And how, you only have to read the story of the beautiful Susanna in the appendix of the Book of Daniel and the story of how Jesus saves the sinner in John 8 under a different aspect than the usual childish one purified of everything to do with sexuality that you are always taught. In any case, what I have come up with is infinitely more probable than the stories of a virgin birth, of miracles, of a resurrection and whatever else is written about Jesus in the Bible.

So I think such dealings with women must have been almost normal at that time. There was a Roman occupation and the soldiers were not allowed to marry until they were 35, so they needed prostitutes and not too few of them. And probably there were also men among the Jews, at least from time to time, who also "went" to prostitutes. And in the way presented here, the "brutal men" came to the prostitutes. And if one of them wanted to get out of the business or otherwise made a fuss, then a "catching of the act" was arranged, so that one of them was stoned to death, also as a warning for the other prostitutes. In John 8 such an episode is reported, usually a story of forgiveness is made out of it, but there is nothing at all about forgiveness.

According to what you say here, it must have looked very bad for normal women at that time, because they were helplessly at the mercy of such machinations. I can see that once the right people had them in their sights, they had no chance of leading a normal life.

And the authorities not only looked the other way, but they probably went along with it.

So this Jesus started to expose and publicly denounce these criminal messes and so he started to stir up the criminal misogynist system of the time. That's why he had to leave. Understandably, and at that time there was no free media that could have intervened, the Weinsteins and their ilk still had their unrestricted power. That's how it worked with false witnesses and false accusations.

That at least sounds plausible.

But there's more: when Jesus was removed from the scene, his ideas were still alive in many people's minds, because he had already spoken about them publicly. And at least some of these people wanted to continue in the spirit of Jesus' ideas.

And so Paul was infiltrated into these "followers of Jesus", or rather he infiltrated himself, in order to "investigate" and above all to prevent this continuation.

And Paul did not just "investigate", but he also managed to influence and change everything! In doing so, he really did his job perfectly, namely to erase the memory of Jesus' real involvement, so to speak, with the construction of a new religion that he had supposedly learned about through revelations directly from the resurrected Jesus. And so it then came to this largely late-antique syncretistic (= "mishmash of beliefs") mystery cult faith that we know today.

The many parallels to the ancient religions from East Asia to Rome, from Egypt to Germania have long been known.

Yes, of course, the virgin births, the sonships of God, the redeemer function, the miracles, the raising of the dead, the communion celebrations with bread and wine, the resurrections, the ascensions, the Three Kings stories and even the crucifixions with the sacrificial death ideology, these are all typical stories from the pagan mythologies. What coincidences that all these wondrous to sometimes "downright outlandish" stories are also told by Jesus or that they belong to Christian teachings. There are simply not that many coincidences! So here, obviously, a new "universal religion" has been deliberately constructed by whoever. But apart from the crucifixion, for which there are good arguments, it has nothing or at least not much to do with the real Jesus.

And you think that this Paul was so thorough in this that today we only know this new story and no longer the commitment of the real Jesus?

That's right. We can no longer even imagine the real commitment of Jesus. For Paul was not only a clever deceiver, but he was also a brilliant founder of religion.

So far, so understandable. I don't see what all this has to do with us today, it's none of our business. Women are certainly not blackmailed into prostitution - and certainly not with the threat of the death penalty.

We just do it differently - by manipulation! Just take a look at why the girls start having sex - which is often associated with downright frustration. The girls think that they want it themselves out of complete freedom, but they only want it themselves because they have always been taught false morals.

That is precisely the sign of their emancipation.

That's what they mean!

Once, while reading the biography of a prostitute, I came across a passage, purely by chance, in which she quoted my website, which she had found on the internet. And the woman had agreed with me that I was once someone who clearly said that the problem is that girls are sent in the wrong direction with their morals and therefore start having sexual relationships without marriage, and some end up in prostitution.

I don't see where girls are sent in the wrong direction with their morals.

