Hey You,

It’s Lewis a.k.a. Nerd #2.

Bad romance equals bad business.

Over. Period. Done. I don’t care who you are. 

If you’re romantically involved with someone and things are going shitty and you’re avoiding issues and shoving them deep down hoping you never have to face them and closing down as a result of your thoughts about this person or . . . 

If you don’t hide your feelings and you’re at the other end of the spectrum exploding all over in rage at this other person, teetering right on the edge of giving yourself a heart attack because you’ve driven your blood pressure so high . . .

. . . you’re not gonna be performing in the office at a peak level.

Yeah, you can probably get through the motions and hell, you might even be making money.

But operating this way is akin to having a piece of shit car that you have to put oil and power steering fluid into it every other day because both are leaking all over the engine causing your car to blow out a thick cloud of white smoke every time you hit the gas… and put air in the front driver side tire every few days because there’s a screw in the side wall causing a slow leak that can’t be patched and you can’t even afford to buy a used tire… and is in need of brakes and rotors on all four wheels.

Yeah, you can say you have a car but it ain’t much of a car. It’s a time and energy drain and you aren’t proud to let anyone see you in it and you lust after something much better.

Ever had a relationship that had included all of those winning traits?

Most people’s marriages are like people who drive a piece of shit car: They hate being in it, they want something better, and they can’t afford to get out it. 

When the bank account is empty you’re stuck with your piece of shit car that serves as potential death trap. When your mental bank account comes up with zero answers for your relationship problems you end up stuck with someone you don’t want to be with in an emotional death trap.  

The majority of people go through life riding in once-upon-a-time romantic relationship or with no intimate connection with anyone at all.

And the reason they do so is because they blindly adhere to the bill of goods sold to them by the Six P’s: their parents, their preachers, the press, their professors, the police, and the politicians who steer them towards the plan they have for them.

I say, “Fuck The 6 P’s Commands To Blindly Obey!”

As Jim Rohn said, “If you don’t design your own life plan, you’ll fall into someone else’s plan. And what do they have planned for you? Not much.”

Once you read what I’m about to share with you, I believe you’ll find that what 95% of the people within the 6 P’s have planned for you is pain or worse . . . the zombie state of mind; apathy.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Just as there are people like Richard Branson who break the rules and wildly succeed in business on the back of renegade marketing, selling, and management strategies and tactics . . . there are people breaking the romance rules and experiencing enlightened love, joy, and peace of mind as a result of doing so.

Quit Fearing The Sexual Beast In You

The fascinating and thought provoking book I’m introducing you today asks you to think.

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

– Published by Harper Collins  – Written by Christopher Ryan, PhD, and Cacilda Jetha, MD

questions what the 6 P’s want you to believe to be true about your sexual drive.

It’s loaded to the gills with example after example of proof that the majority has their head up their ass when it comes to what we “should” do, “how” we should do it, and “where” we should do stuff with our genitals and “Why” we do it.

What I’ve done is painstakingly typed out the entire introduction of this which serves an outstanding presell overview of what the book is about and what you can get out of it.

I’m going to tell you right now, if you can’t step out of your comfort zone for 10 minutes of your life to look at another perspective, just stop reading now. Stop.

One of the hardest things to get and give is useful, accurate, and meaningful feedback. This book gives you the feedback of a shit-ton of research that they don’t want you to see.

We don’t like to ask for feedback, we don’t like to be criticized, we don’t like to criticize others because then they think we think we’re better than them.

But the most valuable feedback disproves your cherished beliefs. We don’t learn anything from the fart-stained cushions of our comfort zone. Nor from our successes because success usually makes us comfortable and overconfident and this is the place where you get blindsided.

So if your ass cheeks cling desperately to your fart-stained cushion called your comfort zone just go over to YouTube and distract yourself from reality by watching videos of cats high on pain killers.

But if you’re a questioning authority-type, you’re going to feel right at home reading about what has been nothing but . . .

Another Well- Intentioned Inquisition

Forget what you’ve heard about human beings having descended from the apes.

We didn’t descend from apes. We are apes. Metaphorically and factually, Homo sapiens is one of the five surviving species of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans (gibbons are considered a “lesser ape”).

We shared a common ancestor with two of these apes – bonobos and chimps – just five million years ago. That’s “the day before yesterday” in evolutionary terms.

The fine print distinguishing humans from the other great apes is regarded as “wholly artificial” by most primatologists these days.

