would have to do something! - And that would have a good chance of triggering a landslide effect, not least because it really means a liberation and stakeholders is fun ....

"Here you are, where is your classification, where is your methodology?"
This once a comparison with microstructures in physics: To recognize something about the atomic scale, not only the light beams, but also the electron beams are much too coarse and much too powerful: with which one would what you want to see either do not realize or even destroy it. One might as after researching something else is going on than without this investigation. It needs other methods, more indirect. And so it is with our subject, when it comes to Mental! Typical questionnaires about are much too coarse and even destroy what you want to see. So rather indirect "investigations" - like here!

"While a representation in the form of this book would be quite sufficient if it were only to make suggestions for reflection and comparison with their own experience ... But there is even now certainly more in your notebook, namely statements that claim to general raise validity. "
Actually, it was my first to give so not by more than food for thought. But unfortunately, I was then kept as a critique of some popular mistakes that I just had to set the record straight. I also experienced very often pronounced lack of objectivity. So I was forced to reopen the subject matter of principle. If everything is right now, I do not know, but one thing is clear: Something Right and Harmonious can always shorter and concise represented as something non Coherent and Non-Real.
Elsewhere you asked where I have evidence for my thesis. I remind you that you have something against the order of nudity (centrally induced) orgasmic sexual intercourse and thus also girls do not want to give the opportunity to identify, BEFORE, whether you are the right thing for them. If that's the best proof of the correctness of my thesis is not that the one who wants sex once, has no real interest in a girl.

"What is all this, my goal of education is tolerance."
But to what extent one can be tolerant of thinking in which people enslaved, are marginalized and even murdered, in which women and girls are circumcised in which people are allowed to stupid and naive, so that they are easily manipulated (ie also bought and abuse) can? That with the tolerance is easy to say and sounds good, but in fact it often hides ignorance and lack of concepts for own something really positive.

2. The problem of perfect theory: Why something happenes or doesn´t not happen.

"It is quite clear why the girls start having sex. You want it to be recognized by the other. "
This first of all," clearly "is never something so quickly. That with the base of the desire for recognition is only a theory of many.
For comparison: There are about 200 theories as to why ancient Rome has gone down. One is about the decadence of morals in ancient Rome, another is because Egypt was lost. For out of Egypt was the paper that was sort of the lifeblood of the Roman State officials. And because there was no paper, there was no more lifeblood. You can now argue about the consistency of a theory. Anyway, there is even the most plausible theory always plenty of pros and cons ...
So also with the theory of the girls who start having sex, because they seek recognition. While the theories about the demise of ancient Rome to refer to something that is in the past and which therefore can be relatively indifferent to us, is what the theories about the girls to something that happens all the time and giving us so today something is concerned. A discussion here is important and worthwhile.
There may now be girls "start" because of the recognition. But I know at least some girl who saw "back then" not only extremely good, which were also highly intelligent and respected by their comrades. The really had no recognition necessary - and they have yet started having sex! So that's the reason for the "recognition" probably nothing.

Let's go even other "theories" by!

Let's start with a theory of Buddhism!
An old theory about why women have with men than with her own husband sex (when the opportunity is there), is one of the original Buddhism. Teaching history "Jataka 62" represents a chaplain to the theory that a woman who has seen in her life only one man except her husband, can not be faithful to one man alone. There is a bet between the chaplain and a king over the disposition of women to be faithful, which also loses brilliantly the chaplain. That the reason for the inability of women to be faithful possibly a false theory and even then may be the resulting abstruse education of girls, the idea is not the chaplain. But today we should not be arrogant: What is today not all recognized us about the disposition of the women in this direction uncritically as true and correct and not questioned? And it is at the end here but only the result of a verquerten theory with the corresponding verquerten education.
Therefore, now back to us and to our time! Again, there is either generally or individually theories on this subject, which are either not at all or only superficially questioned. After all, who here has a particular theory, thinks so, to know everything better anyway.

"The problem is that the good example. So if you have experienced as a child not a good family, which can later even hardly or not your own good family succeed. "
This reasoning is not necessarily logically and scientifically it is certainly not. The relationship can also be a very different, namely that it is precisely the one who is open to a very good family, who had himself never saw as a child and therefore wants to do something wrong in any case. So let's say that every man by nature longs for a nice physical spiritual communion with a person of the opposite sex and that he would have what it takes to succeed in that community. Their own children would be quite desirable in this community. But now the following happens: instead of a sensible morality for dealing with the opposite sex (or even meaningful rules) the young people are taught morals or the hypocrisy of shame no (sexual), which he, of course, not critically. And so he slips up and it comes to the typical relationship crates then eventually amount to a not so ideal partnership that would actually be possible. Whoever does not see these relationships who sees himself confirmed that those who had themselves no good family, and themselves may succeed not a good family in the view - but in reality everything is different.

"But is that good parents because not a prerequisite for successful children's relationships later?"
There is no automatism. Especially in a free society like ours every man his life begins to ultimately fresh. For this he needs, however, the information or rules (see example on page 2-24). It happens to be probably so that is just less spoken in good parental homes on these rules sooner and the less good parents worldwide. So everything happened the procedure "self-fulfilling prophecy": Something happened exactly as you had predicted, but not because that would have to be by nature, but because it just wishful thinking or nothing is done. Tragic is then not succeed in ligand relations: So as it was probably only because no one ever had bothered to develop a concept that there could be different without good parents house for those. There is also the question: What the heck is a good family home? Themselves do not give all parents somehow the way to make something out of their children is - and they will not come to the wrong person?

"And what are really caring parents for now do better?"
Even the children should be able to tell from their parents: "My dad (or my mom) knows what to do and do not lie to me, my dad told me only what is true and is correct, so I do not embarrass me in front of others. My dad also told me about a morality that makes me anxious and uptight and I in the end fall on someone purely because it is only a sham morality. So he sent me no wrong way that I shame about the morality of confusing like many of my other girlfriends and friends. Therefore, I also know how I can therefore differ from other people. And so I can what is true morality, explain to my friends and comrades. In short: On what my dad told me me that you can rely "Yes, there are just things that a young person now even know, so that it must be said, and it must process them too!. Without such intellectual performance but are also in a good family mannered young people not immune to the failure of relationships. Only just, they are more likely to be caught by the family if they should even experience a disappointment. However, the young people are then probably not a good example for others, they could be. (See also page 51 u.)

"The shame is still the basis of every sexual morality - and the young people of today just do not have enough shame."
First of all: What is fraught before puberty in a young man with disgust and shame is in puberty just fascinating and interesting. A pedagogy to disgust and shame is so extremely counterproductive for a high morale. Why then the whole relationship mess.
We also have the problem here therapy and prophylaxis (or "prevention") as a disease before us. What exactly can be the right thing for prevention of disease that can, if not the same disease as a healing method quite harmful fatal. We think of the Resilience through the cold water fonts of the pastor Kneipp. So this means that paradise dress for sexual "Inexperienced" quite an incentive for high morale without any temptation for "Experienced" However, the temptation can be simply. Besides: Do you know, dear reader, someone at the entry into sexual mistakes with the joy had started approximately at a nude beach? So it remains: Man is by nature a highly moral being, or "a being of high moral potential" - especially in the context of sexuality. But unfortunately he puts this potential "in the wrong object" so that he is missing the right one for the object. So he learns in our cultures child, his moral potential in shame to put in place the concept of morality "sex only with or with the right". The shame is, is not the prerequisite for a high morale partnership, it executes on the contrary rather away from it.

"But what about the impulsiveness and the weakness of man?"
Who talks like that that does not work with Paradise Dress in practice that it only says that does not work himself - because he has relevant experi-gen (the children have not yet!). Perhaps it would, however, with him yet, but out of sheer sexual fears he has simply never tried? And also, it has just now numerous examples, that it is just yet - and very good! A beautiful paradise clothes but can also be very disarming, it depends on the attitude behind it.

"Infatuation is a biochemical process, since it is just powerless."
That is the concern of the concept: The joy of paradise clothing is in fact also a biochemical process, not least she has something to do with the original natural human. And if this process really works, that is, when the heavenly clothes really enjoy, an infatuation with a non-matching party has no chance!

"Just look at once the site of Durex condom factory in the number of sexual partners a person has in life. And you want to change it? So the Indians have about 3, the Germans 5.9, the Turks 14.5. "
There just only an extraordinary concept has a chance
"The most beautiful theories are nullified because of the very nature is like that, that every man is a rapist in principle. And it's not just about the practical rape, but men can rape by words or looks. The consequences of all are just as bad in fact, that traumatized women and girls. "
You can not imagine that men are also a spiritual, emotional and physical overall obvious. For in such a total, it's the way that men can also have a high ideal of love that is so strong that they can have a sexuality that is not in the order of nature do not practice - that is certainly not a rape. However, it must add the matching girls and women, ie those which themselves have ideals, then according to procedure "imprint of reward" (see p. 28) would like to pass on to the men. And your attitude to men of all: let men yes no chance! If a concrete which can not be accused of rape, then at least one through words or even by looks after the motto: Something bad is found in a man forever. If such an adjustment is not profoundly anti-men! (Note this: There may indeed be some kind of rape by words and looks, but that only works if a young person responds to the fact Would not it a task that young people through a suitable education 'as presented about here>.. to immunize experience has shown that such immune-made young people then also a self-awareness and a charisma that comes to none at all "practical rape" more -. as long as they only behave reasonably sensible See also "rape" in the online encyclopedia In any case, such an immunization the concern of this concept.)

"Order of nature? What does that mean? Has not a fascist background of the concept `Fortunately, the high love' go?"
We must distinguish between artificial systems, ie those who have made the people and natural systems, ie systems that just naturally "there" are , Artificial systems can certainly have something Fascist per se, but not natural orders. A natural order is about the four seasons. That a farmer is then aimed at sowing and harvest, is a matter of common sense. Of course you can bypass this natural order as well as with greenhouses, but this is very costly and labor intensive - and such an "order" does not work by itself. The question is, which is probably more fascistic the topic of this issue, an order with pill and condom and bathing suit or an order that accepts the natural environment and recognizes?

"In our anonymous mass societies nobody really cares more about the other, and there is therefore no responsibility for one another in love. Everybody wants only his own pleasure. "
Here, then, again an indication of statistics about the number of sexual partners in different countries on the Internet, you see the words Durex Global Sex Survey (see p. 49). Of course, statistics always give only an average back and say nothing about the behavior of individuals. This is also aware of the condom company Durex. And it down at least some countries: The Hong Kong residents are strictly monogamous to two-thirds, so they have a lifetime only one sexual partner - and close and probably more anonymous than in Hong Kong, a huge amount of people hardly live together. On the other hand, it is among the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes and Greeks, yet so closely did not live together and where there certainly is no anonymous mass society in many areas, only 12% who live long have only one sexual partner.

