Sex 3.0 is a book by JJ Roberts, and has an accompanying website: sexthreepointzero.com.
The book describes how sex has changed throughout human history, starting with sex 1.0 with only unfenced relationships (200000 years ago until 10000 years ago), then leading to sex 2.0 with the invention of agriculture – leading humans to settle in one location rather than being nomadic, which then led to the near death of unfenced relationships and the rise of fenced relationships (10000 years ago until present day). Roberts argues that sex 2.0 is no longer relevant because it goes against what is natural for humans, and because all of it’s benefits have been overridden by social and technological progress.
His proposed way forward is sex 3.0, a model in which people have the choice between fenced and unfenced relationships. The choice isn’t the critical point though, Roberts addresses issues such as jealousy an possessiveness, “relationship duress” (I bet a lot of manospherians suffer from this), as well as evolutionary theory and the conflict of interests between male and female genetic imperatives.
My verdict – everyone should read this book. Not because I think everyone should be in unfenced relationships, but because it changes your mentality about sex and relationships. Roberts highlights people who consistently fail in relationships (ie most people). Whereas a typical game author would tell you to work on your relationship game, Roberts calls the very model of relationships into question. Arguing that most people suffer from “mapping errors” and that a change in mentality will offer better results for most people. I think he is right. Although game guides can get you laid, they don’t normally cover long term sexual fulfilment. This void has been filled by Sex 3.0.
My only criticisms of the book are that there are a few typos, and that the author tends to repeat himself for a bit. I did buy the book when it first came out so these issues may or may not have been addressed in the current edition. I also think that Roberts makes it sound easier to get rid of jealousy and possessiveness than it actually is. I managed, but I’m more emotionally detached from life than most people I know. Either way, read it for the information because it will have a profound impact on the way you view sex and relationships. The book is very well researched and you can tell that Roberts’ knowledge extends far beyond what is included in the book.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with lad culture, take a quick look at this website.
Don’t worry, I’ll wait.
First observations? Nearly a quarter of a million likes on facebook. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t envy that kind of web presence, so well done to them in that respect. There is one small problem:
They are promoting a toxic set of beliefs.
I’m not gonna criticise them for what they normally get criticised for. I wholeheartedly support their right to make rape jokes and fat jokes and I’m glad that they are promoting masculinity over being a bitch. The problem I have is that, to be blunt, they have a pretty shitty definition of masculinity.
Broadly defined, masculinity is the combination of strength, courage, mastery and honour.
This definition is broad and abstract because it goes past the arguments over whether a good father or a master seducer is more manly – it’s chalk and cheese bro. But I digress, let’s see how the values uni-lad promotes measure up to this objective standard.
I’m not one to criticise getting intoxicated, and having low standards is kinda subjective, but I can’t get my head around the last one.
I get the distinct impression that a large proportion of young men aren’t going out, getting smashed and hitting on girls because they want to, but because they want to impress the top dog in their group. It’s something every lad knows, but no lad will admit.
They also encourage lying.
From How to Get a Regular Shag
Get yourself back home. Clean your room. Hoover your room. Put posters of mean looking rugby players everywhere. Buy two rugby balls; put one on the pillow and one on your desk. Eighty percent of girls at university are attracted to the ‘rugby lad’. Today, you are one of them.
If you were to put that much effort into being worth fucking rather than seeming worth fucking, you’d get hit in the face by a low flying vagina every time you stepped out the door. (H/T Frost)
This leads to the crux of my problem with that site, and with lad culture in general:
The manosphere promotes becoming better in order to gain progress towards a goal. Lad(ism?) promotes pretending to be better in order to gain approval from your mates.
My message to lads everywhere is this: there is more to life than clubbing and FIFA. Read a book, chat up women during the day (the whole needing alcohol to talk to girls thing is ridiculous), climb a mountain, write a blog, start a business. It doesn’t matter. But you and others like you are setting yourselves up for the prescribed life plan trodden by so many now divorced and unhappy men before you.
Normal kid at school -> uni partying hard and trying to shag lots of girls -> leave uni with a 2:2 and moderate alcohol dependency -> job -> dating -> wife -> kids -> more alcoholism -> divorce -> premature death.