If we’re “above” nature, it’s only in the sense that a shaky-legged surfer is “above” the ocean. Even if we never slip (and we all do), our inner nature can pull us under at any moment.

Those of us raised in the West have been assured that we humans are special, unique among living things, above and beyond the world around us, exempt from the humilities and humiliations that pervade and define animal life.

The natural world lies below and beneath us, a cause for shame, disgust, or alarm; something smelly and messy to be hidden behind closed doors, drawn curtains, and minty freshness.

Or we overcompensate and imagine nature floating angelically in soft focus up above, innocent, noble, balanced, and wise.

Like bonobos and chimps, we are the randy descendants of hypersexual ancestors. At first blush, this may seem an overstatement, but it’s a truth that should have become common knowledge long ago.

Conventional notions of monogamous, till-death-do-us-part marriage strain under the dead weight of a false narrative that insists we’re something else.

What is the essence of human sexuality and how did it get to be that way?

In the following pages, we’ll explain how seismic cultural shifts that began about ten thousand years ago rendered the true story of human sexuality so subversive and threatening that for centuries it has been silenced by religious authorities, pathologized by physicians, studiously ignored by scientists, and covered up by moralizing therapists.

Deep conflicts rage at the heart of modern sexuality.

Our cultivated ignorance is devastating. The campaign to obscure the true nature or our species’ sexuality leaves half our marriages collapsing under an unstoppable tide of swirling sexual frustration, libido-killing boredom, impulsive betrayal, dysfunction, confusion, and shame.

Serial monogamy stretches before (and behind) many of us like an archipelago of failure: isolated islands of transitory happiness in a cold, dark sea of disappointment.

And how many of the couples who manage to stay together for the long haul have done so by resigning themselves to sacrificing their eroticism on the alter of three of life’s irreplaceable joys: family stability, companionship, and emotional, if not sexual, intimacy?

Are those who innocently aspire to these joys cursed by nature to preside over the slow strangulation of their partner’s libido?

The Spanish word esposas means both “wives” and “handcuffs.” In English, some men ruefully joke about the ball and chain. There’s good reason marriage is often depicted and mourned as the beginning of the end of a man’s sexual life.

And women fare no better. Who wants to share her life with a man who feels trapped and diminished by his love for her, whose honor marks the limits of his freedom? Who wants to spend her life apologizing for being just one woman?

Yes, something is seriously wrong.

The American Medical Association reports that some 42 percent of American women suffer from sexual dysfunction, while Viagra breaks sales records year after year.

Worldwide, pornography is reported to rake in anywhere from fifty-seven billion to a hundred billion dollars annually. In the United States, it generates more revenue than CBS, NBC, and ABC combined and more than all professional football, baseball, and basketball franchises.

According to U.S. News and World Report, “Americans spend more money at strip clubs than at Broadway, off-Broadway, regional and nonprofit theaters, the opera, the ballet and jazz and classical music performances – combined.”

There’s no denying that we’re a species with a sweet tooth for sex.

Meanwhile, so-called traditional marriage appears to be under assault from all sides – as it collapses from within. Even the most ardent defenders of normal sexuality buckle under its weight, as never-ending bipartisan perp-walks of politicians (Clinton, Vitter, Gingrich, Craig, Foley, Spitzer, Sanford) and religious figures (Haggard, Swaggert, Bakker) trumpet their support of family values before slinking off to private assignations with lover, prostitutes, and interns.

Denial hasn’t worked.

Hundreds of Catholic priests have confessed to thousands of sex crimes against children in the past few decades alone.

In 2008, the Catholic Church paid $436 million in compensation for sexual abuse. More than a fifth of the victims were under ten years old. This we know. Dare we even imagine the suffering such crimes have caused in the seventeen centuries since a sexual life was perversely forbidden to priests in the earliest known papal decree: the Decreta and Cum in unum of Pope Siricius?

What is the moral debt owed to the forgotten victims of this misguided rejection of basic human sexuality?

On threat of torture, in 1633, the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo to state publicly what we knew to be false: that the Earth sat immobile at the center of the universe. Three and a half centuries later in 1992, Pope John Paul II admitted that the scientist had been right all along, but that the Inquisition had been “well-intentioned.”

Well, there’s no Inquisition like a well-intentioned Inquisition!

Like those childishly intransigent visions of an entire universe spinning around an all-important Earth, the standard narrative of prehistory offers an immediate, primitive sort of comfort.