Are they really not? The manipulation is, so to speak, culturally determined, so it doesn't stand out. We are all taught from our youth that sexual shame is the epitome of sexual morality, that we have to hide "certain body parts" at least from others. And so young people, and especially girls, adhere almost hysterically to the rules of shame. But there is no research, and certainly no scientific research, that sexual shame has any real "moral nutritional value", to put it that way. I was a religion teacher for 30 years in front of young people between 16 and 20 at a vocational school, and I never experienced that, for example, girls started having sex because they were naked on a beach where this openness is common. On the contrary, they were almost panic-stricken about such things, like "that's disgusting and immoral, we'll never do that!" But they did start having sex, and sometimes with men who were more like chance acquaintances. Education in shame is education in an empty phantom. Sexual relationships always start for completely different reasons, but never for the reason that girls in particular enjoyed nudity. And the girls are not prepared for the "real reasons", so they start with that.

Is there really no research on the "moral nutritional value of shame", as you call it?

At least I don't know of any. There are even animal studies that a sexual behaviour typical or even natural for a mammalian species - and this possibly also applies to humans, because we are also "mammals" - is upset by clothing. In Geo 02/2015 on p. 128 there was once a note that Canadian researchers had by chance observed something strange in rats. Researchers had wanted to observe sexual behaviour in rats and had put different coloured jackets on them to distinguish them. And at some point, researchers at the institute needed the same little animals again to do research on something else, and the jackets had long since been taken off and forgotten. And they observed that the rats had no "sexual appetite" at all. Only when they remembered the jackets and put them back on the animals did the "sexual appetite" return.

And what did the researchers conclude from this?

The clothing acted as a fetish - and without this fetish, the animals' natural sexual behaviour was confused.

Does this mean that clothing also has a fetish function for us humans, which confuses our natural sexual behaviour? That would mean that we would always have to walk around naked in order to be sexually normal ... I think that's pretty absurd.

No, no, we don't have to go that far, of course. It's quite enough if hiding clothes is no longer an absolute "accessory" to being human and if, where it makes sense, we are then also completely "without". Just as it used to be normal in many places in the GDR in summer. However, we have to bear in mind that clothing is, so to speak, a moral measure - and if that is no longer there, then morality has to come from somewhere else. Man is a highly moral being, also and especially in sexual matters, and as such he needs morals. And this morality must then come from the spirit, i.e. from a suitable pedagogy.

It has been shown, however, that no matter how much coaxing is done with young people, it does not help. Once young people want to have sexual experiences, nothing can stop them.

I think it would go too far to explain everything at this point. That's what I made my website for - and I think I have summarised everything succinctly, for example in the paper "Jesus Ideology", and readers have also confirmed to me that everything is easy to read. On the problem of education here, see also "Educating or accompanying".

This means that sexual intercourse may only take place in marriage, so that monogamy is guaranteed. But modern sexual research says something different here, that humans are not monogamous by nature at all.

I also know this transfer from ape research to humans. But I don't think science agrees on this at all. Yes, what if men have this view and therefore believe, like the male apes, that they can "jump" the "females" as they like; just imagine what kind of trouble they would get into then.

Or think about this: when monkeys are promiscuous, they know no shame, which means that their promiscuity is in keeping with their animal nature. But when humans live this animal sexuality, then they need the shame. Surely that means that animal sexuality is not also our human sexuality.

So you don't think much of modern sexual research?

That's exactly the way it is. Modern sex education in particular proceeds according to the maxim of a "naturalistic fallacy". That means that if everyone is doing something, then it is also good and right. But this is not a serious science that proceeds in this way. Because according to this maxim, Auschwitz and Treblinka would also have been right and good - at least from the point of view of the guards - because everyone did it that way. You can see from such a comparison that modern sexual science sometimes really does spout nonsense.

Isn't this equation of "theories about monogamy" and "murder of people" a trivialisation of what happened in Auschwitz?

