I watched a debate between two women on TV about the SlutWalks coming to London. One of them argued that it was great was all for them and thought it was great, whilst the other argued that women reclaiming the word “slut” and protesting against slut=shaming was a good thing, but that the promotion of promiscuity which she felt the SlutWalks were doing was wrong.

So, let’s dissect this question. Is it wrong to be promiscuous?

Now, as we saw in the post “Why Sex Exists,” sex exists in nature for reasons of survival and NOT reproduction, as many people would assume. It is an evolved defence mechanism to keep sexually reproducing creatures one step ahead of the parasites that their immediate ancestors grew up with.

In other words, when you look at the question of why sex exists at all, it can answered in pure form style in just 3 words – parasite defence mechanism. Or, if you want to get even more “pure form” about it and answer the question in just one word – biodiversity.

Nature absolutely loves biodiversity. In some creatures like the turkey that can reproduce either sexually or asexually, we see this demonstrated. The female turkey can produce fertilised eggs by herself when isolated from male turkeys, but when she does this, the chicks that hatch will not be as strong nor as resistant to disease or parasites as chicks conceived with a male turkey. They will be less likely to survive.

Nature loves biodiversity. Lack of biodiversity gets punished time after time.

We see this in human beings, too. We can’t pull off the turkey’s neat trick and reproduce without sex, but what happens when human beings have sex and reproduce with close family members and without biodiversity? Recessive genes and other problems surface and it results in a higher risk of birth defects and various health defects, including lower immunity and fertility.

On the other hand, the constant DNA/gene shuffling that happens with biodiversity produces stronger, healthier off-spring with fewer birth defects, fewer diseases and some other more visibly pleasant advantages.

Purely for research of course, here’s some pics.

Adriana Lima: Native South American, Swiss and African

Jessica Alba: French, Mexican and Danish

Alessandra Ambrosio: Brazilian, Italian and Polish

Ok, so nature quite clearly likes DNA shuffling and biodiversity. It produces fine specimens. So would that make both sluttiness and promiscuity a good thing, right? Well, not quite. Let’s take a look at both in turn.

The word “slut” is a weapon wielded by both men and women, but it means different things depending on whether it is a man or a woman who says it.

When men say it to a woman, they mean that either she is having sex with more men than he approves of or she is advertising her sexuality in a way that makes him uncomfortable.

When a woman says it to a woman, she means she is breaking the Sex 2.0 deal – the rule that says she should never sell her sexuality for less than the price of security, and she is undermining the market for all the other women (after all, how can other women sell something in exchange for security when it is being given away for free). As punishment for undermining the market, she must be shamed.

In both cases, “slut” is a very, very Sex 2.0 word for reasons that are covered in more detail in the book, and thankfully it has no place in a Sex 3.0 world.

In a Sex 3.0 world you can have as many sexual partners as you want – zero, one or more – without slut shaming or shaming of any kind, because the Sex 2.0 deal is no longer relevant to modern society — again, for reasons I cover in the book.

So promiscuity is good too, right?

Well no, not really. Promiscuity essentially means not exercising any discretion in your choice of sexual partners. Completely lacking in standards of selection.

A lack of standards can be punished in a number of ways. First of all, a lack of standards would suggest that you don’t care about the quality that you end up with. If you don’t care about the quality of what you end up with, it would suggest that you either are desperate or have such a low opinion of yourself that you don’t think you have the right to filter anyone out.

Pure form relationships are run on the four cornerstones of communication, honesty, trust and respect. If you want high quality pure form relationships in your life, then lack of standards of selection is not going to get you there.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having more than one sexual partner in your life at the same time as long as you are honest about it and they have the same freedoms that you have. That is not promiscuity.

Nor would it be “slutty” for a woman to have more than one sexual partner at any one time. That is a completely meaningless word in a Sex 3.0 world, because the Sex 2.0 deal is dead and “slut” is a Sex 2.0 enforcement word.

There is a sweet spot in which you can have the choice of multiple partners at the same time and not be either a slut nor be promiscuous, and that sweet spot has a word to describe it.

That word is “unfenced.” More details here.

Cross-posted at Sex 3.0.

Women don’t understand women at all. There, I said it.

I am not suggesting that men are complete geniuses when it comes to understanding the female psyche either, but “Why Neither Men Nor Women Understand Women” is a bit too long for a blog post title.

So why don’t women understand women? Two words — Stiletto effect.

The Stiletto Effect is a term that I came up with to explain an interesting phenomenon. Women’s complete lack of understanding of the root causes of their own sexual behaviour.

There are many, many examples of the stiletto effect, but it’s named the stiletto effect for one of them.

Women don’t understand why women wear high heels.

Try it, ask them. Go out and ask a hundred women at random why women wear high heels and I will be amazed if more than one or two of them give you the correct answer.

They will tell you because it makes them feel sexy, but ask them to explain why it makes them sexier and they have no clue. If high heels = sexier, then men would wear high heels too.

