Dr. Susan Block

In the Chatroom


  1. Chelsea Demoiselle (Raw)
    08 · 3 · 15 @ 4:08 pm

    Great to see this past show now, and all the comments here regarding “Sex At Dawn” coauthored by Drs. Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. and Cacilda Jethá, M.D. …

    Now that I’ve met Chris Ryan on the Dr Susan Block show, (http://bloggamy.com/sex-at-dawn-4) I’m even *more* interested in this book and his other upcoming works!


  2. Christian J
    09 · 17 · 12 @ 5:11 am

    I believe we should just BE ourselves and F**K everything others think.
    We shouldn’t BEcome animals, but remain only HUMANS.


  3. Nikki
    06 · 1 · 11 @ 2:35 am

    Stands back from the keyboard in amazement! Thakns!


  4. Dr Remy
    04 · 26 · 11 @ 10:42 pm

    Thank you very much for introducing me to the insightful, thought provoking and entertaining ( fun-read) book, “Sex at Dawn”


  5. Stephen Snyder, MD
    09 · 5 · 10 @ 5:26 am


    Greetings from the other coast. Thanks for your article pointing out some of Sex at Dawn’s other intellectual antecedents. You’re the best! But I think we might disagree on certain details . . .

    Long-term monogamy is clearly an unnatural state for most humans. But as Sex at Dawn author Christopher Ryan and I discussed in our recent interview on PsychologyToday, human bonobo-like promiscuity can only work in a society based on sharing resources. Such sharing may only be workable in small nomadic groups. And these kinds of groups have long since disappeared.

    Today, only ownership societies remain. Nowadays, as infants we absorb ideas of ownership along with our mothers’ milk. Our modern toddlers’ favorite word is “mine.” Our valentines all say, “BE MINE.” As moderns, we’re all way too deep into ownership, for sexual sharing ever again to be a viable option for the culture at large.

    What’s true for a culture, though, may not hold for all its individuals. Kinsey’s great discovery was that we’re diverse from each other sexually. This includes differences in our need for sexual novelty. Some of us can easily tolerate the unnatural state of monogamy. Others tolerate it with more difficulty, and with perhaps some slippage now and then.

    But for an unknown percentage of people, it’s not even worth trying. These are the people Esther Perel wrote about in “Mating in Captivity” — who become catastrophically bored and restless after a week, or a year, with the same partner.

    For these individuals, non-monogamy may make good sense. It’s a good thing that there exist subcultures committed to doing it ethically. Better an open, ethical non-monogamy — than non-monogamy on the down-low.

    As those who practice ethical non-monogamy will clearly say, though, it’s emotionally challenging to go against such universally internalized values as ownership, fidelity, and jealousy.

    I’m reminded of the student who asked her acting teacher whether she should pursue a career in theater. “Only do it,” he told her, “If you’re absolutely sure you have no other good choice.”

    The message, I think, of Sex at Dawn is that we should be non-judgmental towards those people whose sexual natures may leave them no other good choice but to be non-monogamous.

    Maybe eventually we Americans will adopt more European-style sensibilities that don’t take fidelity so seriously. But I have my doubts. I think the best we can hope for is to be more open-minded about the sexual choices our neighbors might make. All sexual minds are different. And we don’t know what it’s like to be inside theirs.

    Dr Suzy, Congratulations on a delicious piece of writing. You’re the best! – even when we disagree.

    Stephen Snyder, MD
    New York City


    • Chelsea Demoiselle (Raw)
      08 · 3 · 15 @ 4:28 pm

      I found this helpful.

      As a teen I was part of a communal farm life with a group of artists and musicians and I already was in touch with my sexually adventurous nature.

      Within that small group my behavior was considered eclectic and egalitarian whereas once I ventured out on my own, my whole sense of balance, acceptance and place in society was sent flying.

      I intuitively sought progressive domestic groups, yet the modern economic / political structures made that extremely rare–particularly as I looked for a vegan and non-intoxicant household. For me, sharing a revolutionary lifestyle and message to the world as a group meant an intimacy I couldn’t pretend existed with someone who lived what I considered to be irrelevant to urgent global concerns i.e. superficial. I found if I did not respect a person as being part of creating a better world for example, then I could not, would not consider being intimate with them.

