Sex 3.0

I liked his terminology and the care he takes with his language. I especially liked his four-pillars model: Communication, Honesty, Trust, Respect. I believe he's about 90% right in his main argument (less so in some of his side arguments and reasoning). But I just don't see this book winning over any minds. If I were still “fenced”, I'm not sure this would be the book to unfence me.The basic premise is something you probably already know: what we think of as “normal” relationships—dating, marriage, monogamy—are an unhealthy and unnatural side effect of our neolithic switch to agricultural society. Hence Sex 1.0 (prehistoric), 2.0 (historic, broken) and 3.0 (The Glorious Future). Although Roberts doesn't quite preach—he claims to describe, not prescribe, and I think he succeeds at that—his tone is sometimes a bit too smug for my taste. And some of his science is, IMO, questionable: I happen to be a big fan of [b:Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's work 6251387 Mothers and Others The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding Sarah Blaffer Hrdy http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347821755s/6251387.jpg 6434265], and found myself thinking that Roberts could learn a bit from her.Ev Psych aside, the rest of the book is surprisingly good: ethical, responsible, readable. I'm just not quite sure who his target audience is. I'd love to hear opinions from any fenced readers.