Some women tell you because it’s because it makes them taller, but since when does taller = sexier? If taller = sexier, then surely men would wear high heels too, and that would make them sexier too.

Point that out to women and they will snigger and tell you that men wearing high heels would be stupid and definitely not sexy. It’s just for girls. Why? They don’t know, they just know that that is the way it is.

The only male heels are cowboy boots, which are functional in nature, as they helped cowboys use their feet to better grip the stirrups when riding a horse.

Some women will tell you because it makes their legs look longer and slimmer, but nope, that’s not why women wear high heels either.

So why do women wear high heels? It ain’t because high heels are so comfy. Never tried them myself, but they sure as hell don’t look comfortable.

High heels slope the foot downwards and forwards and pinch the toes by squeezing them together and bending them upwards, causing pain and tension on the balls of the foot and soft tissue strain. The achilles tendon might get shorter. Bunions, corns, blisters, osteoporosis and other medical conditions are more likely and may require surgery to correct. There is more pressure on the lower back which can cause back problems too and they also damage many flooring surface.

That’s a lot of negatives so what is the positive to balance them out? Why do women wear high heels?

Well, as I explained in this post here, all male and female heterosexual behaviour can be explained by one thing – the sexual imperatives. Don’t understand something about human sexual behaviour? Take a look at the root cause of it. Take a look at the sexual imperatives.

When navigating the terrain of sexual relationships, my book Sex 3.0 will provide you with a better map, but you still need a compass. The sexual imperatives are the compass.

In this particular case, it is the male sexual imperative that is the root cause of why women wear high heels.

To recap, the male sexual imperative is to find signs of female fertility attractive and to have sex with as many fertile women as possible.

There are many signs of fertility in women with youth, beauty and curves in all the right places being the most obvious ones. This brings us to why women wear high heels.

Small feet on women is a signal of high levels of estrogen. A high level of estrogen is a signal of fertility. Men’s genetic imperative dictates that they find fertility sexually attractive.

Women wear high heels not to look taller, make their legs look longer or thinner or for any other reason. Women wear high heels because it make their feet look smaller.

A foot “fetish” for men is not any kind of fetish at all. A fetish is a deviation from nature and there is nothing un-natural at all about men finding signs of fertility in women sexually attractive. In fact, there is nothing more natural.

If you are a guy reading this and you quite like the idea that you have a weird, kinky foot fetish then I am sorry to disappoint you but it is not any kind of fetish.

Hooker Heels Explained: My God, not only are they smaller, they are naked!

The fact that most women have no clue whatsoever that women wear high heels to make their feet look smaller — even though many women own lots of pairs of high heeled shoes — is interesting to say the least.

Having a clear map and an accurate compass is absolutely key in order to successfully navigate the sexual domain.

There are many, many more examples of the stiletto effect covered in my book Sex 3.0, including why women nag men and what men should do about it.

It’s available now in eBook and paperback.

Cross posted at Sex 3.0.

In the Sex 1.0 era, human sexuality operated on only one plane (or dimension if you prefer) defined by the word “natural.”

Like all of the other 8.7 million species of creatures occupying this beautiful planet, we lived in harmony with our sexual nature.

Then something happened.

Something changed.

Picture this. Visualise a single beermat or a drink coaster on the table in front of you.

If you actually have one, place it to your left hand side. If you don’t, just imagine it there or just use something else. A glass, cup, saucer or whatever.

This represents a plane of human sexuality defined by the word “natural”. In Sex 1.0 this is all we had. This is all we needed.

Back then we operated, sexually, just like every other species on the planet. We just followed our sexual nature.

We shook nature by the hand, smiled and we went along with it. Sure, we competed, we even fought in times of scarcity, but we were in tune with nature.

When we moved from Sex 1.0 to Sex 2.0, however, a fundamental schism was created. A split whereby human sexually began to operate on two planes at the same time.

Now picture or place another beermat or drinks coaster, or what you are using, in front of you and to your right hand side.

This represents the newly introduced plane of human sexuality in Sex 2.0 defined by the word “normal”.

The Sex 2.0 Schism

So you so now you have one on your left and one on your right representing the two planes of human sexuality in a Sex 2.0 world. The one on the left is the “natural” sexual plane and the one on the right is the “normal” sexual plane.

The word ‘natural’ simply means “in accordance with nature” or “in agreement with nature.” It does not mean anything else. It is defined by nature alone and is not defined by society.

Whereas the word “normal” is defined by society as, of course, you have the concept of the “societal norm” and it is not defined by nature.

This an important concept and worth repeating:

• Natural = defined by nature and not by society.
• Normal = defined by society and not by nature.

Under Sex 2.0, for the first time in human history, it became possible to have something that is completely 100% “normal” and is, at the same time, totally “unnatural,” like hmmmmmm, let me think… like… marriage, for example.

