Sex 3.0 is a operating framework for sexual relationships that replaces the conventional model that we were all raised to believe in but which is currently undergoing a cascading failure.
The three eras of mankind are defined as Sex 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 with :
- 1.0 as all of human history up until 8,000 BC
- 2.0 as 8,000 BC up to and including the present day and ...
- 3.0 as the present day forwards.
Sex 3.0 theory is laid out according to pure form theory. The core message of Sex 3.0 is that the modern era that we are born into - Sex 2.0 - provides us with a framework of relating to each other sexually that is toxic.
Relationship failure within such an environment is not only at an epidemic scale as a result but the reasons for such epidemic relationship failure are due to the the beliefs and rules that society hands to us. In other words, when you embark on a Sex 2.0 relationship and follow society's rules, you are subscribing to a model of systemic failure.
As the problems in the established model are so deeply ingrained, it is not a problem that can be fixed by tweaking the established model, it can only be fixed by a complete replacement framework - a complete upgrade.
This upgrade is called Sex 3.0
- 1 Sex 1.0
- 2 Sex 2.0
- 2.1 The Creation Of Paternity Concern
- 2.2 The Invention Of Marriage
- 2.3 Virginity Prizing
- 2.4 The Introduction Of The Normal Plane
- 2.5 The Sex 2.0 Schism
- 2.6 The Sex 2.0 Deal
- 2.7 Relationship Duress
- 2.8 Fenced & Unfenced Relationships
- 2.9 Three Kinds Of People
- 2.10 Sex 2.0 Core Design
- 3 The Breakdown Of Sex 2.0
- 4 Groupthink
- 5 Post Sex 2.0 Era
- 6 Sex 3.0
- 7 Sex 3.0 As A Movement
- 8 Sex 3.0 As A Big Theory Of Everything
- 9 Human Rights
- 10 Sexolutionaries
- 11 How To Contribute To This Wiki?
- 12 How To Donate
- 13 External links
(Duration: All of human history up until 8,000 BC)
During the 1.0 era of humanity, neither animals nor edible fruit or vegetables were farmed. Human beings hunted animals and gathered the fruit and vegetables that they could find. This was a tribal existence. A band of hunter gatherers was typically less than one hundred people and commonly consisted of between thirty to fifty people in size (including children).
This was a very nomadic form of existence. Tribes were always moving to wherever there was food, water and shelter. During this era human beings did not live in conventional towns or villages and there were no such things as countries. The oldest countries in the world are only approximately 6,000 years old .
Crucially, during this period human beings had no concept of property. Not only did people not own anything, they had no concept of property. In this sense, human beings were the same as the millions of other known species on the planet who also have no concept of property.
Also, in a nomadic band, anything that was owned would have to be carried around by its owner which would slow them down and decrease their chances of survival and not increase it. The concept of property was not only not necessary for our survival during this era, it would have been counter-productive.
Hunter-gatherer tribes were typically egalitarian and shared everything. For example after gathering or hunting food, everybody ate regardless of their ability to hunt or gather. Basic tools were shared as were child rearing responsibilities.
The Natural Plane
Human beings simply embraced their sexual nature and followed it. Again, in this sense we were exactly like the millions of other known species on the planet who also simply followed their reproductive nature.
(Duration : 8,000 BC up to and including the present day)
The shift to Sex 2.0 started around 8,000 BC when the agricultural revolution began. Humanity started to move away from the hunter gatherer paradigm and started to become farmers and started to live a sedentary existence as opposed to a nomadic existence and started to live in small villages and towns. As a by-product of this change, for the very first time we invented the notion of property.
As the invention of the notion of property pre-dates historical written records it is hard to ascertain with 100% certainty what the first property in human existence was but it is thought that the first property was land. Specifically fertile land that was good for farming as, of course rocky and barren land would have no value as a survival tool.
Once this change occurred, it became crucially important for men to start to treat women as sexual property. The origins of this need are explained by the creation of paternity concern.
The Creation Of Paternity Concern
Due to the self-evident nature of child birth, women all throughout human history have always been able to have sex with any number of men without ever having to worry that the child they are raising somebody else’s child. It came out of their body so it's obviously their child even though they may or may not have known who the father was.
This never changes regardless of which period of human history the child is born, where geographically the child is born, its ethnicity or the language or culture it is born into.
Men obviously didn't have that luxury which meant that men experienced paternity concern - the worry that they are raising a child that might not be theirs and they might be passing their own property down somebody else's blood line and best ensuring the survival of somebody else's children and not their own.