Just as pope after pope dismissed any cosmology that removed humankind from the exalted center of the endless expanse of space, just as Darwin was (and, in some crowds, still is) ridiculed for recognizing that human beings are the creation of natural laws, many scientists are blinded by their emotional resistance to any account of human sexual evolution that doesn’t revolve around the monogamous nuclear family unit.

Although we’re led to believe we live in times of sexual liberation, contemporary human sexuality throbs with obvious, painful truths that must not be spoken aloud.

The conflict between what we’re told we feel and what we really feel may be the richest source of confusion, dissatisfaction, and unnecessary suffering of our time.

The answers normally proffered don’t answer the questions at the heart of our erotic lives:

Why are men and women so different in our desires, fantasies, responses, and sexual behavior?

Why are we betraying and divorcing each other at ever increasing rates when not opting out of marriage entirely?

Why the pandemic spread of single-parent families?

Why does the passion evaporate from so many marriages so quickly?

What causes the death of desire?

Having evolved together right here on Earth, why do so many men and women resonate wit the idea that we may as well be from different planets?

Oriented toward medicine and business, American society has responded to this ongoing crisis by developing a marital-industrial complex of couples therapy, pharmaceutical hard-0ns, sex-advice columnists, creepy father-daughter purity cults, and endless stream of inbox come-ons (“Unleash your LoveMonster! She’ll thank you!”). Every month, truckloads of glossy supermarket magazines offer the same old tricks to get the spark back into our moribund sex lives.

Ye, a few candles here, some crotchless panties there, toss a handful of rose petals on the bed and it’ll be just like the very first time!

What’s that you say? He’s still checking out other women? She still got an air of detached disappointment? He’s finished before you’ve begun?

Well, then, let the experts figure out what ails you, your partner, your relationship. Perhaps his penis needs enlarging or her vagina needs a retrofit. Maybe he has “commitment issues,” a “fragmentary superego,” or the dreaded “Peter Pan complex.”

Are you depressed? You say you love your spouse of a dozen years but don’t feel sexually attracted the way you used to? One or both of you are tempted by another?

Maybe you two should try doing it in the kitchen floor. Or force yourself to do it every night for a year. Maybe he’s going through a midlife crisis. Take these pills. Get a new hairstyle. Something must be wrong with you.

Ever feel like the victim of a well-intentioned Inquisition?

This split-personality relationship with our true sexual nature is anything but news to entertainment corporations, who have long reflected the same fractured sensibility between public pronouncement and private desire.

In 2000, under the headline “Wall Street Meets Pornography,” The New York Times reported that General Motors sold more graphic sex films than Larry Flynt, owner of the Hustler empire.

Over eight million American subscribers to DirecTV, a General Motors subsidiary, were spending about $200 million a year on pay-per-view sex films from satellite providers.

Similarly, Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Fox News Network and the nation’s leading conservative newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, was pulling in more porn money through a satellite company than Playboy made with its magazine, cable, and internet business COMBINED.

AT&T, also a supporter of conservative values, sells hard-core porn to over a million hotel rooms throughout the country via its Hot Network.

The frantic sexual hypocrisy in America is inexplicable if we adhere to traditional models of human sexuality insisting that monogamy is natural, marriage is a human universal, and any family structure other than the nuclear is aberrant.

We need a new understanding of ourselves, based not on pulpit proclamations or feel-good Hollywood fantasies, but on bold and unashamed assessment of the plentiful scientific data that illuminate the true origins and nature of human sexuality.

We are war with our eroticism. We battle our hungers, expectations, and disappointments.

Religion, politics, and even science square off against biology and millions of years of evolved appetites. How to defuse this intractable struggle?

In the following pages, we reassess some of the most important science of our time. We question the deepest assumptions brought to contemporary views of marriage, family structure, and sexuality – issues affecting each of us every day and every night.

We’ll show that human beings evolved in intimate groups where almost everything was shared – food, shelter, protection, child care, even sexual pleasure.

Se don’t argue that humans are natural-born Marxist hippies. Nor do we hold that romantic love was unknown or unimportant in prehistoric communities.

But we’ll demonstrate that contemporary culture misrepresents the link between love and sex. With and without love, a casual sexuality was the norm for our prehistoric ancestors.

Let’s address the question you’re probably asking: how can we possibly know anything about sex in prehistory? Nobody alive today was there to witness prehistoric life, and since social behavior leaves no fossils, isn’t this all just wild speculation?

Not quite.