Marriage is totally normal. It is also completely unnatural as human beings are not, by nature, monogamous whereas marriage requires you to be monogamous.

When there is widespread, worldwide adoption of a practice, it does not make it any more natural at all. It just makes it more normal.

Marriage is completely 100% normal and you will have likely grown up in a society your entire life where, not only is it normal, but it is expected of you under relationship duress.

The shift from Sex 1.0 to Sex 2.0 did not change the underlying “nature” of human sexuality at all. We did not suddenly change to become sexually monogamous. We were just expected to behave as such.

Nor did it change the physical act of sex at all.

It simply changed what society expected and insisted as acceptable sexual long term relationships.

This simple change, however, created this amazing shift between operating sexually in accordance with our nature, as every other species on the planet still does today, and not only going against our nature, but being obliged to go against our nature under relationship duress.

The split from operating on one sexual plane – natural – to two sexual planes at the same time – natural and normal – is the root cause of pretty much all of the confusion in modern human sexuality.

Once the “normal” sexual plane is introduced, something very interesting happened and something very interesting did not happen.

The interesting thing that happened is that, once the normal sexual plane is thrown out there, relationship duress was introduced to cajole, pressurise and otherwise oblige and force people to choose it.

The interesting thing that did not happen is that human sexual nature did not change. Not even one tiny little bit.

Contrary to the popular saying, repeating a lie often enough does not make it the truth.

Cross posted at Sex 3.0

Marriage was invented during the neolithic era primarily to deal with this very problem.

(Check out my last post if you don’t know which problem I am referring to here.)

As the written word in human history did not begin to appear until approximately 3,200 BC, the first marriages likely pre-date written human records by thousands of years. As such, they would have been essentially verbally bartered agreements whereby a man agreed to provide care, security and access to survival resources to a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.

This would allow him to calm his PAC (paternity concern) and assure him that his genetic legacy was safe, as was the passing down of the survival resources to his own children and not to anyone else’s.

No specific civil ceremonies were likely required and, as the neolithic era pre-dates the main modern religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam — by thousands of years, there were no religious ceremonies either.

In fact, the origin of marriage has nothing at all to do with religion. Something which might come as a surprise as, in modern day society, they are thought to be closely connected.

The religions that existed at the time marriage was invented were the pagan religions of the many Greek, Roman or Egyptian gods or were shamanistic religions. However, the modern religions that came along later would have had to adopt certain pagan or shamanistic traditions in order to get people to convert to them.

Although people started to strike these deals thousands and thousands of years ago, it continues to the present day and forms the heart of the Sex 2.0 deal.

The Sex 2.0 Deal

We all live in a Sex 2.0 society today.

When you are raised in a Sex 2.0 society, men and women are taught that their roles are thus:

• Women are raised and taught their entire life that they have to sell their sexuality in exchange for security. Ultimately, the security of marriage to a man.
• Men are taught that their job when to comes to sexual relationships is to take a woman’s sexuality, throw it in a box, slam the lid shut, then stamp and label the box as their property.

In other words:

• Men: You have to make a woman’s sexuality your property to deal with paternity concern (PAC) and best ensure you are raising your own kids and provide both wife and kids with security and in return…
• Women: You have to sell your sexuality to a man in exchange for security.

The Sex 2.0 deal evolved in human sexuality in response to the invention of property when combined with the existence of paternity concern.

Women who don’t follow the Sex 2.0 deal are widely insulted, derided and made to feel cheap and worthless, not just by men, amazingly enough, but by women too, and get called sluts and whores.

Men who don’t follow the Sex 2.0 deal, in many cultures, are not considered men. They are not considered men until they are married. I remember when I was travelling Vietnam a local man told me that, regardless of how old you are, you are not considered a real man in Vietnamese culture until you’re married, so a married 19-year old is considered a man and an unmarried 29-year old is not.

These pressures and enforced obligations placed on us by society are transparent forms of relationship duress.

As a result of striking the Sex 2.0 deal, something very interesting happened.

At this point in human sexual history, a schism was created which, although created thousands and thousands of years ago, persists to the present day. A schism which is the predominant cause of almost all confusion and suffering in modern day sexual relationships across the entire world right now, and one which I will talk about in an upcoming post.

Cross-posted at Sex 3.0.

I’m in Bulgaria right now and it’s time for Phase 1 of the launch of my new book, Sex 3.0. I have to do it in phases because I will probably be spending different parts of 2012 focusing on the four largest markets for English-language books — the U.S., U.K., Canada and Australia. (If you know anyone in the media in those territories that would like to interview me, please let me know.)

So why am I in Bulgaria? Well, to answer that question, it’s worth taking a look at the unconventional way in which the book was researched and written.

In August 2009, I packed my bags and embarked on the beginning of a round-the-world trip armed with nothing but a backpack, a bunch of clothes, toiletries and my not-so-faithful laptop.

The plan was simply to head west from London and keep going until I got back to London again. Several motherboard failures, battery failures and a new laptop later — and many, many countries later — Sex 3.0 was born.