I don't think so, of course; both are at times very much a matter of life and death, and horrible deaths too. We should also think about this in the times of the Corona: humanity has been developing for about 15 million years. And it can be assumed that such epidemics as Corona have occurred again and again during this time - and worse. Since there was no modern medicine in the past that ensured the survival of everyone at some point and even of those who did not behave sensibly, those who survived were always those who behaved sensibly in terms of survival and thus did not infect others. And many dangerous epidemics are transmitted not only through problematic food and poor hygiene, but also through the "special closeness" of people to each other, of whom "nothing more" is known, and especially through the mucous membranes, i.e. through sexual contact. This is where the strictly monogamous people (groups) survived and continued to multiply, who behaved monogamously themselves and attached importance to having partners who also behaved strictly monogamously. This is how religions came about with rigorous food, hygiene and sexual morality regulations - depending on what was considered dangerous at the time. A strong magnet for people to each other was the spiritual love that lasts "forever". This is how it came about that today we are probably predisposed by our nature to true monogamy.

To come back to the resurrection: How would you see the problem today and try to solve it?

This idea of resurrection in the form of continuing life after death in a distant heaven is all Pauline ideology and we can forget it. But what Jesus wanted is not about that at all. It is about a renewal of the human being in a higher morality without the constraints of a mafia and without manipulation, which is also something like a resurrection. And I think this renewal can be very attractive, especially for young people, and even be fun for them directly, because it corresponds to their nature.

If it's all so simple with sexual morality, why don't the religions do it that way, they are supposedly always so in favour of morality?

Well, think a little! Religions are all business enterprises. And where do they do the better business? When they teach their believers how to live a beautiful morality, or when their believers don't have such a beautiful morality and therefore often miss life here and now more or less and they can then comfort them and give them hope for a better life after death? And the clinging to shame looks so moral ...

That's not only capitalism, it's even criminal.

You say that now.

And what could the world look like that is your utopia?

I'll show you a beautiful ivory carving by the Belgian sculptor Charles Samuel. For me, the two dancing people are not a pair of lovers, but people who simply live high morals and have a zest for life. In doing so, they have internalised these morals to such an extent that they no longer need to hide their bodies. Again, I refer you to the website www.michael-preuschoff.de, especially to point 1 "Jesus ideology".

Charles Samuel (1862-1938), Belgian school: "Dancing"

And that is supposed to work?

I think that should work simply because it corresponds to our human nature. And many things are possible here today that were unthinkable and therefore simply not possible in the past - and in many cultures, however, still not possible today. Just take a closer look: Until not long ago, children were not allowed to know anything about sexual intercourse. Because this knowledge was considered absolutely harmful early sexualisation, which would rob children of their childlike innocence and eventually tempt them to try out what they knew. So taboo about everything related to sexuality! The less the children know about it, the better for them! But you have to tell the children something so that they don't behave too stupidly and, through naïve ignorance, attract and incite some paedophiles to take advantage of them. So they were told about shame, and that violations of shame are even a sin. Since even a child is by nature a highly moral being, and children therefore also have a drive to be moral, this naturally went down very well with the children, so they were ashamed to be naked. Besides, they didn't want to commit a sin. Besides, what was between their legs was considered disgusting anyway. So there was (and still is) uptightness and hostility to life, but no real morality.

But what is so bad about children being ashamed?

The consequence of all this is when the children get older: It is in our nature that the opposite sex is highly interesting or will become so at some point. And something has to be done about it! After all, it can't be reasonable to marry someone you've never really seen "before" and want to stay with them for life. And since showing and seeing, which is completely harmless in itself, is considered something bad if you do it right, and is also a sin, it is out of the question. After all, one has learned and internalised the moral norms and does not want to violate them. So what else is there but sexual intercourse, because that has to happen one day anyway, because that's the only way to have children. So you do it - and at the same time you can try out with whom it's really fun, who's the right one, and so on.