There’s an old story about the trial of a man charged with biting off another man’s finger in a fight. An eyewitness took the stand. The defense attorney asked, “Did you actually see my client bite off the finger?” The witness said, “Well, no, I didn’t.” “Aha!’ said the attorney with a smug smile. “How then can you claim he bit off the man’s finger?” “Well,” replied the witness, “I saw him spit it out.”

In addition to a great deal of circumstantial evidence from societies around the world and closely related nonhuman primates, we’ll take a look at some of what evolution has spit out.

We’ll examine the anatomical evidence still evident in our bodies and the yearning for sexual novelty expressed in our pornography, advertising, and after-work happy hours.

We’ll even decode messages in the so-called “copulatory vocalizations” of thy neighbor’s wife as he calls out ecstatically in the still of the night.

Readers acquainted with the recent literature on human sexuality will be familiar with what we call the standard narrative of human sexual evolution (hereafter shortened to “the standard narrative”).

It goes something like this:

1. Boy meets girl.

2. Boy and girl assess one another’s mate value from perspectives based upon their differing reproductive agendas/capacities:

  • He looks for signs of youth, fertility, health, absence of previous sexual experience, and likelihood of future sexual fidelity. In other words, his assessment is skewed toward finding a fertile, healthy young mate with many childbearing years ahead and no current children to drain his resources.
  • She looks for signs of wealth (or at least prospects of future wealth), social status, physical health, and likelihood that he will stick around to protect and provide for their children. Her guy must be willing and able to provide materially for her (especially during pregnancy and breastfeeding) and their children (known as male parental investment).

3. Boy gets girl: assuming they meet one another’s criteria, they “mate,” forming a long-term pair bond – the “fundamental condition of the human species,” as famed author Desmond Morris put it. Once the pair bond is formed:

  • She will be sensitive to indications that he is considering leaving (vigilant toward signs of infidelity involving intimacy with other women that would threaten her access to his resources and protection) – while keeping an eye out (around ovulation, especially) for a quick fling with a man genetically superior to her husband.
  • He will be sensitive to signs of her sexual infidelities (which would reduce his all-important paternity certainty) – while taking advantage of short-term sexual opportunities with other women (as his sperm are easily produced and plentiful).

Researchers claim to have confirmed these basic patterns in studies conducted around the world over several decades. Their results seem to support the standard narrative of human sexual evolution, which appears to make a lot of sense.

But they don’t, and it doesn’t.

While we don’t dispute that these patterns play out in many parts of the modern world, we don’t see them as elements of human nature so much as adaptations to social conditions – many of which were introduced with the advent of agriculture no more than ten thousand years ago.

These behaviors and predilections are not biologically programmed traits of our species; they are evidence of the human brain’s flexibility and the creative potential of community.

To take just one example, we argue that women’s seemingly consistent preference for men with access to wealth is not a result of innate evolutionary programming, as the standard model asserts, but simply a behavioral adaptation to a world in which men control a disproportionate share of the world’s resources.

As we’ll explore in detail, before the advent of agriculture a hundred centuries ago, women typically had as much access to food, protection, and social support as did men.

We’ll see that upheavals in human societies resulting from the shift to settled living in agricultural communities brought RADICAL changes to women’s ability to survive.

Suddenly, women lived in a world where they had to barter their reproductive capacity for access to the resources and protection they needed to survive.

But these conditions are very different from those in which our species had been evolving previously.

It’s important to keep in mind that when viewed against the full scale of our species’ existence, ten thousand years is but a brief moment.

Even if we ignore he roughly two million years since the emergence of our Homo lineage, in which our direct ancestors lived in small foraging social groups, anatomically modern humans are estimated to have existed as long as 200,000 years.

With the earliest evidence of agriculture dating to about 8000 BCE, the amount of time our species has spent living in settled agricultural societies represents just 5 percent of our collective experience, at most. As of recently as a few hundred years ago, most of the planet was still occupied by foragers.

So in order to trace the deepest roots of human sexuality, it’s vital to look beneath the thin crust of recent human history.

Until agriculture, human beings evolved in societies organized around an insistence on sharing just about everything. But all this sharing doesn’t make anyone a noble savage.

These pre-agricultural societies were no nobler than you are when you pay your taxes or insurance premiums.

Universal, culturally imposed sharing was simply the most effective way for our highly social species to minimize risk. Sharing and self-interest, as we shall see, are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, what many anthropologists call fierce egalitarianism was the predominant pattern of social organization around the world for many millennia before the advent of agriculture.

But human societies changed in radical ways once they started farming and raising domesticated animals.