In a Sex 1.0 era this would not have been a significant issue with nobody having any concept of property to pass down and all the children being raised collectively by the tribe anyway.
In a Sex 2.0 era however where property became a key tool for the chances of survival of both yourself and your children and your children’s children, establishing lines of heredity became of crucial importance for men.
This combination of paternity concern when combined with the invention of property was the catalyst which moved humanity from the Sex 1.0 era to the Sex 2.0 era.
The Invention Of Marriage
A new system was required - a system of control needed to be invented to deal with this problem and to calm male paternity concern; a deal which allowed men to claim women as their sexual property.
This system was called marriage.
As the first marriages pre-date historical written record they were most likely verbally bartered economic agreements between families that owned land to allow them to merge resources with other land owning families whilst best ensuring genetic lineage and determining paternity.
As this agreement only best determined paternity, but did not guarantee it (a promise and a guarantee are not the same thing after all), many cultures embraced both the practice of prizing female virginity and also the practice of passing property and land rights to the first born, often the first born male, as it was thought that the first born would be the most likely legitimate progeny of the husband in any brood.
The Introduction Of The Normal Plane
When humanity went through the shift from 1.0 to 2.0, something notable happened and something notable did NOT happen.
The notable thing that did happen is the introduction of the second plane of human sexuality defined by the word “normal”. Humanity became a unique species at this point by becoming the first and only species to have two planes of sexuality with the difference between the two planes being as follows :
- Normal is defined by society and is not defined by nature
- Natural is defined by nature and is not defined by society
Or in other words, the natural plane is a collection of biological imperatives given to us by nature and normal is a collection of social imperatives given to us by society.
The notable thing that did not happen is that the introduction of the normal plane did not change human sexual nature.
The Sex 2.0 Schism
Under 2.0, the two planes of human sexuality operate at the same time. This introduced a schism into human sexuality for the first time.
This schism meant that you can now have something that is normal but, at the same time is not natural. For example marriage, marriage is totally normal but it's not natural. Human beings are not sexually exclusive by nature for life whereas marriage says you have to be.
The very reason that marriage was invented is precisely because human beings are not sexually exclusive by nature for life. If human beings were lifelong monogamists by nature there would be absolutely no reason to invent marriage to deal with paternity concern and determine lines of paternity.
The widespread adoption of the practice of marriage therefore only makes it more normal, not more natural under this model.
The Sex 2.0 schism is one of the primary causes of schizokardia - a current globally pandemic emotional illness that involves internally maintaining an emotional sexual duality that is self-contradictory in nature and purpose.
The Sex 2.0 Deal
When you are born into a Sex 2.0 world you are raised to believe in the Sex 2.0 deal. There are two sides to this deal, the male side and the female side.
Women born into a Sex 2.0 world are raised by society to believe that they have to sell their sexuality in exchange for security. Ultimately the security of marriage to a man.
Men born into a Sex 2.0 world are raised by society to believe that, in order to have a long term sexual relationship with a woman, they have to claim her sexuality as their property in order to best assure that they are raising their own children and passing their property down their own blood line.
People that have sexual relationships that fall outside of the extremely narrow Sex 2.0 deal are subject to what is known according to Sex 3.0 theory as “relationship duress”.
Relationship duress, or RD for short, is a collective term for the coercion and bullying behaviour displayed by society towards all those that engage in relationships that fall outside the boundaries of the Sex 2.0 deal.
Forms Of Relationship Duress
There are many forms of relationship duress including :
- If a person is gay, society calls them a faggot or a dyke - the collective term for this form of relationship duress is homophobia.
- A healthy, heterosexual man who is not really interested in the Sex 2.0 deal but who wants to have sex anyway? Society tells them that they need to man up, stop being so immature, to grow up and settle down.
- A healthy, heterosexual woman who is not really interested selling their sexuality in exchange for security but who wants to have sex anyway? Society calls them either a slut or a whore depending on whether sex is given away for free or sold.
Anyone who falls outside of the Sex 2.0 deal for any reason is subject to relationship duress regardless of the reason that they fall outside. Other examples include people who declare themselves as polyamorous, swingers or become porn stars.
Fenced & Unfenced Relationships
Sex 3.0 theory states that, as there are two planes of sexuality, there are two corresponding types of sexual relationship – fenced and unfenced.