As such, this book was not written in any one country. Parts of the book were written at the end of the world in snowy Patagonia, the eternal spring of Medellín, sultry Mexico, overlooking Ipanema beach or during a break from the delightful chaos of the SFSX music festival in Austin, Texas.

At times, L.A. provided the backdrop and inspiration. Other times Machu Picchu, Sydney harbour, Hong Kong bay, Boracay white beach and the ancient city of Petra.

In total, the research during the writing of this book took place across more than 40 countries over more than two years and three months of travel, taking in most of Europe, South America, North America, Australasia, and Southeast Asia, as well as parts of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.

I am in Bulgaria now because I realised that I would never get the book finished by the end of 2011 and ready for a Jan 2012 launch unless I stopped traveling.

So since November, I have been cosily sheltering from the snow in my Balkan apartment, where I happily reached my goal of finishing the book by the end of 2011.

What is in the Book?

The book takes a global look at the history of human sexual relationships in the Sex 1.0 era before property or marriage even existed, how we evolved to our modern day Sex 2.0 lifestyle, and how and why we created the problems that make modern day sexual relationships so hard.

Far more importantly, it details a way forward to a Sex 3.0 world — a world of mutual understanding between men and women and a return to nature.

Sure, we take a look at the same thing on the official website too. In fact, the early posts on the official website are largely taken from the early chapters of the book, but I am never going to make the entire content of the book available there (I gotta eat too after all).

Essentially the articles that I write and publish here and and on the official site give you a look at parts of my mind map, but to see the whole map, you have to buy the book.

For both readers of the book and readers of the official website, being able to read about and understand background ‘primer’ concepts like people’s mind maps, relationship duress, fenced and unfenced relationships and so on is essential.

Without the primer concepts being understood, you can’t understand either the writing on the Sex 3.0 website or in the book.

Hope you enjoy the book! — JJ

About the Author

JJ Roberts is a former English rock journalist who followed the standard script of conventional dating, or what he terms in his book “fenced relationships,” for the first half of his adult life, before exploring sexual relationships not based on enforced monogamy, or what he terms “unfenced relationships,” for the second half.

The result was his first book, Sex 3.0, a fascinating insight into the modern-day culture of Sex 2.0, which is based on fear, control and deception, and its replacement, Sex 3.0, which represents the death of fear and a return to nature.

An early reviewer writes about Sex 3.0 — “One of the most mind blowing books I’ve ever read. Reading it has had a profound impact on how I view sexual relationships. I will recommend this to everyone I know. Bravo J J!” — Mark, Dublin

Another reviewers says — “Finally someone who gets it! A sane voice in a sea of insanity. I never heard anyone speak with this voice before. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!” –- Sarah, NY

Launch Discount

As a special launch discount, I am offering up to $10 USD off the paperback version of the book. You can find out how to claim that by clicking here. This offer will only be available for a limited time.

Where Can You Buy It?

Sex 3.0 is available on Amazon.com in paperback and Kindle versions. It’s also available from CreateSpace in paperback form here.

The industry standard ePub format (for iPad and pretty much all other eReaders) can be bought from the Sex 3.0 E-Book Store, from Lulu, or from Smashwords. Smashwords also has Sex 3.0 in Kindle format, as well as LRF and PDB.

Cross posted at Sex 3.0.

As we edge nearer to the publication date of my book, Sex 3.0 — I will launch the book officially on the official website in the next 7 to 10 days — it’s worth taking a look at some of the things I learned in putting this together:

Sex 3.0: The Facebook Page

Social media marketing 101 — you need a Facebook page. I don’t just mean that I need a Facebook page, I mean the book needs a Facebook page. So I put one together.

Many of you will have only heard of Sex 3.0 from my articles here at In Mala Fide or by visiting the official site, so you might not even know that Sex 3.0 has a Facebook page. Well, it does and it’s here.

Your first question might be, “How did you get the cool personalised URL?” Well, unlike personalised URLs on personal pages (which are dished out on a first come, first served basis), you have to earn them. You have to set up a fan page and get 25 people to ‘like’ the page before you can even apply for the personal URL. I didn’t know that before.

Another thing that I learned is about creating a landing page for the Facebook page. Now, I won’t bore you with the techie details here, but it involves learning about Facebook apps, SSL certificates, canvas URLs, iFrame and the like. Fun!

Anyway, I did it and the Facebook landing page — which is what anyone who has not previously liked the Facebook page will automatically see — looks like this:

The main things to note are that I am prompting people to Like Sex 3.0, letting them know that they can buy the eBook via a neat little eStore that I set up right inside Facebook itself, letting them know the URL of the official website for Sex 3.0 and giving them a little look at the cover of the book all at the same time.

Of course, if you want to see it in context and see how nicely the arrows line up with everything, then you can see it here, even if you have previously Liked the page before.