They organized themselves around hierarchical political structures, private property, densely populated settlements, a radical shift in the status of women and other social configurations that together represent an enigmatic disaster for our species: human population growth mushroomed as quality of life plummeted.

The shift to agriculture, wrote author Jared Diamond, is a “catastrophe from which we have never recovered.”

Several types of evidence suggest our pre-agricultural (prehistoric) ancestors lived in groups where most mature individuals would have had several ongoing sexual relationships at any given time.

Though often casual, these relationships were not random or meaningless. Quite the opposite: they reinforced crucial social ties holding these highly interdependent communities together.

We’ve found overwhelming evidence of decidedly casual, friendly prehistory of human sexuality echoed in our own bodies, in the habits of remaining societies still lingering in relative isolation, and in some surprising corners of contemporary Western culture.

We’ll show how our bedroom behavior, porn preferences, fantasies, dreams, and sexual responses all support this reconfigured understanding of our sexual origins.

Questions you’ll find answered in the following pages include:

Why is long-term sexual fidelity so difficult for so many couples?

Why does sexual passion often fade, even as love deepens?

Why are women potentially multi-orgasmic, while men all too often reach orgasm frustratingly quickly and then lose interest?

Is sexual jealously an unavoidable, uncontrollable part of human nature?

Why are human testicles so much larger than those of gorillas but small than those of chimps?

Can sexual frustration make us sick? How did a lack of orgasms cause one of the most common diseases in history, and how was it treated?

A Few Million Years in a Few Pages

In a nutshell, here’s the story we tell in the following pages: A few million years ago, our ancient ancestors (Homo erectus) shifted from a gorilla-like mating system where an alpha male fought to win and maintain a harem of females to one which most males had sexual access to females.

Few, if any experts dispute the fossil evidence for this shift.

But we part company from those who support the standard narrative when we look at what this shift signifies.

The standard narrative holds that this is when long-term pair bonding began in our species: if each male could have only one female mate at a time, most males would end up with a girl to call their own.

Indeed, where there is debate about the nature of innate human sexuality, the only two acceptable options appear to be that humans evolved to be either monogamous (M-F) or polygynous (M-FFF+) – with the conclusion normally being that women generally prefer the former configuration while most men would opt for the latter.

But what about multiple mating, where most males and females have more than one concurrent sexual relationship? Why – apart from moral disgust – is prehistoric promiscuity not even considered, when nearly every relevant source of evidence points in that direction?

After all, we know that the foraging societies in which human beings evolved were small-scale, highly egalitarian groups who shared almost everything. There is remarkable consistency to how immediate return foragers live – wherever they are.

The Kung San of Botswana have a great deal in common with Aboriginal people living in the outback Australia and tribes in remote pockets of the Amazon rainforest.

Anthropologists have demonstrated time and time again that immediate-return hunter-gather societies are nearly universal in their fierce egalitarianism.

Sharing is not just encouraged; it’s mandatory.

Hoarding or hiding food, for example, is considered deeply shameful, almost unforgivable behavior in these societies.

Foragers divide and distribute meat equitably, breastfeed one another’s babies, have little or no privacy from one another, and depend upon each other for survival.

As much as our social world revolves around notions of private property and individual responsibility, theirs spins in the opposite direction, toward group welfare, group identity, profound interrelation, and mutual dependence.

Though this may sound like naïve New Age idealism, whining over the lost Age of Aquarius, or a celebration of prehistoric communism, not one of these features of pre-agricultural societies is disputed by serious scholars.

The overwhelming consensus is that egalitarian social organization is the de-facto system for foraging societies in all environments.

In fact, no other system could work for foraging societies in all environments. Compulsory sharing is simply the best way to distribute risk to everyone’s benefit: participation mandatory.

Pragmatic? Yes. Noble? Hardly.

We believe this sharing behavior extended to sex as well. A great deal of research from primatology, anthropology, anatomy, and psychology points to the same fundamental conclusion: human beings and our hominid ancestors have spent almost all of the past few million years or so in small, intimate bands in which most adults had several sexual relationships at any given time.

This approach to sexuality probably persisted until the rise of agriculture and private property no more than ten thousand years ago.

In addition to voluminous scientific evidence, many explorers, missionaries, and anthropologists support this view, having penned accounts rich with tales of orgiastic rituals, unflinching mate sharing, and an open sexuality unencumbered by guilt or shame.

If you spend time with the primates closest to human beings, you’ll see female chimps having intercourse dozens of times per day, with most or all of the willing males, and rampant bonobo group sex that leaves everyone relaxed and maintains intricate social networks.