      I guess that’s a slice of why I don’t relate to the foragers due to the state of the world today and problems which need addressing. I think that were I transported in time, or if there were not the mass destruction of earth’s ecosystems, I’d live like one of my favorite movies “Quest For Fire” …

      Thanks to Dr Suzy for her thoughtfulness and getting the word out there about the validity of diverse sexual preferences, activities and identities. And thank you to Dr Chris Ryan, for delving into all the data at hand and having the incredible passion and intellect to serve it all up with some real chunky food for thought…

      I love also the thoughts here of Dr Snyder who I gather agrees with great portions of Ryan’s work, yet finds the current ambiance and social-biotics stew or yogurt, an unfertile ground for actualization.


  6. bromeo
    08 · 30 · 10 @ 7:42 pm

    My thoughts and ideas about materialism and sexuality have always wandered in this direction and I am so glad someone finally said it. Although i have the belief anyone should be able to use their bodies for personal gain. Amen and Awomen!!!


  7. Marilyn Milos
    08 · 27 · 10 @ 2:37 am

    Excellent review of Sex at Dawn. Thanks for that!

    I thought you might be interested in an interview I did with James Loewen, which is posted on Youtube at Bonobo3D, entitled “Sex Education 101.” He has some wonderful interviews there. This one is about how circumcision affects sexuality for both the male and female: http://www.youtube.com/user/Bonobo3D#p/u/25/BgoTRMKrJo4

    And, thanks for working toward peace through pleasure…the Bonobos have a lot to teach us!

    P.S. I loved seeing the photo of you with the book…


  8. Mark I in SW Missouri
    08 · 25 · 10 @ 7:22 pm

    Dr. Block:
    A good friend just sent me the link to your CounterPunch review of “Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality.”
    I have read Terry Gould’s book (”The Lifestyle”) more than once, as well as works by Helen Fisher, Desmond Morris, et al. You are indeed on the mark (no pun intended)!
    I will buy the book immediately. In the meantime, thank you for your excellent review and your continued work in this important field.


  9. Therapist Tina
    08 · 22 · 10 @ 2:18 pm

    Fascinating review, Doc. I learned of Sex At Dawn from Dan Savage. I’m a big fan of his, read him every week in the Chicago Reader (and I’m GGG) but OMG I have to read this book. You are such an incredible player of words, way to be on the cusp of hot topics, proud you’re my boss.


  10. Michael P. Burton
    08 · 22 · 10 @ 1:29 pm

    First, I want to commend you on this excellent and very entertaining review of a remarkable book, Dr. Block. Like some of your other readers, I found out about Sex at Dawn through another source (Newsweek) and purchased it immediately. After reading it, I have been searching the Internet for discussions of the book, and found yours to be one of, if not the most, compelling analysis. Nice to see the authors’ comment confirming this on your page here.

    Second, I would like to address the comments of Mr. Lawrence and Burt who seem to feel that the existence of marriages and private property among modern Aboriginal Australians and other “primitive” groups negates the theories of Sex at Dawn. However, as the book’s authors carefully point out, many of these groups, though they still forage for some of their food, started farming and domesticating animals at least several decades ago. Thus all the problems that accompanied the Agricultural Revolution are now their problems too.