You know why this happens? Because you seek approval. You didn’t stand out at school and reach your potential because you wanted to fit in with everyone else, now your every action is determined by what the lads will think and how many lad points downing that pint of piss, or having someone else’s shit rubbed over your face will win you (both of those happened to a rugby lad I know). As you get older you will live on the approval of you boss, your girlfriend, your wife and your kids. This is not masculinity, this is weakness. In particular a weakness that makes for a depressing and unfulfilling life.
There’s a lot of potential here, young men have realised that being a feminized little fag is wrong for the majority of them, but we need a better alternative than the current binge drinking, approval seeking culture we have now.
In summary – It’s good to promote masculinity, but you gotta be a man about it.
I doubt he’ll read this, but fuck you random Amsterdam kebab shop owner.
Mr Kebab man did not like this. He proceeded to publicly tell me off in front of all his customers. My crime? Not paying for a woman he didn’t know. He was so enraged by the fact that she had to pay that he gave her a free drink to make things right.
I ate my food and had a bit of the free drink while he watched.
Chivalry is a two way street Kebab man. If you don’t realise this it will come back to haunt you in the future.
You recently ran this article about MRAs. I would like to applaud and congratulate you for not making them look like a bunch of evil misogynist rapists. Well done.
I am not an MRA as such, I do however sympathise with a lot of their issues. To this end I feel the need to point something out to you.
You repeatedly refer to the gender pay gap, citing that women earn less than men in all sectors, and that the only time women earn more is if you restrict the age range to 22-29. These figures are based on yearly salary.
I’m not writing to argue, I just suggest that you take the average yearly salary for men and for women, and divide it by the average amount of hours worked per week by the respective genders.
Then you’ll see the real pay gap.
“I love feminism, without it I wouldn’t be surrounded by single girls open to casual sex.”
Bonus points if the people you’re with know that you are the soft harem/rotation type.
“It gets bad when either sex thinks they should get more [from society] because of their gender.”
“They talk like every woman in the UK is going to get raped any second now, like all men are some evil faceless enemy. Basically, feminists are rubbish.”
“They have no overlying cause so they’re kinda pointless in today’s society.”
“I wouldn’t say theres ‘inequalities I’d just say there’s benefits to each [being male or female].”
“Feminists need to move on and let shit go, stop bitching and moaning like they’re on a 24/7 period.”
“No one likes a feminist but a feminist.”
- Girls I’ve slept with on modern feminism.
I get accused of sexism quite a lot. People I know read my blog or have conversations with me, then tell me that I’m “such a sexist”. Those people are correct. Conversely noone has yet called me a misogynist due to my writing, and I’m glad about that because I’m not a misogynist. One girl did call me an arrogant cunt though, I personally prefer confident asshole but you can’t win them all.
Anyway, I scored 5 on that test. This post aims to explain my belief, why I’m right and why the other scores are wrong.
Levels 1, 2 and 3 go without saying, you just need to watch some sports. Level 4 is confirmed by science too, just google “psychological differences between men and women”. But how does one arrive at 5?
Simple – Chess.
1 out of the top 100 chess players is a woman. Therefore one can infer that men are generally better at chess than women. If you disagree you either suck at maths, or care about people’s feelings to such an extent that you shouldn’t be trusted with rational decision making.
Ok, so why am I not a 6? Simple: men are generally better at chess, but if a woman wants to compete why stop her? I prefer 5 over 6 because 5 allows for those exceptions to the general rules to shine.
7, to me, is simply untrue. I don’t think women are “smarter” than men, but they definitely have more emotional intelligence and are better at reading people. These skills are underrated.
8 is like 6 with law making. I oppose this because I support freedom of choice. If you wanna try and do something that your demographic generally suck at, be my guest. Either succeed as an outlier (well done to you) or let the forces of the free market bring you down. People who think you need legislation to do what a free job market would do show that they fear those about whom they legislate.
9 is about hate. Get control of your emotions you fucking woman, hating a group of people is dumb. All misandrists and misogynists should be put on an island where they can argue pitifully together.
