As anyone who reads this blog or has read the book knows, the word relationship is something that I define as “mutual reward”.
This applies regardless of what kind of relationship it is. Could be a business relationship, a friendship or a sexual relationship. The cardinal rule of relationships is that they are founded on mutual reward and they break down when mutual reward breaks down.
So what is the difference, in this regard, between a Sex 3.0 mentality and a Sex 2.0 mentality?
Well Sex 3.0 is a fundamentally different way of thinking and a totally different relationship framework. The differences extend far beyond the scope of what can be described in a single blog post but, to take a simple example, Sex 2.0 marginalises human sexual nature and insists that the normal sexual plane is the only acceptable choice whereas Sex 3.0 accepts and embraces human sexual nature.
Win, Win, Win
Therefore the Sex 3.0 mentality when going about a relationship is to look to establish a win/win/win dynamic.
- A win for me
- A win for my partner and
- A win for sexual nature (where human sexual nature is acknowledged and embraced)
Whereas the Sex 2.0 mentality basically tells you to ignore the final ingredient – human sexual nature. This is a very, very dangerous practice for healthy relationships.
The Missing Ingredient
If you ignore the final ingredient, it is very common to see a win/win/lose pattern being established and for both parties to be completely unconscious of it. This can work at first, particularly during the early infatuation stages of a relationship or the honeymoon stage of a marriage but that final component in a win/win/lose scenario can become like a festering wound that infects the bond and the win/win/lose turns into a win/lose/lose and inevitably into a lose/lose/lose.
This can manifest itself in a number of ways like one partner in the coupling feeling the need to get their sexual freedom back, showing signs of jealousy & possessiveness or by cheating.
The notion of love conquers all (omnia vincit amor) is one of the common narratives that gets parroted in the Sex 2.0 realm. It is literally older than Christ and first appears in the works of the Roman poet Virgil (70 BC – 19 BC).
This phrase has been repeated in everything from paintings by Caravaggio to films and songs by the likes of Tan Chui Mui, Deep Purple, Yes and ABC.
What is the subliminal message here? Ignore the third component is the message.
Pretend that the bond between the two of you is everything and that, regardless of human sexual nature, nothing can destroy the bond. Pretend that human sexual nature does not even exist. Pretend that establishing a win/win/lose dynamic does not even matter.
When this pretence does not pay off people mistakenly either hate on their partner for “not loving them enough” or emotionally beat up on themselves for not being worthy of unbreakable love.
Love will save the day? Love conquers all?
Sadly not (regardless of what Lionel Richie tells you).
Love does not conquer all.
The missing ingredient conquers all.
Further Reading : What it really means when they say “I am not lookingfor a relationship”