  11. Daniel Keefe
    08 · 22 · 10 @ 12:56 pm

    Dear Dr. Block,Omitting your rather cavalier not-much-to-see-here remarks regarding the nutritional benefits of an agricultural lifestyle,and moving on to the parts of your article that upset me, the most egregious remarks involved not knowing what the phrase “…serial romances with three or four partners at any time…” means [ very ambiguous, and certainly the word-choice of ” romances ” feels less than honest ] ,and, “…to thwart enemies of pleasure…” [ because the word ‘pleasure’ is in need of so * much * more attention, this notion also must needs be passed over as impossible to discuss here ]. This-perforce- brings me to the third complaint that I have with your piece : [ viz ] you say that the authors aren’t advocating anything,but neither are you saying that they aren’t practicing polyandrous and/or polygynous relationships, and the same question is applicable to you and your mate. ( I must bring this up because I believe it is highly relevant–utterly germane– and not for any other purpose. ) And, lastly–please note well– I find that polygamy usually works out to be a polyandrous relationship in point of fact ( and here I mean contemporaneously) . Yours Truly, ******************************* P.S., please find the disclosures that I feel are warranted * below *, in order that these may be easily omitted if you choose to use any of this brief message in another format. Fairly recently I had to ask my dear wife for the thing I wanted least from her, namely, a divorce. Though she protested that she was innocent,I knew on that awful night that she’d chosen to ” chump-me-out “, though it was another 300-some days before she’d finally do me the * courtesy * [ we’d been married for 14 years ! ] to admit it. These events are perhaps of little moment to a man who is a bourgeoise and thus has his career to provide some comfort to him,some degree of solace in his pain, but I assure you it has * great * consequences to one whose life has been terribly constrained–such as myself, a declassed proletarian [ and if you don’t know or understand what this means in a practical sense, and I find that almost no collage-person has even the SLIGHTEST NOTION as to what this means,or ANY feel for it at all ] , then you probably have * no idea * of the dire consequences the above set of circumstances brought about. Being a cuckold is one of the worst things to have ever happened to me, (& my father died when I was 12,& I was arrested at age 14 )– even the word hurts more than I can say– and this within the context of a life that has been perhaps more difficult than that which a college-person is capable of understanding. Also her parents tout themselves as ” swingers “,though they’ve been in a polyandrous ” relationship ” for nearly 30 years,and * openly * advocated such an arrangement on the night I took the bit in my mouth and effectively ended our marriage. Beware…college boys & girls may find all this quaintly funny ,but we proletarians most assuredly do NOT.


  12. Christopher Ryan
    08 · 21 · 10 @ 6:22 pm

    Casi and I are taking a brief respite to visit some prehistoric cave art in Cantabria, Spain. We’re staying in an old farmhouse with no Internet connection but we went into town yesterday to check/send mail because it was my parents’ 50th wedding anniversary and we wanted to send our congratulations. But as it turns out, we were the ones who received the gift!

    When we were working on our book, we hoped that some readers would understand what we were trying to say and that a few would find our message to be important and helpful. But we never dared imagine that we’d have the extraordinary pleasure of reading an article like yours about our book. To see some of our thoughts infused with your brilliance, knowledge, and humor is deeply gratifying. We know you didn’t write this piece for the feelings it would provoke in us, but we wanted to thank you nonetheless for sending some of your passionate intelligence (and intelligent passion) our way. With friends like you, anything’s possible.

    Thank you.


  13. James W. Prescott, Ph.D.
    08 · 21 · 10 @ 5:54 pm

    Great BLOG commentary on Sex at Dawn. A great deal of work is needed to get this message across. But I’m not confidant that all the information we develop will do any good. The millennia of history is against us, re The Inquisition, Holocaust, Bosnia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Taliban, etc, etc. But we must maintain our efforts of Peace Through Shared Pleasure despite the enormity of hostility and violence against the feminine world-wide.


    James W. Prescott, Ph.D.
    Institute of Humanistic Science


  14. Terry Mason
    08 · 20 · 10 @ 3:34 pm

    Magnificent summary, Dr. Block. I can’t say you led me to Sex at Dawn, like most of your other readers, because Sex at Dawn led me to you. I guess you could call me one of those Sex At Dawn junkies. I have read the book twice and scoured the web for everything people are saying about it. I fantasize about being in a polyamorous M-F-M triad, and the book validates my feelings like nothing else ever has. And I just want to say that your review is the best one out there–so far!


  15. Al Thompson
    08 · 20 · 10 @ 3:33 pm

    In a previous comment on this blog, I made the points that (1) I regard the fundamental fact of importance is the Discrepancy that began with the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago, (2) this is the ultimate reason for virtually all of our problems, and (3) unless this problem is addressed our continued existence as a species is threatened.

    The Counterpunch article by you that I encountered yesterday introduced me to your work, and I commend you for it. I agree that The Discrepancy has had, as one result, the development of unnatural ideas and practices regarding sexual activity, but would add that that is but one consequence of The Discrepancy—and a rather minor one, in fact. Of far more importance is the current threat posed by that set of phenomena given the (misleading—because it involves more than a warming trend) name “global warming.”

    Eugene Linden (in his 2006 Winds of Change) discussed recent research by climatologists, and one of the most important results he reported was that from a geological standpoint there is evidence for extremely rapid climate change—i.e., extreme change over a period of as little as 2-5 years. Given that “global warming” (see, e.g., the attached paper) seems to be a process that feeds upon itself, it is in the realm of possibility that within a few years the devastation resulting from “global warming” will be so great that Earth’s population—including in the USA—will be severely decimated.