If you have previously liked it and you are still logged into Facebook, then obviously you won’t see a Like button and the arrow won’t line up with the Facebook eStore.

To see it exactly as a person who had not previously Liked the page before (for example, a first time visitor — exactly who a landing page is designed for) then just log out of Facebook and visit this URL.

Facebook eStore

This allows people to buy the book using a credit card, debit card or PayPal with all payments going straight to my PayPal account and no third parties taking any commission. Because of this, the cheapest versions of the books will always be available directly from the official website.

People have been already asking me how I did this. Well, I started out by doing it using a WordPress plugin, which was easy to get working, but I did not like the look of the store. The plugin basically doesn’t give you any control of the look and feel, only of which items you list and at what price.

So, I decided to do it myself. Firstly, I setup an eBookStore right within the official website. You can see it here, and it is also listed in the header right at the top of every page.

After that, I decided to re-use the exact same code on the eBookStore right within Facebook too. Check it out:

https://www.facebook.com/sex3.0?sk=app_271726439556295

One of the nice things about the way I designed it is that after payment goes through, customers will automatically be directed to a “Thank You” page which is a WordPress page hosted on the official website.

In other words, even if they start on Facebook and in the eStore there, they will end up on the official website and will be able to subscribe to Sex 3.0 and join the community over here. Cool, huh?

What else did I learn? SEO. Type “Sex 3.0″ into a search engine and the top search results will show you the official website as well as the Facebook page. Result!

It’s not long until Sex 3.0: A Sexual Revolution Manual is launched now. See you on the other side.

Cross posted at Sex 3.0.

Why does sex exist?

If you are thinking “for fun,” then you and I think alike. I raise a glass to you!

However, it’s a serious question. If you do not know the answer to the question of why sex exists, then essentially you do not know why male and females exist, which means that you can’t know why you are woman or why you are a man.

Looking at the question from a more serious biological standpoint, the answer is quite surprising.

In the last post, we already talked about the two primary instincts – survival and reproduction – so it must be one of those, right?

Yes, it is one of those, so pick one. Biologically, does sex exist for survival or reproduction?

If you ask most people why sex exists from a biological perspective, they will almost always say it is for reproduction. This is where it gets interesting.

Anybody who took even basic biology at school will know that there is such thing in nature as asexual reproduction — that is to say, creatures who don’t need to have sex to reproduce.

OK, human beings don’t do it, but many frogs and worms do it. Even large birds like turkeys can do it. The female turkey will, when isolated from male turkeys, begin to produce eggs by herself that are already fertilised. Many species can either reproduce asexually or can alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction as an adaption to their environment.

Now, bearing in mind that Mother Nature knows this neat little trick – how to get a species to reproduce without sex – and therefore proving that sex is not necessary at all for reproduction in nature, it begs a question.

If Mother Nature knows this neat little trick, why would nature evolve most creatures, including ourselves of course, into male and female sexually reproducing creatures? Clearly, it’s not necessary in nature for reproduction, so why did nature do it?

There must be some survival advantage to it.

After all, sexual reproduction has many genetic survival disadvantages compared to asexual reproduction.

Unlike creatures that reproduce by cloning themselves, we have to go to all the trouble of not only going out to find a mate, but we have to compete for them too, perhaps even to the death.

If you are picturing in your head nature documentary footage of peacocks going to all the effort of showing off their elaborate feathers and male deer clashing antlers and fighting to the death on the African savannah, then you can imagine how easy the cloners’ life is. A feet-up-in-front-of-the-TV and calmly enjoying their evening existence if ever there was one.

On top of that, we might even contract a sexually transmitted disease as thanks for all our efforts. Thanks, nature!

No nasty sexually transmitted diseases for the cloners, no need for violent competition with other members of your same species and no need to ever leave the comfort of familiar and safe territory in the dangerous search of a mate across unknown terrain.

Wouldn’t it be better if human beings reproduced asexually? Nightclubs across the world would be empty, churches would have to find something else to make people feel guilty about and blues and soul musicians all around the world would have nothing to write songs about.

However, the impact would not all be positive as we are about to find out.

The apparent genetic advantage of the cloners is always something that has always puzzled evolutionary biologists historically, but a compelling theory has emerged which has been proven in lab conditions which I will share here, as it may radically re-draw your map.

During asexual reproduction, animals essentially produce an exact genetic copy of themselves – a clone. Makes sense, bearing in mind that their own DNA is the only DNA that they have access to.

The female turkey, as we mentioned earlier, when kept isolated from male turkeys will produce fertilised eggs by herself, but the chicks will not be as physically strong and are more likely to become ill and succumb to disease.

The answer to the question, therefore, rests with genetic diversity.

When sexual reproduction happens, 50% of the DNA of the father gets thrown away, as does 50% of the DNA of the mother, and the offspring gets the rest.

Except in cases of identical twins (or triplets etc.), they won’t get the same 50% each time, which is why siblings of the same sex born to the same parents even one year apart don’t look exactly alike even though they share almost all the same genes.