But somehow young people have to find out who suits each other, don't they?

Well, it certainly doesn't work with sexual intercourse. Because we know from prostitution that somehow every penis fits into every vagina. So this sexual intercourse testing doesn't yield any knowledge at all. What matters is whether it works with the orgasm.

That's right. And it doesn't work with everyone. So testing orgasms without penetration? How is that supposed to work?

Nature has even given us the possibility. Because all the nerve cells that are responsible for orgasm in women are located on the surface of their sexual organs. So what doesn't happen with orgasm without penetration, doesn't happen with penetration either. So for "testing", penetration is not necessary at all! Light mutual touching is perfectly sufficient, i.e. interlocking with skin contact in such a way that the genitals are far away from each other. The important thing is that a girl can let herself go without fear.

All well and good. But how should a pedagogy for this be different?

Today, even eight-year-olds know what sex is, so you could tell them "the right thing" right away. But nothing like that, once it's in, it's in. However, since everything connected with sexual morality is somewhat questionable today, nothing is told in this direction, at least nothing so that the children know what it is all about. Thus, the "moral nutritional value" of education for shame is not questioned either. It is talked around, even in our religions. So that's why the uptightness and hostility towards the body remains, that young people can't deal sensibly with their bodies and that they still consider, for example, the pleasure of nudity to be something immoral. And when young people then plunge into sexual adventures and thus distance themselves from the goal of monogamy, the "spiritual authorities" of all religions and cultures shrug their shoulders and say that this is the problem of our time and above all of our weak human flesh (or original sin), against which nothing can be done.

This is a frontal attack on religions, which would mean that they are ultimately to blame for the whole sexual mess.

With the exception of the religion, or better, the attitude to life, which presumably this Jesus wanted, who, as a craftsman, was also otherwise a man of practice.

But of course this is kept quiet. Instead, this religion that Paul constructed still exists today.

That the failure of high morality is due to this system á la Paul is, of course, not suggested by the "spiritual authorities". The described procedure of education to shame is a complete distortion of what is not morality or even a sham morality and what is real morality. So we can say that education for shame looks very moral, but it is completely counterproductive for the goal of a morality of real monogamy. This concept is now about the church coming back into the village and the real Jesus coming into the church and that the morality of real monogamy is explicitly wanted! So the aim is that our children learn not to do what belongs in marriage (i.e. sexual intercourse) before marriage or with anyone other than their spouse, but to do what can be a harmless and even paradisiacal pleasure, if only they do it properly. At the same time, they can also learn very well - by dancing at a high level, as in this picture - to recognise who suits them. And if someone doesn't fit, it's no problem to say "goodbye", it was nothing!

And what about shame?

Quite simply: shame, quite apart from the fact that it only provides a deceptive sense of security, is a substitute morality that we need because we do not live the strict monogamy that suits us. Incidentally, there was certainly such "openness" in the early church when the baptised were naked at baptism, but this openness was "forgotten" quite soon.

The problem is, of course, that most adults have never experienced anything like this and cannot even imagine that it is possible and how beautiful a morality of true monogamy is and how good it is to live it, if one is only informed accordingly ...

But something can be done about that!

And another thing: I am used to being asked questions from my time as an active teacher. I would like to keep this up: Your readers can also ask me questions (by e-mail). If there are too many, we will find a solution.

Thank you for the interview.

E-mail: basistext@gmx.de

Michael Preuschoff

Phone: 015732398365

But at the very end something about "nudity and young people". Take a look at the website https://www.gutefrage.net/frage/mit-jungs-duschen#answer-228012406 and see how beautifully young people can discuss things here - and sometimes behave very naturally! See also Educate or Accompany!

And since I don't get any reaction on the German side, I once translated this interview into other languages with google and posted it on the Internet. Maybe Chinese and Indians and Africans are interested? So here are the languages: