- October 4, 2012
- Posted by: admin
- Category: Marriage and Divorce


Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
The Great Blackdragon Debate: Are Open Marriages and Polyamory Good or Bad For Society? Part Two
<<Previous Article
« Using The Term “Girlfriend” or “Boyfriend”Next Article >>
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Comments
-
Blimy 2012-10-04 10:00:04
Damn Soul you have one out-dated argument. Attacking someone who agrees with you for the most part. Arguing B.D.'s beliefs would some how make this country worse if accepted on a large scale. You're really reaching. If anything those out-dated beliefs you're clinging to (and so many others are) are making this country immature and incapable of growth and change (and admitting when we're wrong). What B.D. pushes most is brutal honesty about what we want...wow man just wow. Narrow view. You're so worried about the children; with a divorce rate in the 60%'s and climbing what do you think they're already exposed to? How much lying and negativity is in their faces everyday? Actually don't want a reply: BD I love your blog but this one...seemed like arguing for arguments sake. I know that's not your point but it just got a little ugly, drawn out and honestly was a bit of a turn off. I can't speak for the rest of your readers but I'd rather read about the ideas you'd like to share, your humorous views, guidelines of life you use that might help others and projects you're working on; even'ts etc. More constructive things basically. But hey if you want to keep doing these that's your call-I/we can't dig 100% of your work...that just might be creepy.
-
Blimy 2012-10-04 10:08:56
Though I've probably been around to many arguments lately (I know there's a difference between arguments and debates) so I'm a little biased right now (coming to a place I go to for sanity). Not harping on anyone who digs the debate.
-
Anonymouse 2012-10-04 10:53:03
I think BD lost this one, and his list of "three options" in the final statement shows why - most of his arguments throughout the debate read like they were against option 1, when that wasn't what Soul was arguing for. I may need to reread the whole thing for clarity, but my first impression was that BD was debating a straw man.
-
Jack 2012-10-04 10:53:44
BD, about Plato wanting to outlaw laughter: Um, yeah, and Harry Browne wanted you to give up your children for adoption if they piss you off. And Ayn Rand admired a murderer. What's your point?
-
Soul 2012-10-04 12:02:55
@Blimy, sorry you don't like my warped sense of humor. @Anonymouse, there's some truth to your perception that I was playing the part of a straw man in this debate. At times, I came across sounding like I'm supporting a return to the sexual repression of the past, and that's not representative of my true beliefs. I'm afraid we may see a renewal of tyranny, but I'm not welcoming it. But on the other hand, if we're going to have all this sexual freedom, we need to have a discussion about how to use it wisely. Freedom doesn't necessarily mean license to do whatever you want. BD summarizes the debate in terms of three options for society; which actually wasn't the way the topic was defined! But for clarity's sake, what I'd argue for is an Option 4: 4. A society in which free individuals who have a preference for monogamy, also recognize the need for caution and restraint around sexual activity outside of committed monogamous relationships. While individuals who prefer non-monogamy, need to pursue their preference openly and courageously, and also with a concern the consequences for the children involved.
-
Anonymouse 2012-10-04 12:35:27
Like I said, I think BD was propping up a straw man against the status quo instead of debating your culturally conservative position. But I think you left out a very important point, raised by Kay Hymowitz (Manning Up), Hanna Rosin (The End of Men) and Roissy (the entire argument of his blog). It's that as women have advanced their position in society, men have become less ambitious and more content with staying home and playing video games than ever before. Hymowitz and Roissy, in particular, trace the current "manchild crisis" to a lack of sexual options for most (i.e. beta) men. Think of it as the Pareto Principle applied to the alpha/beta dichotomy. "If 20% of the men are fucking 80% of the women, then this is what happens to the remaining 80% of men" - or so the argument goes. If Roissy et. al's assertions are correct, then it's not hard to see how BD's position would only exacerbate the current problem. This concept strikes me as so vital to the position you were taking that I think you lose major points for not bringing it up.