In a cloned species, however, they are genetic copies of each other.

Now, what happens if we introduce a parasite into the environment of these clones?

Well, if a parasite is successful at attacking and killing even one clone in that environment and the parasite spreads to other members of the species, how successful is it going to be?

Clearly, a successful parasite that spreads in this environment can easily wipe out an entire species without ever having to change or to evolve to deal with different genetic signatures.

In sexually reproducing species however, this constant mixing and re-arranging of genetic signatures keeps the species a step ahead of parasites and makes it very difficult for any parasite to wipe out an entire species.

It is this constant DNA reshuffling that gives newborn babies genetic signatures that are potentially better at dealing with parasites that their parents have lived with their entire lives and an advantage over the parasites in this evolutionary and biological arms race.

Therefore, sex exists in nature for reasons of survival – not reproduction.

This is something that has been theorised for some time but has since been proven in lab conditions.

So, applying pure form theory to the question of “why sex exists?”, we can answer that question in to just two words – parasite defence. Or, if you prefer, just one word – biodiversity.

Gives you a new perspective when you realise that the reason you are a woman or you are a man is due to the requirement for a parasite defence mechanism.

Both sexes existing in beautiful symbiosis. Both helping to ensure the survival of one another and the of human race.

Seems that, if you really enjoy sex, you have a lot to thank those pesky parasites for.

Cross posted at Sex 3.0.

Wouldn’t sexual relationships, which people seem to think of as so, so complicated, become really simple if there were only two types of sexual relationships?

Great news! There ARE only two types of sexual relationships and this chapter explains them.

Yes, only two.

You might be thinking, do I mean:

• Boyfriend/Girlfriend?
• Husband/Wife?

Erm, no. That’s what society wants you to think and that is exactly what relationship duress is for.

You might be thinking I must be leaving a lot out if I think there are only two. OK, long-term heterosexual relationships are the mainstream, but what about short-term relationships like casual flings? What about gay relationships? Lesbian relationships? Transgender relationships? What about relationships between married men and their mistresses? What about one night stands? What about BDSM?

There are a million different kind of sexual relationships, surely?

No, there are only two.

And these two encompass all possible kinds of relationships leaving nothing and nobody out, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.

These two relationships are:

• Fenced.
• Unfenced.

Simply put, fenced means a based on the concept of sexual ownership and unfenced means not based on the concept of sexual ownership.

So, examples of fenced relationships include things like conventional boyfriend and girlfriend or husband and wife relationships.

If you are thinking that by “”unfenced” I must mean open relationships, well, I don’t really like the term open relationships and here is why. The opposite of open is closed. So therefore, an example of a closed relationship would be a marriage.

Shops and restaurants “close.” Lights out, metal shutters come down. Nobody is there.

People are not shops. We need a better term to actually reflect the dynamics of what is going on.

People don’t “close” or “open,” they either agree to be fenced or not.

When a sexual relationship is fenced, like a marriage, people are still going to find attractive people attractive and might even enjoy the attention and the flirting even if they don’t act on it, and that is totally fine.

In such a scenario, such a person is leaning on the fence and enjoying the attention or flirting with someone on the other side of the fence, but just choosing to not hop over the fence while their partner is not looking.

You might be forgiven for thinking that monogamy (one partner) equates to “fenced” and polyamory (many partners) equates to “unfenced.”

Not quite. There is a subtle but really, really important difference. Understanding this difference is key.

The difference is this: It is possible to have a fenced relationship that is not monogamous and it is possible to have an unfenced relationship with only one person.

An example of a fenced relationship that is not monogamous for example would be swingers. Swingers are typically married couples. Marriage is by definition a fenced relationship. Swingers, however, have a gate in their fence and, by mutual agreement, they might open the gate to let another person in or another couple in, typically another couple of swingers. Principally to “spice up” married sex life and to help prevent sexual boredom.

It is also possible to have an unfenced relationship with just one person. This is possible because unfenced does not mean you are having sex with more than one person. It just means that there is no fence. In other words, it means there is no enforced monogamy.

Unfenced means that you are sexually free, that you don’t make an agreement with anyone to for exclusivity. It means that if you wanted to have a sexual experience with someone else, then you could and you would not need your partner’s permission, nor they yours.

It does not necessarily mean that you are polygamous and you have more than one sexual partner. It simply means that you have the option. Whether you choose to exercise the option is up to you. Whether your partner chooses to exercise their option is up to them.

Fenced, on the other hand, means either that you have agreed with your partner, either explicitly or by default assumption, that it’s not allowed or that (as in the case of swingers) permission is required beforehand.

Relationships go through phases. If you are in an unfenced relationship and you are, for example, in the early romantically infatuation stage of your relationship, then you are probably not going to be interested at all in exercising your option. That’s totally understandable and totally fine. So, just don’t exercise your option.

It does not change the status of your relationship from unfenced to fenced just because you are not interested in exercising your option right now. It does not change it at all. You are still in an unfenced relationship. You are just choosing not to exercise your option.

Seeing things in terms of fenced and unfenced allows us a better way to describe the dynamics of what is actually going on in sexual relationships, and so help us to clarify things and to help us get our map closer to the terrain.

Also, this allows us to clear up a great deal of linguistic fog as well. For example, as discussed earlier, the word relationship only means mutual reward, whereas a one night stand is not regarded as a relationship. Indeed, it is often talked about as the opposite of a relationship.

When we find out a friend has found a new person and has hooked up with them, people often ask, “A relationship or just a one-night stand?” like they are diametrically opposed.

If both people got what they wanted – sex – then there was mutual reward. Therefore:

Fog Alert

One-night stand.

Often understood to be the opposite of a relationship.

A one-night stand is a relationship.

It is an unfenced relationship with a duration of one night.

Now, don’t get me wrong, unfenced relationships do not mean just mean short-term or casual relationships like one-night stands, fuck buddies or friends with benefits.

An extremely common misconception is that whether a relationship is fenced or unfenced has anything at all to do with the level of the affinity, love or pair bonding that may go on in either kind of relationship.

Thanks to relationship duress, it’s a common assumption that a relationship not based on sexual ownership must be a casual and uncaring one and, for a relationship to be a loving one, that it must be a fenced relationship.

It’s a totally false belief but an extremely prevalent one.

Society wants you to think exactly that and employs an enormous amount of relationship duress to get you to think precisely that.

It’s tremendously important for society for you to keep this mapping error on your map.

In reality, the fenced world can provide you with a loveless marriage and you can have an extremely loving and caring long-term unfenced relationship.

So why does society need you to keep this mapping error on your map?

Well, to answer that question, we have to go back to the beginning, back to Sex 1.0 — and that’s just what we’ll do in my next post.

Cross-posted at Sex 3.0.

To get closer to the map we need clarity, so let go back to basics and look at the word “relationship.” I use the word in its broadest possible term in this post.

In life, a person has all kinds of relationships like employer and employee, student and teacher, friendships, boyfriend and girlfriend, landlord and tenant, customer and business and so on.

Of all of the realisations, and there were many that I went through, in the years of travelling, writing, researching this book and talking to people from all different cultures there is one realisation that startled and surprised me more than any and that is this:

People do not understand what the word relationship means.

Don’t get me wrong. People have a tremendous gut instinct of what a relationship actually IS.

This gut-level instinct of what a relationship IS means they have a laser like recognition of when they have a relationship in their life and when they don’t. Whether a particular relationship is desirable or not and when a relationship is over. They just know.

It also means that they know and understand when and why some relationships are closer than others even when they are presented to them in an abstract way when talking about a third party. This is a tremendous intuitive skill that people have that runs to a very, very deep level.

They just don’t know what a relationship means. In other words. their understanding is intuitive, not cognitive.

What I mean by that is that when you ask most people to define the word “relationship,” they really, really struggle.

They can’t come up with a good definition.

Pause for a moment and try it yourself. The following are all kinds of relationships that people commonly have in their lives:

• Employer and employee
• Student and teacher
• Friendships
• Boyfriend and girlfriend
• Landlord and tenant
• Customer and business

All very different arrangements and yet we apply the word “relationship” to all of them. Why?

Well, obviously we apply the word “relationship” to all of them because there is some quality that they have in common that makes them all a kind of relationship.

What is it?

When you ask people this question, they usually come out with some vague and woolly definition of “shared emotions” or say things like there is “some kind of emotional shared connection or bond,” but that’s not it. You don’t need that to order a DVD from Amazon, do you? You still would have a customer business relationship with them.

So when people already have such an amazing intuitive understanding of what the word means, then why the struggle to define the word?

Well, I have some shocking news for you:

You have been lied to your entire life.

By who? Well, by pretty much everyone. By society. Perhaps even by your own family.

About what? Well about the nature of relationships, about what comprises a relationship, what a ‘committed’ relationship means, a ‘real’ relationship is.

Hell, even the dictionary lies to you about the meaning of the word relationship.

A quick search on Dictionary.com gives the following definition:

re•la•tion•ship

–noun

1. a connection, association, or involvement.

2. connection between persons by blood or marriage.

3. an emotional or other connection between people: the relationship between teachers and students.

4. a sexual involvement; affair.

That’s not what the word relationship means. Let’s look at them one by one.

1. A connection, association, or involvement.

What if you are kidnapped one day and held in a dungeon?

You would not be in a relationship with that person. Sure, you have a connection/association/involvement. The involvement is one of kidnapper and kidnappee.

Unless you develop Stockholm syndrome and fall in love with your kidnapper, then you do not have a relationship.

Therefore a connection/association/involvement with another person is not what constitutes a relationship.

2. Connection between persons by blood or marriage.

What if you are born a twin and, completely without your knowledge, you are separated at birth and go your entire life unaware of the fact?

Do you have a relationship with your twin? Clearly not. You are related, of course, but that is simply a biological fact. It could not be a relationship if you never meet or are never even aware of each other’s existence your entire life.

Likewise, if you have a member of your family that you don’t have contact with because you don’t get along. Again, you are related. It is a biological fact however, not a relationship.

Marriage? What if you have not had sex with your spouse for three years, live in separate houses and are not getting divorced ‘for the sake of the kids’ or because you live in one of the few countries in the world where divorce is illegal or because the shame that your family and the scorn from society at large towards divorcees prevents you? Clearly the relationship broke down a long time ago.

The fact that they are still married would be a legal fact, not a relationship. So clearly marriage alone does not alone constitute a relationship, even though most married people are not so unfortunate as the couples I just described above and do indeed have a relationship.

3. An emotional or other connection between people.

Well I am sure you would feel emotion towards someone who kidnapped you, but it is most likely to be hatred. So simply having an emotional connection with somebody does not mean you are in a relationship with them.

4. A sexual involvement; affair.

Anybody who has ever been sexually abused would not say that they were in a relationship with their abuser. So clearly a sexual involvement with another person, in and of itself, is not what constitutes a relationship.

So what is a relationship?

Let’s go back to our bullet point list from earlier:

• Employer and employee
• Student and teacher
• Friendships
• Boyfriend and girlfriend
• Landlord and tenant
• Customer and business

So why do we use the word ‘relationship’ to describe all of these diverse arrangements?

What do they all have in common that causes us to apply the word ‘relationship’ to all of them?

In short, what makes a relationship a relationship?

In the spirit of pure form theory, a definition is possible in just two words and I am going to give it to you.

Are you ready? (drumroll)

Mutual reward.

That’s it.

That’s all that the word relationship means — mutual reward.

All relationships are founded on the basis of mutual reward and break down when mutual breaks down.

You get your wages. Your employer gets your time and expertise to help him grow his business. There is the mutual reward right there.

You stop doing your job or paying your landlord? Mutual reward breaks down. You know what they are going to do next — you are getting kicked out.

Your employers stops paying you? Mutual reward breaks down. You are going to find another.

Student gets to learn a potentially valuable skill that may help him in his life, his career or his physical health. The teacher not only get the satisfaction of helping people but, if he is good at it, he can make a career out of it. Mutual reward.

Same rules apply. Strangers become friends at the unspoken moment that they both realise that they both like hanging out with each other.

You are friends with somebody because you both like spending time with each other. That’s it. There is your mutual reward.

Ever known someone who likes hanging out with you but you don’t like hanging out with them or vice versa? Do you think you are going to become friends? Clearly not.

Ever had friend that you had a falling out with and you were not friends anymore? Why?

Because the mutual reward broke down.

You might feel that it is because of the argument that you had, or the falling out that you had, or because it was the fact that you discovered that they were dishonest. However, something like that is simply the catalyst to the mutual reward breaking down.

You are not friends anymore because the mutual reward broke down.

Ever had a friend that you think you are not friends with because you’ve simply lost touch?

That is a relationship that you still have today, even though you might not realise it. The mutual reward never broke down so you still have that relationship. You have just become disconnected from the relationship.

You both get your sexual needs met and spend time together in a loving and pair bonded bubble. Mutual reward exists.

Stop getting your sexual needs met? Fall out of love? Argue and fight?

Mutual reward breaks down. The bubble bursts. It’s not a relationship any more.

Stop off for a coffee at café, sit outside and enjoy the sunshine, then leave your money on the table and walk away. Do you have a relationship with the café? Sure you do. You are a customer.

What happens if you decide to just walk away without paying? Do you have a relationship with the café then? No. Why not? You got what you wanted, didn’t you?

This question is easy to answer, now isn’t it? No mutual reward.

You would just be a thief, not a customer. Thief and victim is not a relationship.

So as we can see, a relationship is not defined by an exchange of cash for goods and services nor is it defined by a contract (although a written contact might detail the mutual reward). It’s not defined by a sexual involvement or a genetic link. It is defined by mutual reward.

Ok so let’s redraw your map a bit by applying pure form theory to the definition of the word relationship.

Relationship: The Pure Form Definition

That means that relationship rules can be broken down very simply, at least when it comes to how relationships are founded and dissolved, regardless of whether the relationship is personal, business, sexual or non-sexual.

The 4 Principles of Foundation & Dissolution

1. If mutual reward exists, a relationship exists.
2. If mutual reward does not exist, a relationship does not exist.
3. If mutual reward is established, but mutual reward breaks down, so does the relationship.
4. If mutual reward breaks down but is later re-established, like when you argue with your partner but later make up, then so is the relationship.

Mutual reward = relationship. They are the same thing.

Cross-posted at Sex 3.0.