Fenced relationships are defined as relationships whereby both parties agree to “fence in” their sexuality and make it unavailable to everybody else in the world. Conventional boyfriend / girlfriend and husband / wife relationships are examples of fenced relationships.
Unfenced relationships are relationships not based on the notion of mutual sexual exclusivity. It does not mean that both parties are engaged in lots of sexual relationships or even more than one. It is possible to have an unfenced relationship with just one person. It simply means that there is no fence.
In other words, there is no enforced agreement of sexual exclusivity. When it comes to engaging sexually with others, both parties in unfenced relationships always have the option and whether they chose to exercise the option is up to them. Permission is not required.
Three Kinds Of People
Although there are only two kinds of relationship, fenced or unfenced, when focused is switched from what kind of relationships there are to what kind of people there are, there are three kinds of people :
A fenced person is one that exclusively has fenced relationships and has zero interest in unfenced relationships.
An unfenced person is one that exclusively has unfenced relationships and has zero interest in fenced relationships.
A switch is a person that may be interested in either a fenced or an unfenced relationship depending on a variety of factors for example how much they like the other person, whether they have just come out of an emotionally exhausting relationship and are "not looking for anything serious right now" and so on...
Examples Of Switch Behaviour
- Continuing to have sex with an ex-partner until getting into another suitable fenced relationship with a third party
- Normally not having sex outside of a fenced relationship but having a fling whilst on holiday
- Switching to more casual sexual relationships for a time due to temporary lack of interest in dealing with the emotional drama inherent in fenced relationships (jealousy, possessiveness, lack of freedom etc)
Most people who are active in the sexual marketplace are switch.
Sex 2.0 Core Design
Sex 2.0 has 3 things at the core of its design – fear, control and deception.
Sex 2.0 is fundamentally fearful in many ways most obviously fear for men that they might not be raising their own children and fear for women that they might be labelled a slut or a whore.
Marriage is a system of control that was invented primarily as a way of dealing with male paternity concern.
Sex 2.0 is deceptive in many ways (far too many to list here ) but the fundamental deception is that it does not deliver what it advertises and promises. It advertises itself as a high performance framework for relationships (along with the fairy tale promise of happily ever after) but what it actually delivers is a low performance framework for relationships with a high failure rate.
Another obvious deception is that Sex 2.0 society never offers the choice of unfenced relationships. This choice is not only not offered, it is obfuscated or hidden and 2.0 society engages in relationship duress on the matter of unfenced relationships regarding them as not "real relationships".
The Breakdown Of Sex 2.0
To understand how the breakdown of Sex 2.0 we must re-examine both sides of the Sex 2.0 deal and how both sides of the deal have broken down.
The female side of the deal is that women are raised by society to believe that they have to sell their sexuality in exchange for security.
However, in the modern western world at least, women have access to social mobility, their own jobs careers and money. Women do not need to sell their sexuality in exchange for security, they can provide their own security.
This renders the female side of the Sex 2.0 deal obsolete.
The male side of the Sex 2.0 deal is that men are raised by society to believe that, in order to have a long term sexual relationship with a woman, they have to claim her sexuality as their property in order to best assure that they are raising their own children and passing their own property down their own blood line.
However, in the 1950s the structure of DNA was discovered, in the 1980s paternity testing kits based on DNA technology was invented and it is only as recently as the 1990s that these kits became available on a widespread basis in pharmacies and chemists all over the world.
These kits are so simple that you can do them at home, no doctor is required, no blood or needles are involved, just a simple cheek swab to collect the DNA. These kits correctly determine paternity with greater than 99.9% accuracy.
Comparatively, the 10,000 year old Sex 2.0 framework which society has been using as a framework to determine paternity has a rate of what is politely known as parental discrepancy (in other words the person that you think is your daddy is not your really your daddy) that runs as high as 30% (an exact figure is hard to come by due to the obviously fraught social consequences of widespread testing but studies found a range in incidence from 0.8% to 30%).
Therefore, when one compares a way of determine paternity that has a failure rate of up to 30% on one hand, and a way of determining paternity with a failure rate of less than 0.1% on the other hand, it becomes quite clear that the male side of the Sex 2.0 deal is also now obsolete.
The only thing that is keeping Sex 2.0 alive is groupthink. In other words, the assumption that because this is the way things have always been done in the past (society tends to ignore the entire Sex 1.0 era when considering what is traditional) that means this is the way we should always do it in the future.
Questioning of the assumptions that this model is built on is not allowed. Those that do so are considered immoral under groupthink.