"You can not do anything now anyway - the media is too powerful,"
The media scientist Prof. Dr. Lothar Mikos about does not look at the power of the media to be so monstrous and insurmountable, they increase at best but only what from somewhere else in thinking of men. And also: are in Africa and in many parts of the world, or at least it was until not too long ago no media - and yet girls are circumcised, namely on moral grounds. Because, in the opinion of the people who practice this circumcision may not otherwise be faithful girls (and women). This alleged inability to fidelity, and thus the lack of a high morale, therefore has nothing to do with the media, which is also available without the media! If there is no link now somewhere else, then why with us? That with the guilt of the media is not plausible for me anyway. The fact remains that for those who do not want a change, never looks where he can make something yourself. Looking and always finds others who are to blame. But the one who really wants to change something that looks a thousand ways and means, where and how he can do something!

"To blame for today's moral decline are still the religion teacher. The there are indeed that make even the young people faith and therefore also the morale broken. Task just the teachers of religion would be to equip young people with the traditional faith. But instead of doing that, they have to deal with the belief in question. "
" Whether people used without the "really were better detrimental impact" of today's religion teacher? An acquaintance who ran in old parish registers of Warmia, a really deep Catholic area, genealogy, found that very often stood behind the name of a mother "sc", ie the abbreviation for the Latin word scortum = whore, a very brutal expression for "unwed mother". Here, everything went "so" without the modern infidel religion teacher! And was somewhere else and yet it is similar. Blame it on the "modern religion teacher," but is also just as an excuse not to tackle the really hot topics.

"It is known that the actions have` No sex before marriage' never helped anything. "
Of course not. For as running from the for ever? For all these actions but the moral basis of only the usual hypocrisy (ie swimming trunks, etc.) were always takes the spirit and finally a faith hodgepodge that has more to do for many people with folklore, nostalgia and faith magic than with the real Jesus (see Issue 2). Thus, these actions could not work, at least not in our free society!
(Please read a note from the newspaper "Die Welt", 21. 10. 2007: "campaigns that young people should be encouraged to chastity are always ineffective and sometimes even result in the opposite of the results of an evaluation of 13 Enthaltsamkeitsstudien where. participated 15,940 young people Kristen Underhill and her colleagues at the University of Oxford stated:.. No campaign has had an impact on the frequency of unprotected sex, the number of different partner on the use of condoms or the age at first sexual contact A the campaigns also caused the opposite effect: under this scheme, young people had even more frequent sexual contact, and the number of sexually transmitted diseases among them was increased (Is) ").


And all of these are easy to pick apart basically, if you're only something factual. But there is a very plausible theory: Especially for girls, but also for boys, is at least initially to find partners in the foreground.

So that man is by nature not only a highly intellectual and highly moral, but also a highly social animal. In matters of sexual morality, the young man is now just determined by the idea that he must behave like other normal people, so he is not an outsider who is considered to be jammed, unliberated and frigid. The only way he can, in his opinion eventually find a suitable partner. The need to be normal, like a language: If single parent a child in a highly intellectual and beautiful language educate, but other people do not speak that language, the child will keep his parents sometime incompetent and is "made moves" , So we have to make clear that it is rather pointless if single parents want to raise their children to high standards when, for example, the daughters would be lonely virgins - and make the girls rarely with. So an education would be too high morals always community thing. In one group (here just also offers religious education in) your child will also talk (want to) - and how! And the fun of nudity would be an indication of special Unashamedly awareness, so for a successful overcoming opposed to the body, and for real emancipation and intelligence.

Added to this a little more to what I have written on page 23: It is, after all, the most natural thing in the world that the young man is dating, and that he would like to get a good partner. For quite on monogamy (see p. 16) oriented human-typical courtship behavior belongs above all, that he advertises himself and of course other respects also to advertising. It is indeed a question of obtaining healthy children into the world, so to healthy genes on. The natural advertising is now, that showcases his health (and that everything is on it) and also that of the other wants to see - and, of course, not only in terms of a potential partner, but to many. Man or woman wants to have a choice. And we are now once programmed so that we associate health with beauty, so we want to show and see!

But now happens in the typical decadent cultures with their hypocrisy, after which it will at least look as if you had a morality following (Note .: also decadent cultures have a moral, but a sham morality or Feigenblatt- or just a swimsuit morality) : something completely natural, namely the free play of seeing and being seen even and especially in public (ie where there are many possible partner) is taboo and presented as something bad or immoral. In order for a human basic instinct to choke off so to speak. The result is that there are plenty of good or especially stupid justifications that eventually always equal helter-skelter all happens - and very often really not suitable partners! The phase of the chance of unproblematic sorting out unsuitable partners had to yes (culturally determined) can be omitted.

So if we want to change something in our present (sexual) morality for the better, we must start here! This primarily to allow the free play of View and show and cultivate.

Note .: If the youthful body shapes for old people are attractive, that does not mean that "old people" also always equal to young people "go", rather the opposite. For there is also something about a father-daughter-effect between actually stranger who opposes the well. If this effect is activated by naturalness and openness of young people once he causes an extraordinary care of the "old" for the "boys". And this effect remains even if, for example, which are perceived as daughter girl is getting older by the motto: "One daughter - always Daughter"

3. EDUCATIONAL INTRODUCTION into  the concept of "Fortunately, the high love" - here for young people aged 8 years.

Preliminary note on the issue abaut child conformity

To the idea with the "clothes of Paradise", so the nudity, which belongs to the approach of the concept, brought me children. In a children's holiday camp in the seventies of the last century they were the ones who started with Paradise costume. Unfortunately, I had at that time also among those who "something" had stalled with - as if the sexual self-determination does not apply to children (especially in quite innocent paradiselike!). But then it went not help, the time just was not ripe. Meanwhile, I see this as a chance to demonize children to not something fundamentally and thus make it somehow bodily hostile, but introduce them to the problem of ambivalence, so that may be something good or bad, depending on how one uses it. It then must of course be further elaborated outdated, especially girls want to know contexts. Unfortunately sit very many adults here everything indiscriminately from a regard to the prevention of Frühsexualisierung (to make children early to sexual beings). These adults, however, need to want to leave under a guise children stupid and naive like the criticism that. For in this way children can hardly develop their own ethical concept of action and so they are more vulnerable for later manipulation, from whatever quarter.

The impression of the desire for knowledge of contexts has been fully confirmed for me in a religious education with children a few years after these children free time with other children, when I came with a similar history as the opera Rigoletto on the subject. It was as if I had opened a barrel - what the young people, both the girls and the boys did not want to know everything! And it did not stop at the one hour in the next and next it went. There was so much to talk about! My impression was that the girls were happy just to have once found an adult who had a setting in the sense of her innocent moral feeling and with whom she could talk. When I wanted to tell mothers what I was doing, I only got to hear: "Let times, it's fine how do you do that!" Apparently, the children were being told at home from my classes. Here in the group all went much easier and more natural in what would one call parent / child look more like spasm and scare the children. Why then the positive reaction of the mothers.

So why not right from the beginning?

Because stories with young people arrive always good, so I suggest to start with one of our most famous operas: "Rigoletto". So our young people get the same time something of our culture.

In this opera is about the care of a father to his most beloved daughter from him. I think that in this story the subject very well "roll up" can, both for girls as for boys. The girls are more affected, so I speak to them. But it's also about the boys, they are addressed in their protective instinct, experience has shown that they also like to take if they are required only at an early stage.

The advantage of today: Even very young people know about the biological of "multiplication" communication, as well as via sexual intercourse. The only thing missing to complete an appropriate concept of morality. And as I said, in my experience, the children, the wish, too!

Specifically on the history of opera: The father's Rigoletto. A jester, crippled. The daughter's name is Gilda and is beautiful. Rigoletto's wife, Gilda's mother has died. The action takes place at the court of the Duke of Mantua in Northern Italy, about three hundred years ago. This Duke is a womanizer, as they say, exploits its charm and certainly his power to have sex (intercourse) with the women of his palace officials and, with many other women. He uses women, despised them and playing them first love or even reverence. The women make with, perhaps, because life is too boring for them otherwise. But the Duke amused how stupid and naive women are to believe his love lies and join his sexual adventures. The men of these women feel cheated and of course see themselves as the tricked, especially the Duke because he seduces their wives also about her and her anger, just laughs and scoffs. But what they should otherwise make as good of a bad job. They also are dependent on him.

Even now, the court jester mocks the other castle officials, because they can be dropped from the Duke all. But at the same time he has an insanely great concern for his daughter Gilda that once fell in love with the Duke and she is exploited in their love of him. And so he hides all other his daughter Gilda and hides them in front of them. Only on Sundays it may - of course unrecognized - go to church, you are so pious.

And when she meets a cute student with whom she falls in love. This student is now the Duke - disguised, so also Gilda does not recognize him.
The opera ends very sad because Gilda gives the Duke her innocence, she is so overwhelmed at the close encounter that she has her first sex with him. But he despises them only after he has achieved what he wanted, and enjoy themselves soon again with other women (ie has sex with them) - and then sings his famous aria "Oh, how women are so deceptive heart ...! "he twisted reality, because actually the women are not so deceptive, but it is - at least for now.

As at the end of the opera Rigoletto Duke will be murdered, Gilda died in his place. It is not clear whether they sacrifice out of love for him or if she just wants to death because their innocence and therefore - as she says - the possibility of a great love for them is lost forever anyway and therefore no life has more sense. All very sad.

(Note: The virgins are in the vaginal opening a hymen that is destroyed in the first Sex - "man" can thus see later, if a girl already had sex, however, agrees with this "proof" is not always the potential shock after such a.. experience has now been widely regarded as a consequence of a physical enemy education. On the other hand, the possible shock will experience the young people when they are confronted with the nudity, regarded as something that makes young people need to be protected. the concept of this booklet visibility is now vice versa.)
I think it's great in any case, as the composer of the Opera (Giuseppe Verdi) has written a captivating music over the fate of a girl, he thinks that fate is very important. We should think more about it.

Now back to us today!

It is an age-old problem that fathers (and parents at all) to their daughters have worried that they also "something" could happen. You do not want the daughters fall in love with such a Hallodri that only she is lying to and deceiving and exploiting and for the sex has nothing to do with love and relationship, but only a fun game. Unfortunately, a lot of parents in their care anyway as helpless as this Rigoletto and do many things wrong, so very often exactly that happens, what should be avoided.

Of course, parents (and other teachers) do not say this so that they are helpless, but they say that this is normal and natural, when young people to be falling in love with the wrong guy and have sex with him. Since you can simply do nothing in their opinion, however, because young people are now even no knowledge of human nature have to distinguish which man is about real love and partnership and what it's all about the sex. Therefore, it explains the young people today only know how to use condoms and birth control pills, so they also are not pregnant and / or infected with a sexually transmitted disease. Obviously keep the adult is not much of the intelligence of young people.
I see, however, completely different! Where someone something reasonable knows he can not behave properly also.
So stupid and hungry for sex, young people are not even know that they basically can not distinguish the Sexabenteurer from the truly loving and want at least not initially.

And now again specifically to girls!

So the problem is: What parents need their daughters to teach, so that they see through such a Hallodri time that best suits not only a love for such a man comes up and that they therefore also have sex with him, but only with the man, in which a beautiful and honest love is reciprocal and is also a good partner for them, allowing them to have a nice family.

