One of the odd things about the Sex 2.0 world that we are born into is that the design of it does not accept 2 very basic facts.

Now I use the word “facts” rarely due to the knack people have of mistaking their map for the territory and their opinions for reality.

1.    Human Beings Naturally Pair-Bond
What I mean by that is that people hook up with each other, fall in love and become infatuated totally naturally. Love is the most natural emotion of all.

2.    Human Beings Are Not Naturally Monogamous For Life
Things like relationship duress and marriage would not be required in a Sex 2.0 world if they were.

However, the Sex 2.0 world does not take accept both of these, it only accepts the first one.  This is just one of many very basic design flaws inherent in the Sex 2.0 system.

The net effect of these design flaws is that Sex 2.0 is a broken system.  So how we fix this broken system?

Well, before we get to that, I am not suggesting that the design of the Sex 2.0 system does not recognise both of these facts.  It indeed does recognise them both.  If it did not recognise the fact that human beings are not naturally monogamous for life then marriage never would have been invented.  There would be no need to.

Monogamy goes against human nature. This was very well understood back then which is why something had to be invented in order to enforce it and to enforce the Sex 2.0 deal.

The church even acknowledges this fact and that people need sexual variety in the marriages vows themselves. Which part of the marriage vows? The part that says “forsaking all others ‘til death do you part.”

Think about it. Why on earth would you put, in the marriage vows, a vow NOT to do something that you are never going to have any interest or desire to do anyway?

If you are, in your marriage vows, going to vow NOT to do stuff that you are never going to be interested in doing anyway, go wild. You may as well forsake your right to wander down the local high street naked except for a false beard made of the finest horse hair, painted blue whilst playing the banjo.

Yes the fact that human beings are not naturally monogamous was not only recognised but the first fact – the fact that human beings are natural pair bonders – was used to try to “solve” this.  The temporary infatuation phase which many couples go through was the perfect time to sell them the notion and the promise of eternal wedded bliss.

This is the point at which people’s programming gets hijacked by Sex 2.0.  This is where Sex 2.0 rears its ugly head and squirms its way in.  After all, if I love this person and I we want to make a serious commitment to each other then we should marry, right?

It is understandable.  People do it over and over again because they want the fantasy of happily ever after with this person that they have pair bonded with so strongly.

The cocktail of infatuation hormones ensure that such a decision is made when both parties are literally, not figuratively, on drugs and, like so many decisions made under the influence, a nasty hangover can await.

So the sale is made with both parties blissfully unaware that they have been sold a forgery; an artificial construct that does not respect or accept human sexual nature and like all the best forgeries, it hides in plain view.

People, women especially, absolutely adore weddings.  For women it is their fairy princess day.  It is the day they have been told their entire lives will be the happiest day of their lives.  All the stops are pulled out, no expense is spared and the more lavish the wedding is, the more romantic it is.

The bride, she is the focus of the attention.  It’s all about her and placing her on the highest pedestal possible.  She is the star of the show at an extremely expensive costume party.  The groom is, at best, a necessary if slightly inconvenient prop.

Yes, women absolutely adore weddings but marriage? Not so much.

The hormone cocktail induced hangover following the marriage can take many forms included, but not limited to:

•    State crash.  In other words a feeling of “is this it?” experienced by one or both parties following the honeymoon and the return to domestic normalcy.
•    Stagnation by exclusivity.  Taking each other for granted can be a real turn-off.
•    Familiarity.  The emotion bond evolves into more of a sexless brotherly sisterly bond.
•    Sexual boredom.  The Coolidge effect in full motion.

And many others which I cover in detail in the book.

Of course if you don’t want anyone else and they don’t either then that is totally understandable and totally compatible with Sex 3.0.  It’s even totally in line with unfenced relationships as unfenced just means you have the option and you would chose not to exercise it.

When you take a look at these two facts:
1.    Human Beings Naturally Pair-Bond
2.    Human Beings Are Not Naturally Monogamous For Life

They are not as irreconcilable as you may imagine.  What is required is that a system or sexual framework needs to be designed that recognises and accepts both.

Sex 3.0 is such a system.

So what is the best way to fix Sex 2.0?  Like all broken systems, the best way to fix it is to refuse to take part in it.