Explore contemporary human beings’ lust for particular kinds of pornography or our notorious difficulties with long-term sexual monogamy and you’ll soon stumble over relics of our hypersexual ancestors.

Our bodies echo the same story.

The human male has testicles far larger than any monogamous primate would ever need, hanging vulnerably outside the body where cooler temperatures help preserve stand-by sperm cells for multiple ejaculations.

He also sports the longest, thickest penis found on any primate on the planet, as well as an embarrassing tendency to reach orgasm too quickly.

Women’s pendulous breasts (utterly unnecessary for breastfeeding children), impossible-to-ignore cries of delight (female copulatory vocalization to the clipboard-carrying crowd), and capacity for orgasm after orgasm all support this vision of prehistoric promiscuity.

Each of these points is a major snag in the standard narrative.

Once people were farming the same land season after season, private property quickly replaced communal ownership as the modus operandi in most societies.

For nomadic foragers, personal property – anything needing to be carried – is kept to a minimum, for obvious reasons. There is little thought given to the who owns the land, or the fish  in the river, or the clouds in the sky.

Men (and often, women) confront danger together. An individual male’s parental investment, in other words – the core element of the standard narrative – tends to be diffuse in societies like those in which we evolved, not directed toward one particular woman and her children, as the conventional model insists.

But when people began living in settled agricultural communities, social reality shifted deeply and irrevocably.

Suddenly it became crucially important to know where your field ended and your neighbor’s began. Remember the Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet they neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Clearly, the biggest loser (aside from slaves, perhaps) in the agricultural revolution was the human female, who went from occupying a central, respected role in foraging societies to becoming another possession for man to earn and defend, along with his house, slaves, and livestock.

“The origins of farming,” says archaeologist Steven Mithen, “is the defining event of human history – the one turning point that has resulted in modern humans having quite different type of lifestyle and cognition to all other animals and past types of humans.”

The most important pivot point in the story of our species, the shift to agriculture redirected the trajectory of human life more fundamentally than the control of fire, the Magna Carta, the printing press, the steam engine, nuclear fission, or anything else has or, perhaps, ever will.

With agriculture, virtually everything changed: the nature of status and power, social and family structures, how humans interacted with the natural world, the gods they worshipped, the likelihood and nature of warfare between groups, quality of life, longevity, and certainly the rules governing sexuality.

His survey of the relevant archaeological evidence led archaeologist Timothy Taylor, author of The Prehistory of Sex, to state, “While hunter-gatherer sex had been modeled on an idea of sharing and complementarity, early agricultural sex was voyeuristic, repressive, homophobic, and focused on reproduction.” “Afraid of the wild,” he concludes, “farmers set out to destroy it.”

Land could now be possessed, owned, and passed down the generations. Food that been hunted and gathered now had to be sowed, tended, harvested, stored, defended, bought, and sold.

Fences, walls, and irrigation systems had to be built and reinforced; armies to defend it all had to be raised, fed, and controlled.

Because of private property, for the first time in the history of our species, paternity became a crucial concern.

But the standard narrative insists that paternity certainty has always been of utmost importance to our species, that our very genes dictate we organize our sexual lives around it.

Why, then is the anthropological record so rich with examples of societies where biological paternity is of little or no importance?

Where paternity is unimportant, men tend to be relatively unconcerned about women’s sexual fidelity.

But before we get into these real-life examples, let’s take a quick trip to the Yucatan.

END OF INTRODUCTION

You Question “Business As Usual”? Why Not Question “Sex As Usual”?

A thinking person questions everything . . . especially everything blindly adhered to by the majority.

What you’ve read is just an intro to your questioning the beliefs of the most cherished beliefs of the herd.

If business as unusual is good for the pocket book, why would it not be good for your mind, your heart, and your genitals?

You’ve only just experienced a taste of what this book has to offer you. If you’re with me now, I trust you’ve enjoyed what you’ve read. Go buy the book see what kind of freedom of thought, soul, and body await you.

As always, feel free to talk to me in the comments section below, or like most people prefer, in private by hitting orange “Feedback” tab there on the right hand side of the screen, or email me directly.

Talk soon,

Lewis LaLanne a.k.a. Note Taking Nerd #2 a.k.a. L.L. Cool Nerd

PS. And if this whole idea of getting your beliefs adjusted to how YOU want them to be rather than how the 6 P’s want them to be, you’ll definitely want to check out these personal improvement notes here <—–