Post Sex 2.0 Era
Due to the collapse of the Sex 2.0 model, society is currently grappling with the dilemma of the post Sex 2.0 era. Some are responding to the dilemma by clinging to the old model and some are responding by upgrading to Sex 3.0.
(Duration: Present day forwards)
Sex 3.0 theory states that what is required to resolve this modern dilemma is not a tweaking of the existing Sex 2.0 model but a complete upgrade. Sex 3.0 therefore is a framework which acts as a complete replacement for Sex 2.0.
Sex 3.0 Core Design
Like Sex 2.0, Sex 3.0 also 3 things at the core of its design – self-determination, love and honesty.
One of the first differences between Sex 2.0 and Sex 3.0 is that 3.0 completely lays the cards out on the table. Sex 3.0 offers the choice of either fenced or unfenced relationships and, under no duress or pressure whatsoever you are invited to choose whichever best suits you and your relationship.
This is in sharp contrast to Sex 2.0 where you are not only not offered the choice of unfenced relationships by society but you are subject to being stigmatised, demonised and bullied if you do not choose fenced relationships.
Under Sex 3.0 you are told that there is no "correct" choice when it comes to the choice of fenced or unfenced, there is only the choice that is right for you. In this sense 3.0 is completely based on self-determination.
In the Sex 3.0 core design, self-determination replaces control.
With Sex 3.0 there is the honest acceptance that the Sex 2.0 framework was not designed to serve humanity as a framework for happy, healthy, long-term relationships. Sex 2.0 was not designed to serve the individual in that respect, it was designed to deal with society's anxiety when it came to establishing lines of heritage in the face of the invention of property.
In the Sex 3.0 core design, love replaces fear.
Love is the most human emotion of all. Human beings have always been social animals, have always pair-bonded, have always had great empathy and felt the deep emotional need for the well-being of another. However Sex 2.0 as a framework was designed for fear-based love and, as fear suffocates love, this is a fundamentally dysfunctional design.
Sex 3.0 As A Movement
Although originally inspired by the 2011 book Sex 3.0: A Sexual Revolution Manual, by 2012 Sex 3.0 had evolved into a sexual revolutionary movement.
The movement was then open sourced in 2013 making Sex 3.0 the world's first open source sexual revolutionary movement.
Sex 3.0 As A Big Theory Of Everything
Physicists use the term "Big TOE" as an acronym meaning big Theory Of Everything. A single, all-encompassing, coherent theory of physics that unites the various disciplines including physics, meta-physics, quantum mechanics, general relativity and so on.
Sex 3.0 is unified Theory Of Everything in the sexual realm. A single, all-encompassing, coherent theory that explains, and more importantly SOLVES, problems like what causes the differences between men and women, what causes relationships to be difficult, the root cause of homophobia, slut shaming, virginity prizing, jealousy and possessiveness, how negative feedback loops develop in cultures around the subject of sex and sexuality and how dysfunctional levels of conciousness enter and remain in the human sexual psyche.
Although the sections above detail the core designs of Sex 2.0 and Sex 3.0, the Sex 3.0 movement is not just about design, it is about human rights.
People involved in the Sex 3.0 movement believe that children should not be born into a world in which fear, control and deception are "baked" into the heart of the human sexual experience and that this is a basic human right.
It is also a right for adults born into a Sex 2.0 world to liberate themselves from such a system and the Sex 3.0 movement is dedicated to helping them do that.
Freedom from relationship duress in all its forms is also believed to be a basic human right.
Due to the open source nature of Sex 3.0, there is no hierarchy in the Sex 3.0 movement.
A person who is, for example, a sex educator who is sex positive and whose work is Sex 3.0 compatible is considered a sexolutionary (a portmanteau of the words 'sexual revolutionary'). A person who has read the book or even just the wiki page and follows the blog posts on the official site and helps to spread the word is a sexolutionary. A person who learns Sex 3.0 and talks to only their primary partner about it is still spreading the 3.0 revolution and is therefore considered a sexolutionary.
In Sex 3.0, everybody gets to be a sexolutionary.
How To Contribute To This Wiki?
Scroll to the top of the page, click on the discussion tab and follow the information there.
How To Donate
As as today, 24th March 2014, we accept donations in bitcoin and via PayPal . You don't have to have a PayPal account to donate via PayPal. You can use a debit or credit card if you like.
To donate via bitcoin or PayPal, click one of the buttons below.