    Some scientists believe that it is too late to prevent this from occurring, but I believe that we must act while there still is a chance to stave off catastrophe. I would add that that “acting” must involve societal system change—so that there will be an opportunity to address ALL of our problems (including sexual ones) simultaneously, not just “global warming.” For if we merely act to address the “global warming” problem, the rest of our problems will still be with us—and perhaps even be intensified.

    But will this take place? Our species seems to be the stupidest of the intelligent species, so that there is little reason for hope, unfortunately. I have developed ideas on a course of action, but whether they will be acted upon—or even published, for that matter—is another matter.


  16. michael g.b.
    08 · 20 · 10 @ 10:12 am

    why are there myriad numbers of angels in heaven reather than just one? . . .why do artists paint more than one picture, write more than one song, compose more than one symphony or poem? . . why do we reasd more than just one novel? . . . why don’t we eat the same meal every evening instead of varying the menu? . . why do we listen to song after song on the radio or cd player or ipod instead of costantly just hitting “replay”? . . . it isn;’t just the need to variety (although that exists) but more the in-born nature and need for “creativity” . . . just as the creative muse inspires so much art and artistry, so too does that muse inspire and move sex, sexuality and erotic experience . . . one doesn’t just ‘have sex” but makes it a dynamic creative experience . . . never just a photocopy print-out of the same scene over again and again like in some erotic version of “Groundhog Day” . . . itis a dance which selddom is choreographed in the same identical fashion each time it is performed . . . it is the thrill of the unexpected that brings an exceitement to the “expected”, the surprise around the corner you didn’t anticiplate or conjecture upon . . .a brusg stroke where there hadn’t been one before . . . a harmonic chord that captivates and holds one in its lengthy lingering drawn out “om” . . . it isn;t “the warrior” but more the artist.


  17. Kiley jones
    08 · 19 · 10 @ 10:27 pm

    I co-sign everything you say. Very well written. I think all of this is long over due. We have evolved physically, mentally ect. throughout the ages, why not sexually as well? So much pain and suffering we as a society have endured due to rules and conformity. I believe in marriage but I also believe in keeping an open mind. We are sexual creatures that crave attention. Let your freak flag fly I say!


  18. Philip Burt
    08 · 19 · 10 @ 5:32 pm

    Dr Block, your blog is most informative and great fun to read. However, I do take issue with the thesis that pre-Neolithic societies were as you (or the book) have described them: ethonographic evidence from hunter-gatherers such as Aboriginal Australians suggest quite the contrary – they probably have the most complex system of ‘marriage’ management of any known society. They are not notoriously promiscuous. The key issue here seems to be incest (or rather, its avoidance), but this problem isn’t mentioned in your review. I wonder how the book deals with this. Field work among existing hunter-gatherers do not include reports of findings (of ‘Bonoboism’) to support the thesis of the book. On this matter, may I refer you to ‘The Elementary Structures of Kinship’ by the great and recently late Claude Levi-strauss? I think that if eg Amerindians were living orgiastically, we would have heard about it long ago (and for the wrong reasons, probably). As hunter-gatherers do relatively little work compared to farmers, it seems their spare time is to some extent taken up with elaborating fantastically complex cosmologies and kin networks, rather than doing what might be more fun (for the ‘leisure’ activities of Australians, see eg Marshall Sahlins’s ‘Stone Age Economics’).Regarding ‘possessions’, not all are tangible – there is symbolic or social capital, which would encompass descent group affiliation, backed up by myths etc, and for which group membership/identity is of crucial importance, and also therefore, who is doing what with whom. And more broadly, the issue of inter- as well as intra-group relations (and territoriality, a highly significant issue to hunter-gatherers) needs also to be taken taken into account when debating the history of human sexuality. Thanks for reading this.


  19. Al Thompson
    08 · 19 · 10 @ 3:48 pm

    Dear Dr. Block,

    I read, with considerable interest, your “Our Promiscuous Prehistory” on the Counterpunch site today. For some time now I have been interested in the Discrepancy concept, and the findings that you report fit in perfectly with my thinking. I’ve recently completed an unpublished book that develops the Discrepancy somewhat, but makes no reference (an oversight!) to sexual matters. My Chapter 4 deals with the concept in more detail, but again without any sexual references. If you are interested in receiving a copy, just ask.