I see an almost criminological task for a girl! How is it time to get out the truth?

We need to first of all look closely at all events, what happened here, how that happens and why it happens.

The experience is in any case that any homilies and friendly admonitions to a young girl help anything, especially not if it's only been in love. Girls (and not only) who then were, a rose-colored glasses and are limited in their freedom of will and know everything anyway better - that's the way it is with very intense feelings. But even before that young people want such a moralinsaures or even pious talk just do not listen and switch off and do uninterested when their parents or other to do with this topic.

So had to my friend the parents of whom I speak and found my ideas are good and useful, looking at her daughter a different method. Not least, they would, it was clear to all, study after their time at school once somewhere alone. Since they would all sorts of people and also fellow students and others to know men, and they would also ask hardly the parents who they can trust and who not, and if they would certainly not be in love once. Also: Whether parents can really tell who is right and who is not? The girl must find out for yourself. But how ???
I once men looked at me and talk with them, how they manage to fall in love with girls in them and that are so blind and then sex with them - albeit it is not about the men about real love and they just despise the girls basically like this northern Italian Duke women at that time. And of course I also asked girls and women, which is "something" happened.

In my observations, I have now found that exactly this "stupid men" in general have no interest in nudity of a beautiful innocence that has something to do with the paradise, neither the girl nor on their own. An innocent paradise clothing, such as on a beautiful beach, would be for the absolute horror. Such a thing can not simple. They also have a thousand excuses why they not willing to participate. You mean to say that this is supposedly stupid or even immoral, etc. Or they talk about stupid that they already could with the paradisiacal nudity, but that they did not want that. Here one should be and remember what is behind their "reasons" noisy: Nothing but empty excuses, they can just end not. Because if you really have pleasure in something, you do it but only to you. This is true but even more to the paradise clothing along with nice people and even more so with someone in you're in love - of course when and where it fits.

Ah, if not here is an opportunity and is even the best opportunity to implement the approach of the late Pope into a reality! What is the value of the greatest idea, if it does not come to a practice of life? Also, this is really about now about the "value of a person", the Pope also has in mind. Besides: Where is the sense, young people, and especially children, was to show a wrong way to later just to present the opposite direction than the right one? What would be so if just a girl is educated from the start so that the fear of paradise clothing not only comes up that it has even enjoy this natural - and that his new attitude to nudity this as a test method of high love compared to men employed? Finally, such an education is exactly what is natural - it's not that primitive people in hot countries the nudity at least once ever had any problems? Problems which came but it was only through contact with Western civilization, in which there is just such false love with the corresponding hypocrisy. Then took the people of primitive peoples clothes, even if it would not be necessary because of the heat.

Anyway, the paradise dress itself is not evil, evil is only when you interact with others exploiting driven and contemptuous. And that happened just now especially with textilener clothing!

The education of her daughter with my friends was sometimes even very nice and funny, especially she gave this family the freedom to much to do with each other. For if the paradise clothing is no longer a problem, then you can camp together and also use the same room - so you can be a really nice and loose team. Obviously, the daughter had also understood why her parents did so with her, because she had all talked about it.
However, I have the experience that these parents were the exception and still are. Because unfortunately most parents are the ones who teach their daughters fears with the nipple of child and do in any case nothing useful against these fears. However, if the daughters have sex even with a disabled partner (which is the real problem, which should be avoided), they just shrug their shoulders and accept that. Is it really that difficult to align an education from the outset on what is ultimately More sensible and less problematic?

The idea of the proposed approach is after all also that a daughter what she has just experienced at the beautiful and the Innocent with her father and also with other, first of all want to experience with a boy or man, when they eventually fall in love. And they will find that some boys and men can not talk or want and not only did not want to participate, but also even make fun of it. But others will find it quite great. I think a girl for so clever it to be boys and men will appreciate all right, depending on whether and how to talk about it rationally, and that it can abort an inappropriate relationship in time. Not least, so also have the boys are fine, the desire to find a good partner, and for ideas on how this could work, open.

Of course, a girl or young woman who has no problems with the innocent paradise dress must remember that not everyone can be in this "paradise dress", automatically are good, and that by no means all boys and men, the problems here who are malicious and hypocritical. For it may indeed be that they simply understand everything wrong because previously no one had ever spoken to reason with them on this issue. And that they therefore can not be as free and open. There are now at least talking points!

And just as I said it, it's finally happened to the girls! No, not exactly, but much better. Somehow, the daughter of my friends must have something broadcast that the stupid guys have not even been dredged. For it is not even so that all boys and men are bad and always only "A" (ie sex) want. No, if they hit an open and nice girl with a reasonable adjustment, it will never despise and want no sex from him - or write beautiful love letters and want to marry it. Eventually, now a young man with whom was the daughter of my friends talk about the ideas and wanted to found and who found the quite great. He has also assisted in their attitude - and both were probably a beautiful paradise time - before her marriage. They have now been married for eight years and have a dear daughter - and everything is fine, of course, as far as I can tell.

Whether young people now understand the concerns regarding the nudity? Young people should experience once something innocent Paradiesisches and, of course, also be aware of the deeper meaning has the whole. The remainder is then already surrendered by itself.
But that then is everything on the other side of this issue.

Given my suggestion: Whether the children perhaps even make their own experiment to see what happened and how they feel? You could encourage about in a school or church teaching, sometimes asking her dad and her mom if that can go to a beach or lake corresponding with them in the summer, so that they can earn some experience with Paradise Clothing in nature? Of course, they have to coordinate with their siblings and tell them why they want to. I bet you can find it all then only funny and beautiful. They will also continue to ask: Why is it that even children usually have such problems with the physicality? Who has an interest that these problems exist? Why tries someone know that rectify useful? How is it that children above all what he seems to be very natural, after all, often can not even talk and want? Here, too, criminalistic sense is required. And I also think it all has to do with a big criminal case, we are here on the trail!

Children are but in general to crime stories very interested if not could give good talks here?

C. Summary: What do we really want?

Today we live in a time in which anything and everything is scientifically studied and researched for solutions. Importantly, however, is that we accurately describe the problem and describe at least roughly, what a solution we want. It is like a contract to a contractor, the specialists there must already know exactly what we want - and then they can also tell us (if they are honest) if our idea of a product into practice is feasible or not. Yes, maybe it's even the case that something does not go, because one goal excludes the other. Boiling water can not freeze after all. Where nature ends, the nonsense begins. But many other goes up - and very good!

So and just as it is also in religious education and moral education! We'll have to ask: What do we want as educators (and theologians) exactly? Or: What we do not want? And can one combine with the other at all? So we rewrite at least our first goal exactly we lie but once fixed!

  - We want good-faith young people who then also believe in God and all improbabilities as the creation of a god, a virgin birth, the resurrection of the Son of God?
  - What is it about us that young people should believe in a heaven after death, or should they care that they realize it in their lives here and now?
  - We want young people who are their parents or the church behaved and obedient uncritically whatever the adults tell them and ask from them?
  - We want young people who have a healthy self-awareness and a good knowledge of human nature?
  - We want young people who believe any mischief, especially in the personal things and can be manipulated because they have a distorted image of reality and naive?
  - We want young people who are embarrassed at each ambiguous joke, if it ever understand and anxious bashful her body and especially the "special body parts" hide?
  - Do we want young people are merely physical hostile or that they have a real (sexual) morality?
  - We want young people who are confident and have fun at a high morality of love and partnership and also be creative by itself when it comes to implementing moral standards into practice?
  - We ever want a real monogamy, so that people have only one sexual partner in life? This task includes now also once premarital abstinence. Do we really?
  - We want young people to deal with it and are also successful?
  - We want young people to inspire even the other high for this morality of love and relationship?

If you only have a little rummage in this book, you'll know what I have decided. Brav-believe and to be simultaneously-is-out-creative, implement moral standards into practice, that just does not. Also, "Joy to the high morale" fit and shame not together because shame is a displacement or an (irrational) fear - and fear can perhaps cultivate and make bearable, but the real fun can now even with the not so , Also true free people with it are not possible because an irrational fear on the one hand always means rule on a separate page, so lack of freedom. Fears are just like chains. Also, they help the anxious not really, because they really protect them from any danger. They are just an instrument of domination of others. In contrast, the truly free man where it is appropriate, "fear". The difference is that there is a fear of a clear view out forms and that it relates to really dangerous. Also know the free man how to properly deal with really dangerous. Some combinations of targets are now once again possible and others do not (or a lot of effort or force). So we combine what fits "naturally" together and "easy" is possible!
And we keep in mind: This is where the old adage applies: "Well meant the opposite of is very often done well." So let us worry about that what we do, and is really good and not only that, we mean well!
For your information, I must point out again that I was a professional school religion teacher for over thirty years. As such, I have often talked with students and outside the school with other young people and of course with parents on the topic of this issue. In this case, I probably have come to insights that many others who had no such contacts with young people sometimes can barely understand.

The author's approach to this concept

My commitment depends certainly also related to the educated middle-class parents house where I grew up. You just went to art galleries such as the Louvre, the Rijksmuseum and Uffizi Gallery in theater and opera. At some point I noticed, as here, the more bourgeois audience voyeurs (also tensioner) are somehow: Especially in the opera's suffering with love and sex largely the main theme, but that's become a pure ears tickle - one hears and sees the pleasure of exactly how in road accidents "hinglotzt". I think of the opera "La Traviata" and "Rigoletto" (Verdi), "Don Giovanni" (Mozart), "Madame Butterfly (Puccini)," Katja Kabanova "(Janacek)," Wozzeck "(Alban Berg). Time is the theme that a father his daughter can not marry civil-decent, if the son masturbates with a noble prostitute, sometimes the care of a father to his daughter, so they do not fall into the hands of the "Oberhallodris", then Playboy, of all women and girls gets it, or refer the case to the American naval officer, for the love of a Geisha is just a pastime, eventually neglected by her husband woman who buys himself a lover, or a simple soldier, the wife of the a drum major is unclamped. Very often break the main characters in their fate and commit murder and suicide. No one seems to have the idea that these "stories" always have their cause in culture and religion and that one should take care of it but once, to develop a pedagogy for young people, especially for children already, so that such "stories" not even happen. Last but not least is what we are seeing on stage, only too often human life, though rarely in this drama. In the opera, etc. just so many things are thought through what our everyday people then did not dare.
I see here in any case for action and opportunities for action!

And one more question of criticism: I think women and girls look with beautiful clothes but nicer!

Let's look but once this image:

Detail of the gods in heaven of the Capitole of Toulouse (France)

If you were to paint over the goddesses and angels in this image bikinis, that would not be a disgrace to civilization? And it's not a disgrace to civilization when females just "in the promotional phase of her life", ie in a phase in which they are going to look at its best, a is prescribed "basic veiling" and this is "this Regulation" also like let?

