[457] of both Christian and Protestant^a sex ethics^b, and family ethics. First family^c ethics: The authoritarian family is a bourgeois invention, which in this way was not valid in former centuries. There we had the feudal authority, which completely transcended the family authority. In the bourgeois realm, the authority of the family developed, and all the

consequences to which I referred. This is not the answer although it always remains the most important part of human relations because of the situation between parents and children. It is not, in the form in which we have it today, the answer. Which the answer is, is the problem of the development in which we are. But one thing is clear: MERE PERMISSIVENESS doesn’t help to overcome the impact of the parents because permissiveness often produces an even stronger bondage and takes away one good thing which authoritarian attitudes bring, namely the possibility of revolt. The tremendous permissiveness--I spoke about that already in educational context--towards the children doesn't liberate them but brings them very soon into the bondage of social convention,

where they have not the power any more to revolt because the pressure was not great enough, and the slow way of subjection is perhaps more dangerous for conformism than a real pressure. And also the sex ethics must be revised, and are in the process of being revised, in view of this situation. The first and decisive thing is that sex^d must be affirmed as created goodness, as eating and drinking and walking and enjoying nature and enjoying friendship. It is as natural and as divine as all these other things. And the veil of anxiety^e connected with it should be TORN TO PIECES. It should be NOT a matter of shame, but a matter of glory. This is one thing,