-
Alejandro 2012-10-04 13:00:27
The comment about women having to sacrifice their sexual freedoom for the good of society struck me as really sexist. Maybe Soul would prefer something like saudi arabia or any other muslim country where women are treated as second class citizens. I liked the debate but I have to say that Souls point was never very clear to me. It seemed to me from the way the debate was formulated the he was supoussed to be arguing for monogamy and against non-monogmy as an acceptable practice in society, but then he started complaining that people were too promiscuous, that women have too much sexual freedom, that people in general are way too fucking shellfish and that alpha males are going to go extinct because Blackdragon told them to always use condoms (seriously, wtf???), etc. While Blackdragon was always pretty focused and right to the point, Soul was all over the place here. Even now that he formulated what he argued for (option 4 above), I fail to see how it is clearly incompatible with blackdragons option. Why cant people go for non-monogamous relationships AND recognize the need for caution around sexual activity AND be concerned about the conseuences for the children??? Its another complain I would make about Souls argument: During the whole debate, he strongly implies "non-monogamy = irresponsible, promiscuous behaviour" Which is just a common misconception about non-monogamy. Just because you are not monogamous doesnt mean you are having sex with 20 other people at the same time.
-
Blackdragon 2012-10-04 13:47:24
@Blimy – I think your complaint was caused by the fact that both Soul and I were too long-winded. If I do this again on the blog I’ll ensure that doesn't repeat. @Anonymouse – The issue of some men getting more sex than other men isn't in question. We all already know this. The problem is you (and Soul) are advocating the same thing for sex as socialists advocate for money; that because some people get more than others, society should crack down on personal freedoms and FORCE people to be more “equal” (i.e. miserable). I don’t believe in that kind of use of force, but if you think that would make for a better society, we’ll have to agree to disagree. @Jack – Apples to oranges my friend. Plato was chock-full of psychotic ideas like that, pages and pages of them (communism being fantastic, no man should know who his child is, no one can know who is biological parents are, etc, etc). These weren't occasional rare statements like in the case of Rand or Browne or anyone else I agree with. Go read Plato’s Republic sometime. It’s scarier than any Steven King novel. @Soul – Your “item four” sounds fine to me.
-
Jack 2012-10-04 15:21:04
My counter-argument to Soul: 1. You say that most men want to marry virgins and don't want women pining away for past alphas. First of all, how old are you? Or rather, how old are the people whose company you keep? The virgin fetish is dead and buried, my friend. Such prudery has been on its way out for quite some time. Personally, if she's not experienced, I want nothing to do with her. To quote Dennis Miller regarding Muslim terrorists receiving 72 virgins in heaven: "By the time you get to the 31st virgin, you're just dying for a pro - someone who knows when and when not to use her teeth." Second of all, would you say that women want their husbands to be virgins as well, instead of pining away for some girl they banged in high school? Characteristically male needy jealousy/insecurity/weakness is not something you should build a society around. 2. Your arguments against polyamory are rather communist, as BD pointed out. Just because some men get more than others doesn't mean the government should take away from the "sex creators" and give to the losers. This kills incentive. Punishing people for their success in order to share the wealth is a repugnant philosophy. You're talking about "sexual rationing." Just so every boy can have a girl, everyone is permitted only one. Sex must be rationed so the obese betas don't get sad. Oh please! Don't hate the sex creators. They perform a valuable function - they put women in a good mood, and trust me, you don't want a bunch of sexually frustrated bitches! If there's anything worse than a male AFC, it's a female AFC. Male AFCs will simply play their video games and masturbate while using their tears as lubricant. Female AFCs will march in the streets screaming "all sex is rape!" and "castrate male pigs!" Plus, if you work hard, apply yourself, hit the gym, and learn game, you too can be a sex creator and give back to the community. But the government shouldn't do it for you, or hand out free pussy at the courthouse (marriage certificates) on the condition that you get only one so others avoid sexual stravation. Let's not let socialism and rationing "for the good of equality" cloud our rationality. Communism seriously needs to die. 3. You keep going on about how women used to obey their husbands and give up their sexual freedom on their wedding nights. I don't understand how this promotes stable families. You say that in Roman times the ancients allowed men to go to prostitutes while the women had to remain pure. Why are you emphasizing female "purity?" Why are the consequences for female promiscuity worse than male promiscuity? And please, don't say it's because women get pregnant. That's irrelevent. If a married woman sleeps with another man, she may get pregnant. If a married man sleeps with another woman (like a prostitute), he may get her pregnant. Thus pregnancy is an equal risk for promiscuous men as it is for promiscuous women. So why are you emphasizing female obediance and female purity? Once again, you are implcitly referencing the territorial needs of insecure male pussies, on behalf of whom you seem to be speaking. I've never understood this double standard. A woman having lots of sex is no worse than a man doing it. Your emphasis on restraining the woman is both sexist and troubling, as it caters to needy/territorial alphas (the tyrants). 4. For some reason, you say that OLTRs are broken homes and children need a stable environment. Why are OLTRs broken and define "stable." As BD implied, there are three options - A. Forced monogamy (misery), which isn't very stable since I believe that happiness is a necessary prerequisite for a loving home. B. Monogous and cheating, which leads to real hatred and broken homes. C. Open/poly which leads to some jealousy but a much happier and less territorial familial environment. If anything, I'd say that OLTRs are the most stable environments for raising productive children. Why would it be more stable to raise them in a hateful cheating environment or a totalitarian dictatorship of sexual socialism which gives the kids severe hangups about their own sexuality as they grow up? Also, lest I forget, in an OLTR, the woman must be constantly sweet because their are no safety nets and no financial communism in the relationship. The absence of sexual socialism, which allows both of them to freely sleep around can be defined as sexual competition, which creates incentive for love, peace, and harmony. 5. You say that people can't be trusted because they aren't as intelligent as BD and, as we can see today, are degenerating into sexual ararchy. Yes, every new idea takes time to refine. Passing through a stage of anarchy is inevitable. The reason we have sexual anarchy now is that people aren't being taught coherent values, due to conflicting beliefs thanks to fighting among the elites. Pat Roberston, for example, ridiculously believes that taking prayer out of the schools is causing school shootings and is the reason civilization is going to hell, as we are the leading nation in social pathology. Whereas, in the 50s, we were the leading nation in mental health. And yet, much more atheistic and sexually liberal countries than ours (particularly European) have no school shootings and hardly any of these types of social pathologies. And yet, America is still the most religious nation in the west. The cause of sexual anarchy is not polyamory or monogamy - it is a lack of uniform cultural values and a bitter hatred between competing elites which leads to everyone being taught nothing, thus facilitating sexual anarchy and irresponsibility so that people like you can say "I told you so." 6. What do you mean when you say "we may see a renewal of tyranny?" I think society is precisely heading in the opposite direction, particularly when it comes to sex.
-
Soul 2012-10-04 23:18:00
@anonymouse, I agree that the "manchild crisis" should've been mentioned, but I see it as an effect of the sexual crisis, rather than a primary cause. @Alejandro, @BD & @Jack (point 2): There are lots of avenues that can be used by free people to accomplish socially desirable objectives. We are an important part of society right here, having this discussion about sexual ethics. The internet & social media have a great & growing influence. Schools, churches, and corporations are also highly influential. If we work through those channels, perhaps there won't need to be some sort of reversion to the repressive government policies of the past. Effective social policies always rely on the consent of the people and on the inherent legitimacy of the policies. We don't need to have cops continually gunning people down in the street, to persuade them to stop at red lights. But on the other hand, even most libertarians agree that the government does have a legitimate obligation to use force when necessary -- for example, to enforce private contracts. I would support a more equitable default marriage contract, as well as more comprehensive government enforcement of pre-nups; I assume you would too. @Jack, I'm at risk of getting too wordy again, but in answer to your questions & objections, by number: 1. I'm 56 and I met my wife 35 years ago, when she was 19. She had come straight to college from a Catholic girls' high school, and she tells me that I was the first guy who ever kissed her, or took her on a date in a car. Even for that time, her level of sexual inexperience was so unusual that I found it unnerving. But in retrospect it was really very sweet, and I think it's one of the reasons why we've been able to stay together since then. 2. Beta males aren't the only losers under the modern sexual regime. Women (for the most part) don't seem to be very satisfied with polygamy, casual polygyny, or rapid-fire serial monogamy either. If we can fix this problem, everybody benefits. 3. If there's any single truth at the core of the seduction literature, it's that gender differences are real and pervasive. Men are generally better suited for leadership roles. Any good leader knows that it's best to obtain the consent of the governed! But if it comes down to a battle over who is at the helm, a ship is more stable if there's only one captain. The traditional marriage vows honored this basic psychological & logical principle. The sexual double standard is also rooted in biology & psychology -- although logically speaking, if women are having a lot less sex outside of committed relationships, it follows that "alpha males" will need to work harder to find multiple sex partners, and endure more social disapproval as well. 4. BD agreed that OLTR's are not stable and seldom last more than ~five to seven years, so we didn't debate much on that point. But in reality, there's very little hard evidence because so few people do OLTR, and there's apparently not much research funding available to do studies. I also agree that when OLTR's fail, the consequences are less traumatic. Considering the realities of the current situation, I would actually recommend that young men & women enter into OLTR agreements rather than conventional modern marriages. So I agree with BD about that as well. All I'm saying is, if I were a young man who created an OLTR, and there were children involved -- I would think twice, and then think again, before I'd provoke my wife by taking the radical step of actually using my freedom to sleep with another woman. I wouldn't just do it casually because I'm horny. 5. I think your argument here is very perceptive. If you look at the competing elite viewpoints, on the one hand you have religious fanatic traditionalists like Robertson, and on the other hand you have the radical feminists & free sex advocates. It's a phony dialectic that leaves everyone confused. 6. For now the trend is exactly as you say, but I see a crisis coming, because of the many growing tensions & unresolved contradictions. The crisis could be monetary, ecological or social. All too often, historically speaking, the result of a breakdown of social order is the rise of a strongman (as Plato first discussed.) The groundwork has already been laid: look at the Patriot Act, look at NDAA, look at the Homeland Security detention camps.
-
lifeofalovergirl 2012-10-05 07:10:01
Regardless of what you think would be "best for society" (lets be clear, your plan is for it only to best for the men, Soul). How the hell do you propose going back to the days of female oppression and temple prostitutes? Stone women to death when they sleep with someone outside of marriage?
-
Oxyjinn 2012-10-05 08:02:50
A little warning up front. I might get a little rude along the way... @Soul & BD Hell of a debate and I have to give it up to both of you for nailing down some good points along the way. On the contrary, at the end of the day, none of you deserves to win, because it's all just hypothetical. Soul argues what disasters would happen if (we had non-monogamy officialy established) and BD argues how fantastic it would be if. If if if... Who knows??? In my opinion this whole debate about more benefitial for the society or not is just useless. Why? Well, is the mejority of mankind stupid? Without a doubt. Will there be always someone trying to profit from this and try to gain controll? Of course. OMG, but what can we do than to come out in life as winners and be happy? Pretty easy. Use your brain!!! Anyway, my opinions are very much like Jacks. I hate a totalitarian system with passion (we used to have one here). A system which tells you, that you can only step out with your left foot otside the door or you get penalised? Or when you work hard as fu.k and the lazy bastard next door is having your life because the government says so? I mean com'on here Soul. Till the end of time? Free pussy for everyone? Realy? The only restrictions I agree with are those actualy protecting the life and the individual. Nice, ha? @Jack The shootings in the US happen simply because it's much easier to get a gun over there (I'm from EU).
-
Oxyjinn 2012-10-05 08:11:30
Edit: The debate was not useless. It made me think even more... 🙂
-
Soul 2012-10-05 10:42:44
@lovergirl, re alternatives to stoning as an enforcement mechanism, see my reply to Alejandro, BD & Jack above. The Wikipedia article on ancient Roman prostitution makes for interesting reading. In addition to religious ritual prostitutes, a wide variety of other situations existed -- anywhere from enslaved street-walkers who were forced to turn their entire incomes over to their pimps or priests, to high-priced and highly educated free women who sold their exotic services to the imperial court. In many ways this was not so different from what exists today, at least for a man who is willing to travel, or isn't concerned about spottily enforced anti-prostitution laws. Should prostitution be entirely de-criminalized in the USA? Could be another interesting topic for debate. @oxyjinn, Yes, the topic we chose is entirely hypothetical. None of us can predict the future; and even after the fall of great civilizations, historians are left debating over the causes of the collapse. In my view, open-ended topics like this are the most interesting to discuss, precisely because no one can really win. Thanks for taking the time to read about what we're thinking here.
-
lifeofalovergirl 2012-10-05 12:29:32
So the women that want extra sex, are there going to be male prostitutes for them?
-
lifeofalovergirl 2012-10-05 12:44:06
I'm being totally real here because women have sexual needs too and most aren't going to be satisfied with lazy husbands who fuck them for 5 minutes then roll over and go to sleep. So if you are going to, in this day and age, legalize and promote prostitution for men whilst trying to hang onto "monogamy' (its not if the guys are fucking around) then you would have to have a fair alternative for women. So the guy prostitutes would probably be extra good in bed from sleeping around so much and maybe the women would like them (or even fantasize about them vs their husbands but who cares they are "monagamous" per your definition that includes prostitution). Perhaps in the days of old women were happy to be clueless about things like orgasms but I highly doubt it. I'm sure there was a lot more sneaking around just women were exceptionally good at it and didn't get caught as frequently. My almost 83 yr old grandma had an affair with the milkman and it was the scandal about town but thats not what caused her to get a divorce. So it was happening back in the days of your "idealized" world too.
-
Soul 2012-10-05 14:57:32
@lovergirl, the Roman system was not really what I would call "monogamy", it was more of a patriarchal double-standard system. One obvious problem was that the supply of prostitutes was maintained through slavery. That led to pressures for continuous military victories to keep the slaves coming in. It was not what we would consider a just system, nor was it sustainable once the supply lines for military adventures got too long. But apparently it was effective in terms of holding families together long enough to raise children. That's all I'm saying. If you take it as a premise that freedom is a key value (as everyone here does) then what do you say about prostitution? I don't see any defensible reason it shouldn't be legalized, just like any other form of consensual sexual activity. But if a man wants to maintain a good loving relationship with his wife, is it a good idea for him to spend time and fortune on prostitutes? Perhaps if his wife is trying to get the upper hand in the relationship by denying sex, it could be a viable response. But in general, I'd recommend against it. About women wanting male prostitutes, I just don't see much demand for it. Do you know of any women who want to pay for a better sex partner, LG, or is this just a rhetorical device? Whereas female prostitutes seem to be very much desired in the modern world, judging from the high prices demanded. A reasonably attractive woman with a friendly personality can not only choose to live a sexually polyamorous lifestyle any time she wants, but she can also make a very good living doing it.
-
Mnae on 2018-12-13 08:05:15
Soul wrote about "fathers, brothers, uncles" chasing away "seducers" . Chasing away from what, you ask? From their property, obviously. This kind of thinking justifies even the most awful feminism.
Soul wrote about “fathers, brothers, uncles” chasing away “seducers” .
Chasing away from what, you ask? From their property, obviously.
This kind of thinking justifies even the most awful feminism.
@lovergirl, the Roman system was not really what I would call “monogamy”, it was more of a patriarchal double-standard system. One obvious problem was that the supply of prostitutes was maintained through slavery. That led to pressures for continuous military victories to keep the slaves coming in. It was not what we would consider a just system, nor was it sustainable once the supply lines for military adventures got too long. But apparently it was effective in terms of holding families together long enough to raise children. That’s all I’m saying.
If you take it as a premise that freedom is a key value (as everyone here does) then what do you say about prostitution? I don’t see any defensible reason it shouldn’t be legalized, just like any other form of consensual sexual activity.
But if a man wants to maintain a good loving relationship with his wife, is it a good idea for him to spend time and fortune on prostitutes? Perhaps if his wife is trying to get the upper hand in the relationship by denying sex, it could be a viable response. But in general, I’d recommend against it.
About women wanting male prostitutes, I just don’t see much demand for it. Do you know of any women who want to pay for a better sex partner, LG, or is this just a rhetorical device? Whereas female prostitutes seem to be very much desired in the modern world, judging from the high prices demanded. A reasonably attractive woman with a friendly personality can not only choose to live a sexually polyamorous lifestyle any time she wants, but she can also make a very good living doing it.
I’m being totally real here because women have sexual needs too and most aren’t going to be satisfied with lazy husbands who fuck them for 5 minutes then roll over and go to sleep. So if you are going to, in this day and age, legalize and promote prostitution for men whilst trying to hang onto “monogamy’ (its not if the guys are fucking around) then you would have to have a fair alternative for women. So the guy prostitutes would probably be extra good in bed from sleeping around so much and maybe the women would like them (or even fantasize about them vs their husbands but who cares they are “monagamous” per your definition that includes prostitution).
Perhaps in the days of old women were happy to be clueless about things like orgasms but I highly doubt it. I’m sure there was a lot more sneaking around just women were exceptionally good at it and didn’t get caught as frequently. My almost 83 yr old grandma had an affair with the milkman and it was the scandal about town but thats not what caused her to get a divorce. So it was happening back in the days of your “idealized” world too.
So the women that want extra sex, are there going to be male prostitutes for them?
@lovergirl, re alternatives to stoning as an enforcement mechanism, see my reply to Alejandro, BD & Jack above.
The Wikipedia article on ancient Roman prostitution makes for interesting reading. In addition to religious ritual prostitutes, a wide variety of other situations existed — anywhere from enslaved street-walkers who were forced to turn their entire incomes over to their pimps or priests, to high-priced and highly educated free women who sold their exotic services to the imperial court. In many ways this was not so different from what exists today, at least for a man who is willing to travel, or isn’t concerned about spottily enforced anti-prostitution laws. Should prostitution be entirely de-criminalized in the USA? Could be another interesting topic for debate.
@oxyjinn, Yes, the topic we chose is entirely hypothetical. None of us can predict the future; and even after the fall of great civilizations, historians are left debating over the causes of the collapse. In my view, open-ended topics like this are the most interesting to discuss, precisely because no one can really win.
Thanks for taking the time to read about what we’re thinking here.
Edit: The debate was not useless. It made me think even more… 🙂
A little warning up front. I might get a little rude along the way…
@Soul & BD
Hell of a debate and I have to give it up to both of you for nailing down some good points along the way.
On the contrary, at the end of the day, none of you deserves to win, because it’s all just hypothetical. Soul argues what disasters would happen if (we had non-monogamy officialy established) and BD argues how fantastic it would be if. If if if… Who knows???
In my opinion this whole debate about more benefitial for the society or not is just useless. Why? Well, is the mejority of mankind stupid? Without a doubt. Will there be always someone trying to profit from this and try to gain controll? Of course. OMG, but what can we do than to come out in life as winners and be happy? Pretty easy. Use your brain!!!
Anyway, my opinions are very much like Jacks. I hate a totalitarian system with passion (we used to have one here). A system which tells you, that you can only step out with your left foot otside the door or you get penalised? Or when you work hard as fu.k and the lazy bastard next door is having your life because the government says so? I mean com’on here Soul. Till the end of time? Free pussy for everyone? Realy?
The only restrictions I agree with are those actualy protecting the life and the individual. Nice, ha?
@Jack The shootings in the US happen simply because it’s much easier to get a gun over there (I’m from EU).
Regardless of what you think would be “best for society” (lets be clear, your plan is for it only to best for the men, Soul). How the hell do you propose going back to the days of female oppression and temple prostitutes? Stone women to death when they sleep with someone outside of marriage?
@anonymouse, I agree that the “manchild crisis” should’ve been mentioned, but I see it as an effect of the sexual crisis, rather than a primary cause.
@Alejandro, @BD & @Jack (point 2): There are lots of avenues that can be used by free people to accomplish socially desirable objectives. We are an important part of society right here, having this discussion about sexual ethics. The internet & social media have a great & growing influence. Schools, churches, and corporations are also highly influential. If we work through those channels, perhaps there won’t need to be some sort of reversion to the repressive government policies of the past.
Effective social policies always rely on the consent of the people and on the inherent legitimacy of the policies. We don’t need to have cops continually gunning people down in the street, to persuade them to stop at red lights. But on the other hand, even most libertarians agree that the government does have a legitimate obligation to use force when necessary — for example, to enforce private contracts. I would support a more equitable default marriage contract, as well as more comprehensive government enforcement of pre-nups; I assume you would too.
@Jack, I’m at risk of getting too wordy again, but in answer to your questions & objections, by number:
1. I’m 56 and I met my wife 35 years ago, when she was 19. She had come straight to college from a Catholic girls’ high school, and she tells me that I was the first guy who ever kissed her, or took her on a date in a car. Even for that time, her level of sexual inexperience was so unusual that I found it unnerving. But in retrospect it was really very sweet, and I think it’s one of the reasons why we’ve been able to stay together since then.
2. Beta males aren’t the only losers under the modern sexual regime. Women (for the most part) don’t seem to be very satisfied with polygamy, casual polygyny, or rapid-fire serial monogamy either. If we can fix this problem, everybody benefits.
3. If there’s any single truth at the core of the seduction literature, it’s that gender differences are real and pervasive. Men are generally better suited for leadership roles. Any good leader knows that it’s best to obtain the consent of the governed! But if it comes down to a battle over who is at the helm, a ship is more stable if there’s only one captain. The traditional marriage vows honored this basic psychological & logical principle. The sexual double standard is also rooted in biology & psychology — although logically speaking, if women are having a lot less sex outside of committed relationships, it follows that “alpha males” will need to work harder to find multiple sex partners, and endure more social disapproval as well.
4. BD agreed that OLTR’s are not stable and seldom last more than ~five to seven years, so we didn’t debate much on that point. But in reality, there’s very little hard evidence because so few people do OLTR, and there’s apparently not much research funding available to do studies. I also agree that when OLTR’s fail, the consequences are less traumatic.
Considering the realities of the current situation, I would actually recommend that young men & women enter into OLTR agreements rather than conventional modern marriages. So I agree with BD about that as well. All I’m saying is, if I were a young man who created an OLTR, and there were children involved — I would think twice, and then think again, before I’d provoke my wife by taking the radical step of actually using my freedom to sleep with another woman. I wouldn’t just do it casually because I’m horny.
5. I think your argument here is very perceptive. If you look at the competing elite viewpoints, on the one hand you have religious fanatic traditionalists like Robertson, and on the other hand you have the radical feminists & free sex advocates. It’s a phony dialectic that leaves everyone confused.
6. For now the trend is exactly as you say, but I see a crisis coming, because of the many growing tensions & unresolved contradictions. The crisis could be monetary, ecological or social. All too often, historically speaking, the result of a breakdown of social order is the rise of a strongman (as Plato first discussed.) The groundwork has already been laid: look at the Patriot Act, look at NDAA, look at the Homeland Security detention camps.
My counter-argument to Soul:
1. You say that most men want to marry virgins and don’t want women pining away for past alphas. First of all, how old are you? Or rather, how old are the people whose company you keep? The virgin fetish is dead and buried, my friend. Such prudery has been on its way out for quite some time. Personally, if she’s not experienced, I want nothing to do with her. To quote Dennis Miller regarding Muslim terrorists receiving 72 virgins in heaven: “By the time you get to the 31st virgin, you’re just dying for a pro – someone who knows when and when not to use her teeth.” Second of all, would you say that women want their husbands to be virgins as well, instead of pining away for some girl they banged in high school? Characteristically male needy jealousy/insecurity/weakness is not something you should build a society around.
2. Your arguments against polyamory are rather communist, as BD pointed out. Just because some men get more than others doesn’t mean the government should take away from the “sex creators” and give to the losers. This kills incentive. Punishing people for their success in order to share the wealth is a repugnant philosophy. You’re talking about “sexual rationing.” Just so every boy can have a girl, everyone is permitted only one. Sex must be rationed so the obese betas don’t get sad. Oh please! Don’t hate the sex creators. They perform a valuable function – they put women in a good mood, and trust me, you don’t want a bunch of sexually frustrated bitches! If there’s anything worse than a male AFC, it’s a female AFC. Male AFCs will simply play their video games and masturbate while using their tears as lubricant. Female AFCs will march in the streets screaming “all sex is rape!” and “castrate male pigs!” Plus, if you work hard, apply yourself, hit the gym, and learn game, you too can be a sex creator and give back to the community. But the government shouldn’t do it for you, or hand out free pussy at the courthouse (marriage certificates) on the condition that you get only one so others avoid sexual stravation. Let’s not let socialism and rationing “for the good of equality” cloud our rationality. Communism seriously needs to die.
3. You keep going on about how women used to obey their husbands and give up their sexual freedom on their wedding nights. I don’t understand how this promotes stable families. You say that in Roman times the ancients allowed men to go to prostitutes while the women had to remain pure. Why are you emphasizing female “purity?” Why are the consequences for female promiscuity worse than male promiscuity? And please, don’t say it’s because women get pregnant. That’s irrelevent. If a married woman sleeps with another man, she may get pregnant. If a married man sleeps with another woman (like a prostitute), he may get her pregnant. Thus pregnancy is an equal risk for promiscuous men as it is for promiscuous women. So why are you emphasizing female obediance and female purity? Once again, you are implcitly referencing the territorial needs of insecure male pussies, on behalf of whom you seem to be speaking. I’ve never understood this double standard. A woman having lots of sex is no worse than a man doing it. Your emphasis on restraining the woman is both sexist and troubling, as it caters to needy/territorial alphas (the tyrants).