    My basic position is that virtually all of our problems stem from the fact that Discrepant ways of living developed with the Agricultural Revolution. Given this, although the tendency is for people to be single-issue, I regard that approach as being futile, with the only answer being societal system change. This was an idea very much alive during the 19th century (e.g., Robert Owen and Charles Fourier), and needs to be revived. If it isn’t, I fear that our species will be virtually extinct by 2100 CE (as James Lovelock—of “Gaia” fame—has predicted.


  20. Gary Waxman
    08 · 19 · 10 @ 3:43 pm

    I am a longtime fan of James Prescott’s work, especially in regard to enlightening people about the dangers of circumcision (though I am unfortunately circumcised, my wife and I chose to spare our sons that torture), and I appreciate your mentioning Sex at Dawn’s reference to his landmark paper on pleasure and violence. As for Austin Kelley’s comment, I don’t know anything about this really. But even if Dr. Prescott was involved in mid-20th century animal behavioral studies that, in those early ignorant days, mistreated our animal cousins in efforts to get info helpful to humans, he has done a tremendous amount to try to help animals–and humans–live in a more peaceful, loving world. Thank you again for this illuminating article.


  21. Alexa
    08 · 19 · 10 @ 1:19 pm

    Like you, I have pretty much espoused the concept that monogamy was an unnatural construct since I was able to understand sexuality (which for me was in my mid teens – I’ve always been fascinated with the psychology behind sex). So this book was a rather timely adjunct to all of the other theory I’ve come across that has supported it in my mind. And as you’ve said, it is very well researched and documented. The authors did an outstanding job.

    I think, and this is purely anecdotal, that young people today even have some sense of this, without even having read the book. You hear a lot of talk about the “hook up” culture and even though it doesn’t happen as some people like to write about it, there does seem to be a trend toward multiple partners, both across time and within a given span of time. I spend a lot of time providing support in online communities where these subjects are discussed (and have for almost 8 years now), and it is becoming far, far more common than it used to be.

    I’ll be curious to see how this book and the outright articulation of the theory impacts culture over the next few years, especially among those growing into young adulthood. (And I will also admit to enjoying watching the moralists go ape shit when the book and it’s subject matter is discussed! lol)

    Interesting (and comprehensive) take, Dr. Suzy.


  22. Peter Lawrence
    08 · 19 · 10 @ 1:02 pm

    You write ‘Yes indeed, the agricultural revolution involved the domestication of human beings—a farmer’s slaves and hired workers, as well as his “own” children and his “own” wife or wives—right along with his other domesticated animals… With farming, the “family” was born, complete with Father knowing best and Mother being barefoot and preggers, presumably with only Father’s offspring. Before the agricultural revolution, paternity was not an issue… all the men in any given tribe felt more or less the same level of responsibility for and kinship with all the children (also like bonobos and common chimps)… One of Ryan and Jethá’s main points here is that the male obsession with paternity and the female obsession with finding a breadwinner are not innate human sexual nature. They are not as old as humanity. They are a reaction to the modern, post-Neolithic world…The elite practiced polygamy while the majority developed monogamy, in order to “guarantee” paternity… With the Agricultural Revolution, the natural promiscuity of “mixing” lovers was turned into the grave sin of “cheating” or “infidelity,” for which the punishment—especially for women—ranged from ostracism to torture to public execution.’ It may surprise you to learn that such behaviours were present among Australian hunter-gatherers. Women and dogs (already domesticated) were treated as property, and there was an elite of elders with just such privileges in many tribes. In Tasmania, which was isolated before dogs arrived, the aborigines traded women for dogs with the Europeans. While farming had many consequences, these social conditions were not among them.


  23. Jane Mc
    08 · 19 · 10 @ 12:39 pm

    LOVE these theories and all the fascinating factoids. Didn’t think there was much on the best-seller list worth reading these days, but I guess I’m going to have to pony up for Sex at Dawn.


  24. Bob Magill
    08 · 19 · 10 @ 12:25 pm

    Great piece, but my take on the role of agriculture in history is a little different, thus:
    …”It all started after the last ice age. The hunters hunted and the gatherers gathered. Then the gatherers became diggers and, eureka!, agriculture. This was the real deal: civilization. Not the hobby-shop, toy and gadget world the now underemployed hunter bunch dreamed up. No this was what made it all happen. Full bellies and some leisure time courtesy of the femmes. But the gals let their lead slip away and the hobby-shop became the world….
    Not this time. Oh, no. With the coming ice age the ladies will not let it happen again.”…
    From ‘Our Future, if there is one, is Female’.


  25. Austin Kelley
    08 · 19 · 10 @ 12:13 pm

    I’m surprised to see you promoting James Prescott. My reading of his CV tells me that he was a relatively early member of the military/intel behavioral science community currently manifesting as the Guantanamo docs, and that sort of thing. Just as things were getting exposed in the mid-70’s, he was making himself over from an animal torturer into a humanistic type, not unlike Marty Seligman.
    My two cents,
    P.S. I did like your article- thanks!


  26. Alan
    08 · 19 · 10 @ 10:57 am

    Excellent summary of the book! I’ll recommend this for people who don’t have time to read the whole thing.

    About the book’s implications for polyamory? I’ve said this about that:


    Sex at Dawn and the future of the polyamory movement

    …Despite its fast, breezy style, the book provides a massive scientific underpinning to what we polys have been saying for years. It blows away the conventional wisdom that multiple relationships are unnatural or cannot fit with jealous human nature. In fact, it reverses the human-nature argument 180 degrees. No future discussion of the anthropology of sex will be able to ignore this work.

    Why does it matter so much to us?

    For most of the polyamory movement’s 30-year history, advocates who have sought to give poly a theoretical foundation have generally turned to New Age or spiritual philosophies, involving things like the limitless nature of love, the spiritual heart of the universe, and other concepts that I find fairy-taley and unproductive. By unproductive I mean that theories built on them never seem to lead anywhere predictive or useful, as a good theory must.

    Ryan and Jethá have now given us a theoretical underpinning that is concrete, scientific, and evidence-based. They show that polyamory matches what human nature actually evolved to be. Seen in this light, the modern, ethical, egalitarian version of poly offers a path to a saner future — in which humans are not so perpetually conflicted with themselves, and are less driven by the insatiable needs and neuroses that in many ways are causing us to ruin the world.

    Yes, it’s an important book….


    Read the rest at


  27. Sophia Tee
    08 · 18 · 10 @ 9:29 pm

    OMG this blog is sooo deep. It totally explains why I can’t keep a BF for more than two years. Or maybe its more like they can’t keep me. I have to get this book but I can’t wait til it comes out in paperback so I can get a bunch to give my current and future boyfriends…and husbands?


  28. Dr. Grace Gniazdowska
    08 · 18 · 10 @ 6:32 pm

    Excellent piece Dr. It goes against practically every Western Moral value, yet makes perfect sense. I need to get a copy of this book for myself.


  29. JuxLii
    08 · 18 · 10 @ 12:04 pm

    I love this piece. The interview definitely fascinated me (though on saturdays I tend to be a bit distracted by things visual, what with the camera and all), but this blog really spoke to me and left me wanting to dig deeper. I’ll be reading the book.


  30. Rob in Chicago Area
    08 · 18 · 10 @ 12:44 am

    I’ve always liked that word PROMISCUOUS. When people in my high school would call a girl promiscuous, it always turned me on. Now it all makes sense!


  31. marlena
    08 · 18 · 10 @ 12:31 am

    wow, I thought farmers were our friends. But this explains why all my married friends are so booooored.


  32. Charles Wainright
    08 · 17 · 10 @ 9:29 pm

    Hi Dr. Suzy,
    Once again another great revelation. Who knew! I’ve been trying to suppress these instincts ever since my parents made me go to Sunday mass. I feel so much better to know that I’m actually normal. The authors ought to just be made into saints for saving so many souls. By the way I just got the book so I’m sure I will finally find the inner pervert in me and be liberated from my cultural and religious oppressions. Thank you Dr. Suzy, Cacilda & Chris, thank you so much.
    Malibu, California


Join the Conversation



Call Us Anytime. We're Always Here For You.

View Our Stats

1996- 2024 Village Holdings, Inc. / Dr. Susan Block Show, All rights reserved.