10 would be nice, but it’s just harsh.
In conclusion: sexism = rational, just don’t take it so far that you become a cunt.
The word “sexism” is frequently bandied about especially by newspapers and people studying humanities. I feel it would be useful if people had a scale to identify how sexist they are, and to evaluate other people’s opinions relative to theirs.
This is also a fun tool for offending people you don’t like.
Presenting the sexism scale:
1 – PC Fembot
Belief: There are absolutely no differences between men and women apart from physical appearance and one chromosone.
Definition: Political correctness distilled. You won’t morally offend anyone, but you’ll intellectually offend anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together.
2 – PC
Belief: Men and women are better at different physical activities.
Definition: Still politically correct, this is the most extreme thing you could say on mainstream TV. This belief is rooted in noticing how women are physically designed to have and raise kids whereas men are physically designed to hunt.
3 – Anyone Who’s Ever Watched Sports
Belief: In general men are better at physical activities.
Definition: Everyone knows this, otherwise there wouldn’t be separate sporting events for men and women. However if this opinion is expressed the idea that one group of people can be generally better at stuff than another group of people can raise a lot of egalitarian heckles. You’ll find yourself reiterating the fact that you’re speaking in general. This belief, like level 2, is rooted in basic evolutionary observation.
4 – Implied but Never Said
Belief: There are psychological differences between men and women.
Definition: Well done, you’re sexist enough to learn game. Strangely a lot of girls can get offended by this despite the fact that the belief is broadcast by publications aimed at women all the time. Mainstream men’s publications do this too, but in such a sickeningly supplicating manner. This belief is rooted in life experience, and repeatedly backed up by Chateau Heartiste in their posts about science validating these psychological differences.
5 – Sexist
Belief: Men and women are better at different mental activities.
Definition: World’s easiest example: leadership vs empathy. This is again general, an obvious exception would be Margaret Thatcher (love her or loathe her she was a good leader). I can’t think of any men famous for their empathy, being nice doesn’t generally get you famous. Interestingly this belief is perfectly palatable to the mainstream providing you only talk about stuff women are better at, but people get offended the second you suggest that men are better at something. This belief is grounded in evolutionary and social psychology much like level 4.
6 – Al Murray the Pub Landlord
Belief: There are certain things men and women “should” do.
Definition: You judge people for acting out from what is expected of them, based on the group to which they belong. I get this impression a lot when reading In Mala Fide and other manosphere blogs.
7 – What Women and the Media Think Sexists Think
Belief: In general men are better at mental activities.
Definition: Basically you believe men are both stronger (level 3) and smarter than women in every possible field except meaningless trivialities. This is the same as 5, but with a lower weighting assigned to what women are good at. This is down to personal preference and the valuation of productivity vs happiness in a society.
8 – Subjugator (not that bullshit pay gap stuff)
Belief: There ought to be legislation in place to account for the differences between men and women.
Definition: You believe that seeing as men are smarter (7) and stronger (3) than women, the way they ought to act (6) should be legislated in some way. Examples: revoking universal suffrage for women, conscription into the armed forces for men. This belief is based in not trusting people to make decisions for themselves, and believing that the consequences of their poor decisions are a serious problem.
9 – Misogynist
Belief: You believe in points 2 – 8 and as a consequence hate women because they are inferior.
Definition: You occasionally see this in the comments of MRA blogs. This is the domain of Omega Virgins.
10 – Oppressive Misogynist
Belief: Women are men’s property and exist for their pleasure and amusement.
Definition: Different from the stereotypical player’s narcissism, you believe women exist for men’s pleasure as a whole, rather than your own. This is some old school viking shit. I’ve never seen someone publicly proclaim this belief.
There you have it. Obviously this test applies to men > women sexism. If you think the other way (lol) just reverse that paradigm. I think most people, including women, will be surprised how highly they score. I’ll write a follow up post with my score and reasons for my beliefs. I predict that if you take this test while getting high at someone’s house with your mates (you know who you are) you won’t admit your actual score to your company. Embrace the risk of others judging you. Be proud to be offensive.
Observational humour is always my favourite: