User:Pizza Lord/sandbox

Sex 3.0 is the world’s first open-source sexual revolutionary movement. It defines the three eras of mankind as Sex 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 with 1.0 being all of human history up until 8,000 BC, 2.0 being 8,000 BC upto and including the present day and 3.0 being the present day forwards.

Sex 1.0

(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 has 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 descrease their chances of survival and not increase it. The concept of property was not only not necessary for our surival 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. Broadly speaking, this is how we lived for almost all of human history until the agricultutal revolution which begun around 8,000 BC.

The Natural Plane

According to Sex 3.0 theory, during the 1.0 era, human sexuality operated on one plane defined by the word "natural" with the word natural simply meaning "in agreement with nature". 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 follow their sexual nature.

Sex 2.0

(Duration : 8,000 BC upto 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 acertain with 100% certainty what the first property in human existence was but, according to Sex 3.0 theory, 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. Sex 3.0 theory also states that, 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 hereditary became of crucial importance for men. This combination of paternity concern when combines 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.

Virginity Prizing

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 progency 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 Deal

We you are born into a Sex 2.0 world you are raised to belive in the Sex 2.0 deal. There are two sides to this deal, the male side and the female side.

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.

Male Side

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.,

Relationship Duress

Peope 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

• Gay people - Society calls them either a faggot or a dyke • Heterosexual women who are not really interested in selling their sexuality in exchange for security but who want to have sex anyway – Soceity calls them either a slut or a whore depending on whether they give it away for free or sell it. • Heterosexual men who are not really interested in the Sex 2.0 deal but who want to have sex anyway – Society tells them that they need to man up, stop being so immature, to grow up and settle down. Anyone who falls outside of the Sex 2.0 deal 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 corrosponding types of sexual relationship – fenced and unfenced.

Fenced Relationships

Fenced relatoinships are defined as relationships whereby both parties agree to “fence in” their sexuality and make it un-available to everybody else. Conventional boyfriend / girlfriend and husband / wife relationships for example.

Unfenced Relationships

Unfenced relationships are relationships not based of the notion of mutual sexual exclusivity. It does not mean that both parties are enganged 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.

Sex 2.0 Core Design

Sex 2.0 has 3 things at the core of its design – fear, control and deception. Fear – Sex 2.0 is funamentally fearful in many way 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. Control – Marriage is a system of control that was invented primarily as a way of dealing with male paternity concern. Deception – 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.

Female Side

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 mobily, their own jobs careers and money. Women do not need to 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.

Male Side

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 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 disprepancy (in other words the person that you think is your daddy is not your daddy) that runs as high as 20%. Therefore, when one compares a way of determine paternity that has a 20% failure rate 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 not obsolete.

Groupthink

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.

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 dilmma by clinging to the old model and some are repsonding by uprading to Sex 3.0.

Sex 3.0

(Duration: All of human history up until 8,000 BC)

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.

Self Determination

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 chose 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 chose 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 completly based on self determination.

In the Sex 3.0 core design, self determination replaces control.

Honesty

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 relationships 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, honesty replaces deception.

Love

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 frameowork was designed for fear based love and as fear suffocates love, this is a fundamentally disfunctional design.

Sexolutionaries

Due to the open source nature of Sex 3.0, there is no hierarchy.

A person who is for example a sex educator who is sex positive and whos work is Sex 3.0 compatable is considered a sexolutionary. A person who has read the book or even just the wiki page and follows the blog posts on the offficial 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, we all get to be sexolutionaries.