To prepare you for ideas based in an unfamiliar framework, I’d like to start with one of my heroes, Richard Feynman, explaining the difficulties of answering apparently simple questions about how or why something happens.
Notice two things. First, the interviewer’s apparent irritation—his attitude implies Feynman is being evasive by not answering directly. Feynman isn’t trying to irritate anyone, and neither am I, though I understand my wholesale rejection of current thinking can be annoying for those who judge knowledge by who’s saying it rather than what’s being said. But let’s be clear: current expert thinking isn’t solving current problems.
Second, while Feynman’s subject matter is the arcane world of particle physics, mine deals with ordinary life experiences everyone knows. However, I’ll place these experiences in a new framework to better understand how they work. This is analogous to gravity being moved from Newtonian physics into general relativity—gravity hasn’t changed, only our understanding of it.
My micro-analyses and approaches to common situations won’t be familiar. I may bring up unexpected connections between seemingly simple yet vexing situations, but the thinking will always proceed in simple, logical steps that are easily understood.
You don’t need special training or academic credentials—just basic logical reasoning ability.
Situations taken for granted—angry arguments, sexual problems that seem universal and are accepted as part of life—will be seen with fresh eyes. I’ll concentrate particularly on private thoughts, the very source of all human problems, from sexual fantasies to simple self-judgments.
My first two analyses will be Stanley Kubrick’s film Eyes Wide Shut, and a discussion on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s program Q and A featuring feminist professor Germaine Greer, journalist and self-appointed sex education expert Benjamin Law, and American pastor Craig Gross talking about sex education in schools and internet pornography.
These two examples—one documentary-based, one fiction with some basis in reality—represent the two types I’ll constantly draw on to highlight current thinking in the topics I discuss.
I’ll show similar threads running through everything I analyze, demonstrating that my work represents the paradigm shift I claim it is by exposing the inherent flaws and false assumptions in current attitudes.
My work addresses all common relationship issues, but focuses most urgently on sex education in schools because the current generation of young people has been most let down by the supposed experts advising government on this subject.
Governments worldwide recognize the problems but appear at the mercy of those whose job is to do the analysis I’ve done. The so-called experts are unable to solve these problems because, despite their credentials, they haven’t solved them in their own lives. And there’s the rub: these are the most personal matters relating to sexuality, and if you haven’t solved these problems in your own life, you’re simply not qualified to pontificate, much less offer solutions.
The qualification to speak about solutions to sexual problems is having solved them in your own life. This is why I appear annoying to self-professed experts—I’m calling their bluff. I’ll point the finger at the Ben Laws and Craig Grosses of this world and ask pointed, uncomfortable questions they dare not ask each other because they don’t understand their subject matter. Anyone who postures as an expert is fair game for satire if what they’re saying is plainly nonsense.
No wonder we have heads of state involved in disgraceful sexual scandals, pedophile priests, journalists and prosecutors convicted of child pornography, and a general population utterly bewildered by these public displays of ineptitude.
I remind you to examine my words—the connections I make and conclusions I draw—with an open mind, judging what I say, not how I say it