So you are against such a "fundamental disguise"? Sure. And not only for aesthetic, but also for moral reasons. Because the basic shame, which is the basic irrational compulsion to cover herself, is just a sham morality, just young girls are framing a false sense of security in moral matters. The right Hallodris, so the men and boys, which the morality of the girls (and women) is ultimately irrelevant also a savvy psychology and know that with the hypocrisy. They also know the fact that they have to dredge only long and skilled enough until they get what they want. Yes, if the girls have not already sick of this hypocrisy by itself and therefore intend to do with the high sexual morality in general circuit and the Hallodris even downright chase (to be freed at last from the perceived as burdensome virginity). Of course, it is not sufficient to abolish the shame, it now needs a morality of the heart and mind to come.

So you would never raise a daughter in this shame or even moral inhibitions, as you call it?
Exactly! Because I do not want them once necessary, so a sham liberation, but from the beginning a beautiful love and partnership seeks and achieves, and not take the risk that they only have to make a detour to disappointing experiences with men, although with make their sex, but nothing have high love and relationship with you in mind.

And to conclude with the criticism of another (male!) Reader who has something against this issue, and the answer of the author:
"When the issue would contain only what is shown on pages 29 and 30, I could sign anything. But the devil is in the details, and I want here again ... "
Yes, the devil is in the details. So I see it. We are all in constant danger of being slackers, so always just pick out also from an individual critical text, confirming us and what we do not do in any case hurt. That's why I go so the details. For then the positions are clear only. It also depends always on details when something really should be changed.

I thank you!

On the getting of this issue were many involved, both those who agreed with me and gave advice that still has an issue in that way, and even critics who made me indirectly attention to gaps in the argument. I want to thank you from my heart all. I would like to mention in particular a Viennese girl (16 years) and a grandmother from East Prussia (77 years), the 1945 had witnessed the arrival of the Russians with the rape itself was, however, not affected because of their former childhood. The girl gave me excellent advice for structuring and found the result is "great," and the grandmother said that her issue would have helped a lot especially in her marriage, she would have known it just before. Also, she helped me with constructive criticism
Reference is also made to the website of the Egyptian Alia Magda Elmahdy, which is involved with word (in German) and image against the oppression of women in her home - suppression by clothing: It is a tragedy of this courageous woman that she rejects the good because of the usual opposed to the body with the bathwater, and that it certainly does not arrive so in their society.

Thoughts - such as reading the newspaper

In the newspaper "Die Welt" of 26.10.2013 was an article "Why do young Japanese no longer want to have sex?"

In this paper, the author finds it strange that the time half of the students are still virgins and that it is similar for male students. You (and others) attribute this to a Sexfeindlichkeit and a career thinking. (Note: see this post and the following on the Internet, if you enter the respective title in Google.)
But the idea that just the young person is a highly moral being, and that young Japanese are looking for highly moral relations of the great love that draws the author (Elke Bodderas) is not even considered. And not only the author else seems to go So moral outward adults to lack any idea what young people really want and how moral they are. Where kommt's? Close the author of the world-contribution and other (illegally) from himself to others? Is it not possible that the apparent superficiality known in terms of sexuality in their country appears decidedly off-putting and finally even more moral reinforces the young Japanese? Usually yes assumed that young people need to be protected from obscenities and especially from pornography, so they are not "them" infected. Experience has shown, however, this whole Beschützerei causes only a heal-world naivete among young people and helps in the end nothing: the young people want to just probably very reason make their often painful experiences, because they just do not have the right idea what they are getting themselves , So it looks like that especially the stuffy (otherwise I can not call it) Beschützerei for high morale seems very counter-productive. Much more effective would be a useful information for young people in the other side is not left out. Well, the downside to know the young Japanese nowadays probably too well. And they also learn that sexual adventures never bring a lifetime winnings, but usually are very painful and have nothing to do with honor and dignity. Of course, this will work with the positive effect of the flip side only if the young people also learn an alternative approach on how to do it right. If we start somewhere in the world with this alternative, then the rest could not bring globalization? Perhaps there is indeed a religion that takes care to overcome opposed to the body? Whether it is our Christian? But which should be first of all thank "ingredients" of other religions, all of which have nothing to do with the original concern of 2,000 years ago cleared out of the.

By the way: It is also complains that it is no longer enough to "Japanese junior" is due to the "lack of desire" of young people. It has to be said quite clearly: Healthy kids have nothing or only a limited something to do with superficial adventures (because this offspring is not exactly desirable and is prevented by any means), but rather with beautiful love and relationship and thus also with working families.

The question arises, why not the young people come to us in such chastity. We mean it, even with us, everything is so obvious as in Japan. But maybe not? Possibly with us the pain threshold is simply not reached - also bad experiences with sex are still very downplayed and portrayed as a sign of immaturity. A mature person has just said to "something" have seen it all, even if it was painful. Even just works already mentioned several times, Des-Emperor-new-clothes-effect. The question is for how long.

Table of Contents
A. The concept for young people ("The first sex begins ...") 2
B. attachments
     1. Critical Questions and Answers 26
     2. The problem of perfect theory as to why something happens or not happens. 46
     3. Pedagogical approach for young people aged about 8 years 53
C. Summary. What we really want? About the author, thanks and thoughts of the author. 59

Supplement (in the form of the question that is asked more often):
"But is this openness is advocated here, not a great temptation?"
It's all a setup and but also a matter of habit. We must always remember that nudity really is something natural and something natural never makes sharp or at least should never make sharp. Yes, we should not even ashamed (to ourselves) if we are affected only by the sight of body parts? Something is not right but as with us, somehow we are in the sense of nature not normal. It may now well be possible and it is also a matter of concern expressed in this concept is that. Only by dealing with what is natural or normal, or at least should be, we will actually be re natural or normal
A good example of this "normal Become" is the short novel of the South American Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez "Memories of My Melancholy Whores". The title is unfortunately misleading, because it is not really about "whores". The point is rather like an old Casanova, the women has always treated only as things to his 90th birthday wishes you a virgin after a long absence from his madam. And he gets. Only when the 14 year old beautiful girl who was "it" won by the madam, so naked lies before him and exhausted by the day's work in a button factory and further work is sleeping (or only does so) because he just can not. And that night, and in numerous other night with the girl he discovers the real love and the glamorous value of Innocence "without being impelled by desire or hindered by the shame" as Garcia Marquez writes ...
To learn more, please read it again this beautiful novel of late conversion!

About the author: 

Michael Preuschoff, born 1941, a reserve officer, industrial clerk at an electronics company, studied theology and graduated with a diploma theologian, additional training. Active from 1975 to 2004 as a religion teacher at professional schools of the Erftkreis and in Düren, West Germany.
Private tours (ie more alternative) except in the countries of Europe also to the Near, Middle and Far East, North and Central Africa and North, Central and South America.

Multiple Santiagopilgrim - in sections. In this "Camino", the author provides an excellent opportunity especially for a retired religion teacher with other peop­le, and come with young, in touch. It may very well be talking about the reali­zation of our religion in our time, after all, the Camino is indeed a Christian pilgrimage. What are the implications for our lives resulting from the current knowledge about the historical Jesus? Anyway, this book talks that have given significant impetus.

Preuschoff is unmarried and was never married. However, he has a Vietnamese foster daughter who is happily married.

Anyone looking for a reference to a particular religion, and particularly a Christian denomination in the publications of the author who will search in vain. Because the aim of the author is not a religion, but an ethics which applies to all people. The rejection of traditional Christian dogma that ultimately only hinder a particularly useful Ethics for young people in their important questions of love has, it also meant that deprived him ecclesiastical teaching license. His ethical concern was about the Lehrerlaubnisentziehern totally indifferent. All the more Peuschoff has then dedicated to the task of ethics.

The job of a professional school religion teacher offered him the great advantage that religion is no exam stress in the subject, the teacher may thus lead talks about what the young people moved - andto learn for himself. In terms of his approach his disciples said sometimes, that it was not wrong in what he taught, but with them it was all too late, he had better go to the elementary schools. Because it did not work well, he wrote this book - for those who want to know more so that what is commonly taught at primary schools.

Issue 2: What to do with Christianity?

What's in the concept now really Christian?

The betrayal of Jesus in the history of the Church and a concept of the past (ie after the real) Jesus.

The basis of the theology of the concept "Fortunately, the high love" is the idea of overcoming the "old Adam" by the new Adam (Jesus) in Romans the Apostle Paul.

Some people are religious at once, when it comes to raising their children in a high (sexual) morality. You mean that there is a kind of magic that their children are more moral, the pious and devout, and they are. But this is a mistake, so certainly does not work, at least the (sexual) morality. It works just as medicine in the Middle Ages, whose base was also such a faith magic. No, that we must tackle the problems objectively and concretely! Of course, prayers, to find the right way and to distinguish the useful from the useless, never hurts.

The ideal that sexual intercourse and partnership and love go together is perverted in the typical religions. Although they pretend to be ideal for this, but they also transmit either not or only crudely-unprofessional young people. The suspicion arises that religions really do not want that because (young) people succeed in this ideal. The religions live indeed believe that people are (for now) waste and therefore make mistakes that they repent, ask a god for forgiveness and sometimes even hope for a "later" in which everything is different and a lot better is. that's the business model of religions.
The concept "Fortunately, the high love" is assumed that the ideal that partnership and love and sex go together, a human value, so that can also be taught to any faith without reference and should be. And that works very well if it's just really wanted. for young people in particular are at least at first openly and willingly for it. We will see that then also completely new aspects and ideals of our humanity come to the fore when we finally take care of here at a reasonable ethical concept ,
The author thus sees life as a concept for a single task existentially important concern for the young people in particular are so clever that they "not a good experience" spared. The promotion of further learning is then almost programmed.
Note: We now have a lot of research on the origin of our Christian religion, and especially over the past (ie the real) Jesus. The author has encountered in his research that Jesus (and the early church) had exactly this concern the notion of not Vertuns (the "squandering" is here called "sin"). Thus, the historical Jesus and, indeed, the early church was in contrast to the religions of the time, all of whom were typical religions with the typical religion business model. That was also the reason for the crucifixion of Jesus, he caught up to them to destroy their business with religion.
And the relationship of the concern of this approach to religion: In Catholic theology, there is the doctrine of natural law. After God asks nothing of us humans what already is not appropriate and reasonable for us from nature. So when it comes to something meaningful and sensible for us humans, then it is not necessary that we also appeal to God (and the Bible), because it is from God!


Suppose that both have distinguished academic and the more crudely vulgar religion, belief and Bible critics correct: "God is pure invention", "The Bible is largely a more or less pious figment of the imagination", "religion is the biggest business "," religions are all criminals. "I now feel that criticism less than an attack on our faith, but as motivation to research what was real. Whether or not, can not do something today from what remains after all the criticism, or only so cometh to the light? Whether such criticism of religion and belief can not be regarded as even "cleansing bath" or as an invitation to a "clearing out" at the end? Whether this may be the concern of the past (ie the real) Jesus only really comes to the fore - and also can develop its full potential?
But now hopefully clear enough to what I'm doing:
When adults young people spoil indecent assault with them, so that's criminal. When adults provide young people with guidance on how they destroy each other (I am thinking here of the "educational movies", "sex-we-can" for schools teaching under /), then the criminal but also After all, there is still an excuse that you have to show something to protect minors against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. But if adults who should know better, even how to prevent this destruction, do nothing relevant to the question, however, and in the end do not have the advantages of it, so I think that's the motto "The fence is just as bad as the stealer" a fortiori criminal ! I would like to not even be a criminal now, I see here so for me an invitation to worry about why running with the young people as it is running, and try to do something Sachliches it.
And I beg you to consider: I am a teacher - and it is an old pedagogical rule that there is no unwilling or unruly student, only incompetent teachers.
But whether effective pedagogy in terms of morality is possible and then also in our time? I now believe that there is always something possible, you just have to want it! Sure, if you have any beliefs in mind, the do not want it in any case, you have here a kind of thinking may block that blocks the way to possible solutions. So we have to make everything we practice in matters of faith and morals education to the best of our knowledge and belief to the test: What is really true and what has really free a moral Nähwert and what we must, if appropriate?
Yes where is there serious research, such as the "entry into the sexuality" of young people and just the girls so usually begin earlier than boys happens? Actually, yes could the Catholic clergy, who are also confessors, get something out here - and develop concepts. However, no interest! And when I tried to put the issue on the agenda during my studies, my "theological career" ended.
In particular, I do think morality to be very conservative, especially in the things of the (sexual). Friends attack me and sometimes even try to make a fool of myself when I am against sex before marriage. That was everything but long outdated, even on the part of our religion. And who now still I insist that it is a sin that is hardly taken seriously.
I see it differently. During my military service, I worked as a high school senior from a protected middle-class family - at least initially - with comrades from all sorts of professions "in the room" together and also got their talks "after work" with. They were very often now very crudely directly. Girls were about principle than "lfG's" ("Shorteningcrazyness Bundeswehr") refers, ie as "easy/light fucking objects." It was interesting to me that that is the negative tenor of his comrades against a sex that is not in the order of our religion or our human nature, the same was as in our faith.
Since it was inevitable, of course, that I girls who were close to me, about this thought and speech "enlightening" and they recommended less to keep religious, but certainly from live practical reasons to the rules of the commandments in our religion. Because they are surely too good to be judged by men "so".
Against this background so plump allegations that I was unfashionable of my moral settings ago, quite up completely on me.
Eventually I felt then, not only for the girls who were close to me, but basically responsible for all the girls. Yes, what if the behaved differently, ie not as a "lfG's"?
Therefore one does not have to be equal prudish and uptight, and perhaps is with these rules if they are designed only makes sense, our life more fun, free, more explosive, more livable and more intense?
Now to Jesus: As we know now of serious theological research ago with some certainty that the vast majority of reports about him are pious imagination, I'm trying to figure out once another way, what was the intention of Jesus. In Romans, the Apostle Paul, we now find the idea of overcoming the "old Adam" by the "new Adam" (Jesus). What if we examine the way it is scientifically as possible, what it really had the "old Adam" is all about, for what that is, the "old Adam" is? Yes, we can infer and therefore know what Jesus wanted! (The apostle Paul is indeed fallen into disrepute because so much is its <time-related> personal opinion in his letters. But his train of thought about the "two Adams" is probably the earliest surviving assessment of the concern of Jesus and is likely therefore to address the concerns of real Jesus point.)

Critical questions and answers

In the treatment of the topic now a form of conversation has emerged as so critical comments, which I then answered arrived. I would like to continue this conversation now form here.

"You do not talk about religion and faith, but a particular view of sexuality."
That just expressed someone who had left the church. But he is absolutely right! This review is about the core focus of our Christian faith. So which is it? The leading people to God or to the good - that want more or less all other religions.
For this must we not be a Christian. Our Christian religion is here rather more of a counter-religion. It begins with a description of an ideal world (of Paradise) and how this perfect world is destroyed, namely with the fall of Adam and Eve. The story of Adam and Eve is now not a story about the creation of the first man (yes, who was at that time for it and wrote it down or even filmed?) And it is of course not created from nothing. We are to the template from the ancient world narrated in this story is created, ie the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. This is the seal, which reports how primitive man was created, and then comes into this world and what happens to him in the way it all. And in this world, he is now a cult prostitute (or temple prostitutes) seduced into sex. Yes, that was probably no intercourse within a wonderful partnership between man and woman, but just sex with a prostitute, even if it was in the name of religion. So then heaven was lost. For this former general folklore has now taken over some of the writers of the Bible because it was just too known, and that at that time usefully also be entered. However, this has now been installed in the order of creation of a new good God for the love and partnership between husband and wife were the special of being human and having sex with a prostitute in honor of the ancient gods sin. Unfortunately, people were indeed once disobedient to God and practiced this new old "rites" in the cult of the serpent (ngottheit) further, that had nothing to do with a genuine couple relationship. So the woman is even yet created by God, but also it is still the contact person of the devil, the men (the only "her" is, but not "is her") deceived. (Note. In the Hebrew language means "with her" and "her" the same word) That should come very close to this interpretation of reality, is of the Protestant Czech theologian Jan Heller in his work on the name "Eva" (Archives oRIENTÁLNÍ 26, Prague 1958) confirmed. Heller describes that this Adam and Eve story is a story against the former fertility cults - and these fertility cults just always includes prostitution, so that there is sexual intercourse, which is a kind of worship while, but nothing with love and marriage has to do and partnership.
So in the Bible does in fact involve a certain view of sexuality and the Apostle Paul has taken this approach in Romans!

Pair of cultic prostitution among fertility tree snake deity at Konarak Sun Temple in / India. The Adam and Eve story is therefore a counter-history to such a cult: Sexual intercourse is not intended to be more a matter of "occasional pair" in the service of a deity, but an expression of the love of a partnership couple.

"But sexuality is nothing bad, it is something beautiful and good, because after all it is something completely natural."
The problem is that just the sex, so sexual intercourse, something extremely Doppelwertiges (or ambivalent) is like so much in our world - we think about the fire. It can be something Toasty Toasty-but also something destructive. It depends on how one uses it, there is a use and abuse. So just can sex be sign of the highest love and relationship between husband and wife, but also a sign of contempt and bullshit and exploitation, and especially that of the man over the woman rule and then an ugly gender struggle, because the woman naturally resists. And this abuse of sexuality is an age-old problem of humanity. Because unfortunately, there are always people or even whole societies and cultures in which sex occurs primarily as something fundamentally negative and never or rarely associated with great love and partnership and will therefore also be seen. Therefore, it is then somehow to the equation Sex = sin.
Note: Pope John Paul II saw the ambivalence of sexuality (see p. 11), the question arises: why the many others do not see them? But do not worry, here also ends has in common with the Pope: He was concerned about a theology, this is about a life practice.

"And what Jesus had to do with all this?"
At the end of this brochure I tell in my short biography, as I came through visits to the opera that it often comes to problems with love and sex in our most popular operas. And here that somehow the reality of many people is reflected, but that nobody cares, that is a different way.
If really no one on the idea once to change anything here? But, as someone there or was there at least once actually: As yet this Jesus of Nazareth was the well-known story of the "sinner" (Jn. 8). A strange tale. So there is a woman who was caught in the act, be stoned. The questions now, when you already at something caught a woman in the act, and what kind of men who are not without sin itself (ie those that have done the same thing as this woman - otherwise the question of Jesus did not would be the been provocation that she was obviously) and then also run to Kadi, so that the woman is stoned. The solution: In this story is not about morality nor is the forgiveness history (Jesus says nothing about forgiveness!). It's about how women were then blackmailed so that they are submissive to men - in the context of prostitution. And this is where a woman had somehow it does not behave as the men wanted. The legal situation was the fact that women were considered to be transferred if they were caught red-handed by two witnesses. So the men had it just so arranged that this woman, obviously a prostitute (which can be seen from the nature of the proposed punishment, because unmarried women were stoned, married strangled, and an unmarried woman who then drove sex was, as a prostitute ), was caught. And I wonder why the stoning? Surely as a warning to other women so that they know what they bloom when they are not submissive to men. - Is not that such a "opera" and however well "everyday life" - here just in the former Near Eastern world? And this Jesus had used not only to save this woman, but also to - so to speak as the second, but now the opposite Adam - something fundamentally change, so therefore his speeches (or sermons) "against sin, against the hypocrites, for love "? It was this Jesus so obviously well aware of the concerns of the harmony between man and woman, that is to love. And he denounced the abuses in this former Near Eastern society that was basically the same as the day during the time of creation of Adam and Eve story as well as in many (not only) Arab societies.

"This is not scientifically correct to declare a single story in the Bible out the concern of Jesus, namely that it was about the harmony between the sexes him."
If you do not progressing in a criminal case, because there are too many obscure and unlikely things are told, then, a single reliable and plausible indication in the right direction, to decrypt the "case". Why not here? In addition, there are annexed to the Book of Daniel of the Bible, the parallel story of the "beautiful Susanna". This story is indeed a bit different, but here a woman related to sexuality should be blackmailed.
"On what theologians because you can rely?" The big jungle doctor Albert Schweitzer was also a major theologian. He described the problem of the past (ie the real) Jesus so that all theologians are somehow theorist and can not get rid of their academic thinking and have their favorite ideas. Therefore, it is impossible for them to find the real Jesus, who was living in a non-academic world and worked. Unfortunately, Albert Schweitzer did not come now to the really obvious idea, even to question people today from the same environment in which Jesus lived back then. Quite accidentally I now came with a farmer started talking about the sinner narrative according to John. 8, which is a little versed in the demimonde milieu. With this milieu Jesus had something to do at the time, finally included sinners, so prostitutes to his friends. And this farmer said to me on the head, that this story is obviously a billing or warning history from the milieu. This woman could save Jesus therefore he surprised the prosecutor, so to speak, telling them indirectly, that they should not do it as if they were concerned with the sinfulness of the woman. But that was too much, which was not desirable. Then the men who forged together with the establishment of its time, a conspiracy to eliminate Jesus - before he would bring the former vervögelte system to collapse.

"But all this is ultimately just speculation."
But after all, a very obvious and plausible. I know of at least some degree in theology, and since this interpretation is not only not considered but rejected even if I putting forward. So it looks like it, that it is not wanted, because it just does not fit.

"And what concerns us today at?"
Well, when sin is somehow not a chaste behavior in sexuality already referred to. But all this should be? If something is classified as a sin or just a wrongdoing, then it can not really be that you first of all, nothing at all or at least learns nothing to really relevant to the question. And if "it" happens next, then the faulty or "sinful" behavior is also condemned. I have, at least listened to my questions for girls why they had not acted wiser than once, "That was never told anyone" Yes, it is so far not a matter of luck that just experienced and girls find something for it meaningful? So our Christian religion always condemned only when the horse has been in the fountain? Should not there yet more and Sachdienlicheres on sexuality, particularly for young people in it? I was taken aback at first the Adam and Eve story of the Bible. When I told girl by her sudden disappointment after their first sex, I immediately saw a relationship to this story. The innocence, symbolized by the cavalier nudity, and thus the paradise were destroyed.
Yes, how come then to all these strange beliefs (concerning. Son of God, Virgin birth, resurrection, ascension)? "Theologians distinguish long as between the Jesus of faith, as described in the Bible, and the historical Jesus, so the real Jesus. Because they have recognized that the Bible is not reported as a police report, which was really, but that it will produce the stories of Jesus with the stylistic devices of the time faith. So it was - unlike today - the former authors not to the realism of, but on what appealed to the people of their time. We notice today in any case, that all these miraculous stories that are told by Jesus to us and the sound today so incredible, Jesus already circulated as gods stories in the mythologies of the peoples of the Mediterranean and the Near East. What a coincidence that all even fit on Jesus! So many coincidences there but not with certainty. It all looks after that the authors of the stories about Jesus have put together all these wonderful stories from other mythologies. We must remember that Jesus was not famous first and certainly not the Son of God was yes. Therefore, nothing wrong was seen in him with the means to improve the time and refine - especially since he's how a criminal was still miserably died on the cross also much too early and. It would have it nor added that he still would really want to do and say (to which he was not stopped coming, as was supposed). Also, it needed a typical gods glorious end, that he was communicable to others. Therefore, the stories of the miracles of the Virgin Birth of the resurrection of the Assumption and much more. So it came to this belief, as we know it today - after all, the most mysterious dogmas, everything ultimately a corruption of the original concern of Jesus. That´s precisely because of the "improvements" later f
aith would get inaccessible for the people, but they did not think at that time. To lie and fraud is, however, if we do everything only, so only continue - although we could know better or know. So it's really about time to finally clear out our faith by all these harmful for a Jesus-faith ingredients.


Assumption of the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius and his wife Faustina (relief from the Vatican Museums): Like the idea of a virgin birth and resurrection comes the idea of the Assumption of the deified people from ancient mythologies.

"But not to the Christian faith, the resurrection heard after death? Would not our faith empty and vain (as Paul in 1 Cor. 15: 12ff writes), if it were not for the resurrection of Jesus?"
If the life of the spirit out not even make sense if there is no such resurrection? Is there a need for an interpersonal harmony to a beautiful love and partnership nor the particular motivation with the announcement of a life after death? Is there a such harmony is not enough drive on our own without the threat of eternal damnation and without the promise of an eternal reward? What are the only people for whom a harmonious world is by itself not attractive enough, but still need any outside or above the world sugar loaves and whips for?

 "No matter what some theologians say, for me, Jesus was God-man"
 It honors you very much that you need for a God-man Jesus - in other words for the "Son of God" - keep. But unfortunately this is not important, because is much more important to safety, for whom Jesus thought of himself and who he really was and exactly what he wanted. And if we are indifferent to these questions, then it stands to reason that we have made Jesus the front man for our own selfish and interests, and we do not want to see reality from there. Moreover, even if Jesus should have actually said that he is a God-man or even the Son of God, says nothing, because Jesus was now once Jew, and in contrast to the other peoples of the region in which only the prince of God was, every male Jew had among the Jews the honorary title "Son of God". (The objection "No matter what all ..." also came from a lawyer. The question may well be allowed if the lawyer as well is indifferent to his work, what he is told by someone and what is real. Probably not . then why he behaves here in a matter of religion as irrelevant?)

Why do we need Jesus, if that's all not true?
Yes, unfortunately, was and is the real concern of Jesus still overgrown because of this wondrous stories and therefore can not, or at least hardly noticed. So is this concept here is a completely different approach, so the concern of Jesus of love among people back to life. It is no longer about the condition of a belief in any dogma, faith-oriented concept. Instead we allow ourselves through the teachings of Jesus motivate them to seek ways to teach ethics and which are practically live that they work today. Yes, important for Jesus is still primarily that keeping the law actually in practice "works" - and those to whom this operation is invalid for any reason whatsoever, blind guide and hypocrites, for him (s. curse of the Pharisees in Matthew 23). He also said that the one who is great in the kingdom of heaven, not only keeps the commandments themselves, but they also keep other people teach (Mt. 5, 19). Since this is now experience, not so easy, it is certainly appropriate to the recommendation of Jesus, "Be wise as serpents" to refer to the keeping of the commandments and doctrines of bids or the statement "Learn from the children of this world, wiser than the children of light. "The reason is therefore welcomes in connection with the observance of the commandments! And the commandments should not be a burden, but joy, as it says in the Psalms (about 119, 47): ". At thy commandments I have my joy, I love her from the heart"

"So you do not believe in our own resurrection and life after death?"
The German philosopher Arno Plack (1930 - 2012) has said that we can with the finiteness of our lives not resign, because we have not lived our sexuality properly (see also Issue 1, p. 16). And the sex researcher, sociologist and psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich (1879 - 1957) believes that what most people do with their sexuality, pure Kopuliererei is, as do also the animals from human fulfillment can be no question. Instead of the solution to which both come now, namely sex whim of whoever to practice (a fulfillment that's not!), Here is the opportunity is seen to reach a meaningful ethically upstanding approach to meeting , Once this goal is reached, the need for a belief in a life after death would spare so.

A bishop criticized "under the aspect of an expert" that my commitment is intellectually and existentially consistent.
It may well be that my commitment is not particularly intellectually, but this is not an argument for or against it, because it is not a question of whether something is intellectually, but whether it is scientifically correct. All that matters after all! Whether Jesus was intellectually? This may well be doubted, rightly, he was rather practically live - and more I do not want to be.
And existentially? This is probably also very much a problem of celibates. Because they have a real life problem, namely to find a suitable partner and to live with him, replaced by an unreal problem, namely to find God and to live with him. (Note: The criticism of the bishop was referring to the "Open Letter of an old religion teacher to young girls ....")

"Even after theological research can not be right."
Our current Christian concept is based on the two kingdoms doctrine of St. Augustine (from late antiquity). According to this doctrine, everything is here in this world anyway imperfectly, and the realization or fulfillment of the kingdom of God is (after death) only be in a future world. This doctrine is contrary to the message of Jesus, after the place of God's kingdom is here and now. So we take care of the here and now! In addition, if a professor of the Faculty of Theology in Aachen us religious teachers holding a training lecture about the sacrament of Jesus and thereby concludes that the Last Supper of Jesus, just as we know it from the Bible, does not take place, then it retains its teaching license. When I bring the school in class and I'm still a concept, simply because "negative" is not good (see above), then you cut off my ecclesiastical teaching license. That's life once, the Great allowed to run, the clay henkt you. Note: This "flesh eating" and "drinking blood" is in Jewish thought unthinkable and much more of a pagan cult, which was subsequently inserted into the stories about Jesus to round these stories with an act of worship and thus make it the former pagans palatable. Anyone who is not right here?

"As a religious teacher, you have but to represent the teaching of the Church!"
 If that were the case, one would have me a CD into the hand that I had to memorize and then chew again. But I had to do a scientific study which surely means that I have to scientifically questioning what I was doing. In addition, 400 years ago, it was considered good and Christian to pursue witches and burned. In order then to be a good Christian, I would also have to join it? Incidentally: Any system and it was originally not as good and human, tends to be sometime inhuman with the main purpose to sustain itself. So you will surely also in our religion the idea after the expiry queue and may reflect on the origin?

"Jesus has conquered death but to redeem us from death also!"
The problem is that death and sin in the Bible are often identical concepts. Thus, if a "deliverance from death" is mentioned, is actually a "deliverance from sin" meant. And "sin" is above all that which destroys charity in human relations, today we would probably say "trauma caused". In Jesus' time it must have been catastrophic, the abuse of women and children was in this world, so to speak Near East is the rule rather than the exception. So in the message of Jesus it came to a release from this "dead world" - under the aspect of love. It is a "transcendence", a "transformation", but not in an unrealistic afterlife, but in a higher worldly world. Even today this salvation is by no means complete. Therefore, this commitment, as this higher world is quite possible!

"Jesus had died on the cross for our sins"
The Sühnetodtheologie (i.e. the theology which says that the dead of Jesus is an offering of himself) and thus the whole Kreuzestodtheologie (the same, but now with the name of the cross) who are behind this belief is not true - you googled times - and there are not any atheists who say that, but theology professors! The historical Jesus had probably never before, an atoning death on the cross for our sins to die. That he had then accepted death as he was inevitable, is another matter. To this end, there is a great theological thriller of the Japanese Peter Chavier "The Tears of Jesus." The author is both Catholic and Protestant theologian diploma.

"Fundamental condition of faith is but obeying the commandments of God, even if this obedience difficult times."
So God is not a dictator, the people dictated to us the commandments of morality, which actually is alien to us. No, there is a morality that is part of our nature, which is simply human. So the bids (or rules) that morality must also explain without reference to a god and can teach. The attempt is now made in this concept. Besides: Whether God really said all what any Bible writer and priest have put into his mouth and place? Or if that is the interest of this writer and priest rather not?

"It is important for the Christian that he always preparing for life after death. The commandments are the touchstones with joy or even fun have nothing to do, rather repentance. "
Who says that the really good must always be difficult to live, so that the commandments of good and certainly not with joy or fun have to do that but only says that these commandments even make him any joy or any fun and that he therefore itself has a messed up setting for the better. For him, that is, the commandments-holding means stressful ordeal. And who wants to teach others to keep the commandments? Consider: There is not just mountaineers who take the highest exertions to achieve a goal, but just today many people give even a lot of money to experience something special, even if it is still so hard. I remember the Tough Mudder-competitions, where have participated so far over a million people around the world - and entirely voluntary! The effort is not the problem, it is important that something is not boring. For example, if a girl is full of hormones and it is boredom hip, then a sexual adventure's already programmed. So why not teach the commandments so that they offer an effort that is attractive, so fun and joy?

"How can you ever live without belief in a life after death?"
Because such a belief is basically completely irrelevant. Because if there is a life after death, we are in any case not even judged by whether we believe in it, but what we have done to make our world now is paradise here. God has no arms - except ours. Out of faith act, means that we do things in this world so task-oriented and effective that the result is correct.

"The concept of <Fortunately, the high love> is a <sin against the Holy Spirit>."
(Note: According to the Catholic website is a sin against the Holy Ghost, "a moral failing, through which the perpetrator of the grace of the Holy defeated the Spirit in his soul and so hardened that he closes the forgiving mercy of God, and this unrepentant denied. ") it's not about forgiveness, but prevention so that it does not need only to come to a forgiveness of God. Definitely a negligent or even deliberate prevention of such prevention and hence the speculation on a forgiveness of God is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

"The ideas presented here but can be found in any other religion or philosophy."
That's the special thing about the message of Jesus! The real Jesus grabbed problems of well-informed and concrete, so that no one else was handling.

"The wounds of the people must be healed" (Pope Francis).
Nothing against it! But you have not once do everything that wounds not happen first?
Otherwise, how we can bewlieve in someone who will "heal wounds" who doesn´t use all possibilies that wounds wouldn´t happen?

If Jesus was not God-man, he was so a fool or a scam?"
Oh, then the women's liberation in the sense of high ethics and harmony or reconciliation between the sexes, which are worth to commit themselves, nothing for you? What are you on a macho!

"From a macho society 2 000 years ago, but is in the Bible nowhere mentioned."
Of course not, at that time was that everything since then ran as normal. Therefore, Jesus was indeed the big exception that saw a grievance that no one else saw and felt was therefore no need of change.

"So you do not consider the Bible the Word of God?"
She's probably priests word, did not you put priests, inter alia everything to God in the mouth? We are talking here only once from the New Testament, that is from the stories of and about Jesus. The New Testament is not only written by men, it is directly even in large parts of plagiarism. Plagiarism because there are not only since the former minister Baron v. Gutenberg and the ex-Minister Annette Schavan, plagiarism has always been there. The Danish researchers Sanskrit Christian Lindtner, in his book "Mysteries of Jesus Christ" now found that very many passages in the New Testament correspond so much older (Indian Buddhist) Sanskrit texts that coincidences can be no question. Here probably have Buddhist monks mid deliberately constructed a Buddhist teachings to the West until the end of the 1st century. They have taken the not quite forgotten figure of Jesus and then also cut the usual myths in the West gods on this Jesus. So that our faith is, so to speak to a religious smorgasbord (technical term: syncretism) become. In the real Jesus after all, the story of the sinful woman in John. 8 seems to indicate. However, it was probably built only because in the Buddhist faith construction, since she was still conscious of the people of that time and because without them the Buddhist faith design would have been unbelievable. See also page 1!

"It's far-fetched that Jesus began primarily for a harmony between the sexes."
I refer to the comments on "old Adam" and the "new Adam" in Romans (12 ff) of Paul on page 59. Jesus therefore represents a counter-concept to that of the old "Adam-society". And that is the harmony between the sexes. Without such harmony, there can be no paradise, so let's get on with this harmony!
Incidentally: A friend of mine was once an eyewitness of a stoning of a woman in Baghdad. Something had probably experienced before his "preaching" Jesus. If he campaigned against something, does not mean that he is the "harmony of the sexes" began?

"But in the usual Christian faith but it is entirely something else entirely."
In Jewish society at the time of Jesus and the women were second-class citizens while, but at least they were not always despised by men. However, was the ancient Greek society in which the Christian faith, the embossing received, we know today, homoerotic dyed through and through and extremely hostile to women. The women were basically just stuff. Thus, the aim of the real Jesus of the harmony between the sexes was soon completely ousted and replaced by a more or less abstract live far theologian highly intellectual conception. For people of the Church remained a typical rather banal Allerweltsvolksreligion à la "opium of the people" left: To ask for forgiveness and be pious and brave and uncritically believe what the priests tell and do good - if possible, the relevant "Priest organization", so you after the death comes in the sky.

"Is that really so tragic when two have sex with each other and even consensual, who are not married?"
 In Judaism of Jesus' time was the underlying principle that marriage and sex go together, so that a sex means marriage. Therefore, the prostitutes' marriage-breaker inside "were, because they always started new marriages, which they then (off) discontinued. We practice the other hand, in our marriage law, including the church, Roman conceptions by which it does not matter who with whom to have sex, but who is at the registry office (or even the censor) can issue a certificate. Thus, the concept presented here corresponds fully to the imagination of Jesus. In contrast, the present general ideas of marriage, the church (n), nothing, or at least very little to do with those of the real Jesus.

"Christianity is primarily a religion and no ethics."
So this would also mean: Christianity without ethics? Whether that would be within the meaning of Jesus?

"You are destroying indeed the entire Christian religion!"
Just as the Jews of the basic idea here is not a religion, and Christianity is not. Both are simply attitudes, albeit with which religious background. Since time immemorial, is now trying in this life settings a typical religion into it just to interpretieren..Doch also the concern of Jesus are simply not forth such a typical religion. Therefore, it is the many borrowings from other religions ...

"According to the Bible, the shame has been prescribed to people but in the Fall story directly from God - to protect them."
Therefore, since God had spoken directly to the people and also gave them fig leaves to tie around? How could that be wrong? Who has the so actually observed? And anyway, though biblical, but then also: According to the Bible shame rather the "curse of original sin" is probably, the more accurate translation of the Latin word "peccatum original" instead of "original sin" - or "the laughter of the Devil ". (However, the concept of original sin is not entirely wrong, do not repeat more often than average trauma of one generation to the next?) Of a protective function is as in any event nothing. And did not Jesus freed us because his act of redemption from the curse? Of course, even here there is no magic, you have to cooperate even according to the redemption!

"The shame, so forced, at least to hide certain parts of the body, but good old Christian and especially Catholic tradition."
Not at all! Not only Pope John Paul II has been the subject nudity positive trend tackled (see page 5). In front of him was already the major English humanist Thomas More, who died even for his Catholic faith and was finally spoken holy in 1935. In his book "Utopia" Morus sees the impossibility of a combination of prudish sexual morality and life-long marriage: It can not be that you a person with whom you live long to connect with fidelity and love and wants before not even completely naked must have seen. This can not go well but! However, the solution he is now in his concept of an ideal world, the more likely is a critique of the realist world of his time, in fact, propose, is also not very elegant, realistic and mature already not at all. For the bride and groom are somehow already compared with horses that are inspected prior to purchase. In addition to the so-called mutual "imagination" are probably already most decisions like, so important would be a real concept, in which the problem nakedness and shame is worked up quite fundamental. (Note: "humanist" comes from H. humanism is a mental attitude that places a high value on human dignity and the development of his personality and his abilities with H. also a spiritual flow was named in the 15... has oriented and 16th century, the ideals of Greek and Roman antiquity.)
Do, however, is based on the original text for yourself!

Thomas More: sexual morality and marriage laws (from "Utopia")

The woman does not marry before the eighteenth year; not the man before he became four years older. If a woman is transferred prohibited intercourse before her marriage, then the both of her as hard punished the man. Both parts of the marriage forbidden not wofern pardon of the prince's offense atones: but the father or the mother, this was committed in their home, subject to the dishonor because they have their protection wards poorly guarded.
The Utopians punish this offense is why so strict because they foresee that it would otherwise arise and that few would unite in conjugal love is where all persons remain a lifetime with one person and on top of that has to endure all the unpleasantness patient, the matrimony brings with it when people are likely to indulge in unrestrained concubinage.
When choosing a spouse they observe in our opinion, a very silly and ridiculous especially use in all seriousness and with all rigor.
A set and respectable matron shows the woman who want to marry, may be a virgin or a widow, completely naked to the man (for them the competition ends) and an honorable man shows the reversed completely naked advertisers the girl.
While we did this custom as an unseemly ridiculed and disapproved, the Utopians wonder, however, about the great folly of all other peoples, when they want to buy a miserable horse, where it is only a few pieces of money, are so very careful that they refuse to buy it, even though the animal is naturally almost naked, though not yet the seat is lifted and the horse blankets and saddle pads are removed, because under these coverages even an ulcer can be hidden - in the selection of the wife but from which pleasure or disgust for life follows, so negligently proceed to the woman almost on a range space (nothing to see here except the face), with judge otherwise completely in body and clothes eingehülltem estimate and connect with close to her, not without great danger of a miserable life together, if after them inappropriate to their infirmities are discovered.
Because all men are by no means to the extent that they only see on the moral value, and also in the marriages of the ways a form of physical assets not unwelcome addition to the virtues of the mind and spirit.
Among all those cases can even be hidden ugliness so chilling that it is able to alienate the mind of his wife of the man entirely, though it is impossible to divorce from bed and board. Now, if this ugliness is accidentally discovered only after closed marriage, each lot must be just wear; it is a matter for the law to take precautions that one may not be brought into such a trap, and it was so serious to be taken into account because of all located in those parts of the world people alone to make do with a wife and marriage rarely otherwise as is dissolved by death, wofern not adultery is present, or the marriage part has an obnoxious character.
Namely, if one is violated by both parties in this way, he receives from the Senate the permission to change her husband, the other part has to live without honor in lifelong celibacy.
Otherwise, however, it is quite illegally, that a husband his wife so contrary because it takes an accident bodily harm if they otherwise meet any debt which is believed to be an act of cruelty, someone to disclose and to leave if he just needs most of consolation and that the age when set up diseases, yes this is a disease itself, which vowed loyalty is broken from the other parts.
Incidentally, it sometimes happens that when the husband match their personality traits after bad when everyone has a different game found in what he hopes to come live happier, separate voluntary and mutually engage in new marriages, but not without the authorization of the Senate to not admit of a divorce, until he has vented itself and with the assistance of the wives of its members in case thoroughly. But then the thing is not leichtlich approved, because they know very well that it does not contribute to securing the conjugal love, if the reasonable prospect of being able to contract a new marriage.
Adulterers are punished with the harshest slavery, and if neither of the two parts was unmarried, the young spouses, which happened by the adultery wrong can mutually marry by violate the guilty party, or otherwise whom they want to take for a husband.
But if man or woman, who have been hurt in this way to the concerned husband who deserve it so little, still cherishes love, the law comes the Fort stocks of marriage contrary not if he follow the condemned to work other parts will; Incidentally, it sometimes happens that the repentance of the one part, and the earnest desire of the other princes of the compassion aroused and obtained the freedom of the guilty.
A recidivist meets death.

If nudity is now not consistently Christian tradition, the fear of it so after all was ever asked of critical Christians in question. Presumably, the externalized morality was also taken from other religions and again mainly from Buddhism. We know about the situation in Thailand, a Buddhist dominated country: Nudity is strictly prohibited here, but quite acceptable prostitution. In contrast, in the early church the (rather young) people were baptized naked. The water symbolizes about the nudity armor from "holy spirit" which really protects against sin. And so the young people died sometimes better than to give up their chastity. Since we are the young people of that time should not unrealistic-idealistic-Jesus-loving judge as to now, it was with them certainly not a fundamental abstinence and one death out of love for Jesus. It may have been only the problem of "love with the right earthly partner". Presumably they were so filled with the ideas of Jesus of such a love, that they do not - how else was customary - wanted to be verkuppelt with an unloved partner.
For "inexperienced" people's joy can, in the beautiful clothing in any case be quite an incentive to a higher morality! (s. Issue 1, p 48)
"But this is all just for earlier - but today everything is completely different." Hoh no! Pope John Paul II wrote in his "theology of the body": "Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and without prejudice to retain its luster and beauty .. Sexual decency so it can not be easily identified somehow with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nudity. There are circumstances in which nudity is not indecent ... nudity as such should not be equated with physical shamelessness. Indecency is given only when nakedness plays a negative role in terms of the value of a person ... The human body is not shameful in itself, nor are sensual reactions for the same reason, and human sensibility in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of the person. "

"The problem but is actually just the abortion. This is murder in the womb, and murder is a violation of the commandments of God. So I am committed that we do not kill prenatal children. "
In a group of religion teachers many years ago we were once at one of the ladies of the church from the maternity (demolition) advice (as it still was) made informed , And the lady told us about her impression that all women who come to her for an abortion counseling, would also have problems in partnership. Women in healthy partnerships have such problems is not easy. That would mean then that the abortion issue is a secondary problem: Now, if the problem would be solved partnership, would also be the problem "abortion" solved. Therefore, I look only to the problem partnership.

And also I have with the sin notion that only the abortion is against God's commandments, my problems. The babies are not just like that come in the womb. There was quite something happened before? You could still accept, if it is acted at an early marital union (s. Issue 1, p 39), but especially among young people may indeed in most cases of such early partnerships at all no question, is there it is but rather changing partners stories. Goods not even against the commandments of our Christian God, according to which marriage and relationships and love and sexual community belong together? Oh yes, because men were tuned involved, and therefore falls under the table? But not here! I happen to have any objection to this whole affair is only seen what the women are alone affected. It's deeply misogynist!

Also told me women, who had such abortion behind how terrible it was all for them, and they suffer most from it - and for life. And I did something about it that in these women without a better sense stir up everything again.

Besides: Where is a nice please information for young people as they thread a healthy relationship? That was and still always so: First, it is silent about everything and it will be shown wrong way and then they tell the young people something of condoms and veneral deseases, if at all. Here you are, who is doing something wrong because here, who sinned because here - by giving young people a meaningful concept that they can really live? So before we stand against abortion, but rather we should first of all take care that young people learn useful concepts for their life!

"But still, sex education is the duty of the parents!"
That's life once every pushes this task to another, no one sees himself responsible. What are we really pathetic for quitters! For more details see Issue 1, p 51 u. 52nd

"What the Church should not do if the State does not go along when abolishes about the laws against abortion and against homosexuality and then also introduces a sex education, in which the traditional sexual morality is presented as obsolete?"
These lawsuits the Church has said the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt: the church must understand that we live in a democracy and that in a democracy now determined once the majority look like laws for once. This is certainly not always good. But instead of complaining, the church should focus on their opportunities. Who was it about the kids the first place? Those are the churches with their religious teaching children. (This is my continuation of the thought of Helmut Schmidt: If the churches now taking advantage of their opportunities and teach the children a meaningful ethics, but outdated dogmas that rape the reason basically, they should pray tell does not call for the State if the ethics people not in the sense of the church.)

"Well, you may even in some respects are right, but there is not always a lot of ignorance and negligence that happens to be human, and therefore forgivable?"
 I see something different: I have been trying for many years, all sorts of people and institutions to move, to do something meaningful for the moral high love for young people. But with my request, I came so far largely "concrete". Well, I was and am still might not be good enough, but you could even once put together to jointly develop a concept. But obviously is a meaningful concept not desired - not even by the Church (of which church ever).

"Here you are, how is all this fit because in the Church?"
Then you read Take a closer traditional baptismal and Firm texts by! Since it always talked before preserving from sin, for just after the Firm text intelligence and cleverness is also necessary, I think of the spiritual gifts of knowledge, judgment, determination, perseverance - and God's help. These are all skills that are needed for practical action. Now, if you consider that the sacraments are Baptism and Confirmation has always donated more young people and even children, then the interpretation imposes itself not outright that it is about those decisions that happiness or misery in the lives of young people strongly influence? And the confession fits in here: The confessor's at the same time pastors and teachers, or at least it should be. Through the confession the priest now receives in his capacity as a pastor or teacher feedback, so to speak, whether what he taught and what is taught by the Church with regard to morality, really works. If he namely realizes that his or the usual moral teachings do not help, he can make smart, why this is, and he can look for a better approach to the young people entrusted to him. But you can also give the confession only see as a cult act without specific practical sense (see p. 18 u. 19).

"Do you ever believe in God?"
First of all, we can prescribe God nothing. We can theorize at best, is there no God, we do with the concept that is represented here, nothing wrong, because it corresponds so our human nature or divine commandments. And there is the good God of the believers, then rejoices when we act according to the order of His commandments or our nature that he has created. Here, too, we are right!
"You can do whatever you want, but I believe in God!" The problem is that we know nothing of God, he is after all a fantasy and dream product. We can only know about Jesus, but above all its concerns and does not fit many of their purpose. So he prefers God as Jesus. In addition, they called themselves the Nazis, who were pushed out of the churches, a believer in God. "God" can be harnessed to provide each carts.
But is not a firm belief in God the basis for any better morale? Just as we had thought in the Middle Ages in terms of medicine, "health comes from God, and disease of the devil." If you do not want to be sick now and be healthy, then you had to just very pious and devout be. Surely that's not entirely wrong because pious and religious people just also very often live very healthy. But the real breakthrough in medicine came when we let go of such magical thinking and the questions about health and disease objectively never ceased. Especially in matters of sexual morality, we still have the medieval setting that you want to solve the problem by "faith and piety magic". Here is a rational approach still ahead. The concept of this book is to show a way before.

"But is not that religious people are better people?"
 Experience shows that, unfortunately, a belief in God at all is no guarantee that people are really better. Were not worst crime just committed by people with any expressed belief in God? Protects a belief in God really hypocrisy? There may therefore the saying of Jesus: "Seek first the kingdom of God and everything else shall be given you this!" This is exactly the concern of engagement "Fortunately, the high love" with the idea of life after the "order of nature" which indeed corresponds to the commandments or "rules of God." Incidentally, "Paradise" and "kingdom of God" identical concepts - the "kingdom of God" is therefore quite attractive to some earthly.

"But it is not only a suitable spirituality only creates the climate in which also can be a high morale thrive?"
That is a thesis that can not withstand the practice. On the contrary, a religion that only cares about spirituality and not specifically about how the commandments of God are kept straight (also called "order of nature") is sexual (and still refuses to investigate concretely and objectively about it and to develop concepts) must, to the reproach leave, that's not the point her to the keeping of the commandments, but under a beautiful excuse just to the "business with sin" and with hypocrisy.

"What you are doing is irresponsible humans to destroy their faith and take away with it."
 Irresponsible but only if you take away something people without giving them something better. The question is, what's better if people live here and now it right or if they are being lied to and therefore have a vague hope for a better world after her death. Of course, many people have a more harmonious life here and now no more. But at some point one must begin again, to make life here and now in the spotlight.

"But it does not mean" faith "because you just can not prove anything?"
Consider: When we talk about Jesus something that obviously is not true, how is this going on it the blessing of God rest? As if it would Jesus need us to tell stories about him any gods that you have to believe blindly. Also in the concept of this issue, it's all about faith, namely the the real Jesus - and only with this belief, that somehow a coherent faith, our world can really be replaced!

"Since you can not do anything anyway, where people are as human touch up. The Church remains "in these things" but only left to give the repentant sinner God's forgiveness "
You can always do something -. If you just really want! In issue 1 on pages 2 and 3 of which I have reported what they told me people about their mistakes (or "sins"). Those were also a kind of confession. Get with certainty, or at least got something with priests also, as long ears confessions were still common. Strange: I have when I heard something of stakeholders, immediately thought that my interlocutors are not so stupid or instinctive or malicious, and asked them why they could be so blind and denkblockiert etc. Above all, I've been using them after looking for a concept to another pedagogy, ensure that everything runs differently in the future. Yes, why not ask priests also such a thing and take care of a change? Are they so instead of "Care Taker of the Souls" (this is also a German word for "pastor") somewhat "cult priests" who see human mistakes in personal matters only cult aspects, as they can place them in God's mission - what is actually limited to the "second choice" in our faith? (This is something for the death of the German interns Moritz Erhardt from England: "... to the tasks of British coroner counts except the judicial determination of cause of death, the recommendation to the authorities and the public, as related deaths could be avoided ... Recently she took <n. a particularly dedicated judge> ... the accidental death of a cyclist an opportunity to criticize the inadequate London ruts. ") (From" The World "v. 22.11. 2013, p 27). So why not take care of in our case in an appropriate manner?

"The whole misery today is but it just because people do not think much more about confession and no longer go to confession (so a priest)."
This argument reveals the attitude of the typical Priest: It's all about forgiveness, ie if so all happened. The fact that there might be a prevention for people to behave properly from the outset, they will not mind.

Why I am involved in that?
Well, I think, that's easy! Take a look at once Issue 1 pages 2 and 3 of what I young and not so young people have reported their first experience with love. As yet there is something wrong - right? And although many now see exactly sure, but it is strange why do anything - and then only apparently Disabled? Yes, why not come up with the idea to appeal to the reason and the good will of young people here - of course, so that the time also understand and accept what is at stake? Must one not do something, if you can stay and when we see relatively easy ways that it can also run make sense? What one is for Christ, if that's all then it does not concern one? Particularly annoying are for me the callousness and indifference on the part of church officials (only way I can describe it), for any stories that have been imputed to Jesus, is more important than his concern on the success of a beautiful love for all. But it is by no means the only ecclesiastical officials, otherwise there is callousness and indifference to satisfy. In addition, all has indeed a political dimension - see the question about my interest in the "young girl" in Issue 1, pp 38th

Concluding Remark

We describe Christianity as a message of love. By this we mean the active charity, that is to help other people who are in need. However, the message of Jesus is more: it is especially once the message of love high. And high Love said the relationship between man and woman - and that will not fade left to chance, but for many people as possible now succeed here and in their high form.

About literature:

When I use the traditional Christianity continuation of ancient mystery cults and therefore regard as completely outdated in this work, I can "Greco Roman understanding of religion and mystery cults as the building blocks of the Christian religion," rely on the dissertation work of Max Ortner, Vienna 2009 me well.
In the newspaper "Die Welt" 01/11/2013 we read: "Francis wants to know how his sheep tick".
The author writes that church people see the problem is that today the marriage for many a "temporary issue" and that the Pope would like to get an overview of the needs of its believers. Oh dear, "a temporary affair"! It should but just theologians know that at the time was Jesus among the Jews of sexual intercourse as a sign of marriage, ie, that Jesus also lived in this idea and worked, and that therefore sexual intercourse and marriage should belong together in the view taken by the church marriage morality. But theologians have not already accepted that sexual intercourse has become a makeshift affair and thus removed from the ideas of Jesus? So if they see the problem of "temporary issue," then they should not begin until marriage, but even during intercourse. And sitting here since time immemorial Catholic priest so to speak, "at the source"! Are not they just the ones who might know well from experience with the confessions of the faithful, where pressing the shoes of their sheep? And it's not the priests that could affect the formation of the faithful, and especially the ethical? (I know I'm repeating myself.) If not by the priests, where else people should know better concepts of ethics? Who else as yet has the opportunity to influence the ethics very young people in his hands? So why do pope and church people as ignorant and powerless?
There was a 'Mater et Magistra, "meaning" mother and teacher (of nations) ". This was about social issues. Actually, the church should rather are "Mater et Magistra" be very human questions - but apparently none And yet would be just their job!
Meanwhile, it will be in March 2014, there are the results of the survey. The German bishops Pope Francis informed, nothing more. No trace of suggestions or even suggestions on how to return to sexual ethics, how does it actually teaches the church. I refer to the amount in the newspaper "Die Welt", 4. 2. 2014: "German bishops trick from the Pope Francis - According to a survey of the Vatican believers ignore the Church's sexual ethics mostly publication kindled debate on reforms.."