4. For some reason, you say that OLTRs are broken homes and children need a stable environment. Why are OLTRs broken and define “stable.” As BD implied, there are three options – A. Forced monogamy (misery), which isn’t very stable since I believe that happiness is a necessary prerequisite for a loving home. B. Monogous and cheating, which leads to real hatred and broken homes. C. Open/poly which leads to some jealousy but a much happier and less territorial familial environment. If anything, I’d say that OLTRs are the most stable environments for raising productive children. Why would it be more stable to raise them in a hateful cheating environment or a totalitarian dictatorship of sexual socialism which gives the kids severe hangups about their own sexuality as they grow up? Also, lest I forget, in an OLTR, the woman must be constantly sweet because their are no safety nets and no financial communism in the relationship. The absence of sexual socialism, which allows both of them to freely sleep around can be defined as sexual competition, which creates incentive for love, peace, and harmony.
5. You say that people can’t be trusted because they aren’t as intelligent as BD and, as we can see today, are degenerating into sexual ararchy. Yes, every new idea takes time to refine. Passing through a stage of anarchy is inevitable. The reason we have sexual anarchy now is that people aren’t being taught coherent values, due to conflicting beliefs thanks to fighting among the elites. Pat Roberston, for example, ridiculously believes that taking prayer out of the schools is causing school shootings and is the reason civilization is going to hell, as we are the leading nation in social pathology. Whereas, in the 50s, we were the leading nation in mental health. And yet, much more atheistic and sexually liberal countries than ours (particularly European) have no school shootings and hardly any of these types of social pathologies. And yet, America is still the most religious nation in the west. The cause of sexual anarchy is not polyamory or monogamy – it is a lack of uniform cultural values and a bitter hatred between competing elites which leads to everyone being taught nothing, thus facilitating sexual anarchy and irresponsibility so that people like you can say “I told you so.”
6. What do you mean when you say “we may see a renewal of tyranny?” I think society is precisely heading in the opposite direction, particularly when it comes to sex.
The comment about women having to sacrifice their sexual freedoom for the good of society struck me as really sexist. Maybe Soul would prefer something like saudi arabia or any other muslim country where women are treated as second class citizens.
I liked the debate but I have to say that Souls point was never very clear to me. It seemed to me from the way the debate was formulated the he was supoussed to be arguing for monogamy and against non-monogmy as an acceptable practice in society, but then he started complaining that people were too promiscuous, that women have too much sexual freedom, that people in general are way too fucking shellfish and that alpha males are going to go extinct because Blackdragon told them to always use condoms (seriously, wtf???), etc. While Blackdragon was always pretty focused and right to the point, Soul was all over the place here.
Even now that he formulated what he argued for (option 4 above), I fail to see how it is clearly incompatible with blackdragons option. Why cant people go for non-monogamous relationships AND recognize the need for caution around sexual activity AND be concerned about the conseuences for the children??? Its another complain I would make about Souls argument: During the whole debate, he strongly implies “non-monogamy = irresponsible, promiscuous behaviour” Which is just a common misconception about non-monogamy. Just because you are not monogamous doesnt mean you are having sex with 20 other people at the same time.
@Blimy – I think your complaint was caused by the fact that both Soul and I were too long-winded. If I do this again on the blog I’ll ensure that doesn’t repeat.
@Anonymouse – The issue of some men getting more sex than other men isn’t in question. We all already know this. The problem is you (and Soul) are advocating the same thing for sex as socialists advocate for money; that because some people get more than others, society should crack down on personal freedoms and FORCE people to be more “equal” (i.e. miserable). I don’t believe in that kind of use of force, but if you think that would make for a better society, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
@Jack – Apples to oranges my friend. Plato was chock-full of psychotic ideas like that, pages and pages of them (communism being fantastic, no man should know who his child is, no one can know who is biological parents are, etc, etc). These weren’t occasional rare statements like in the case of Rand or Browne or anyone else I agree with. Go read Plato’s Republic sometime. It’s scarier than any Steven King novel.
@Soul – Your “item four” sounds fine to me.
Like I said, I think BD was propping up a straw man against the status quo instead of debating your culturally conservative position. But I think you left out a very important point, raised by Kay Hymowitz (Manning Up), Hanna Rosin (The End of Men) and Roissy (the entire argument of his blog). It’s that as women have advanced their position in society, men have become less ambitious and more content with staying home and playing video games than ever before. Hymowitz and Roissy, in particular, trace the current “manchild crisis” to a lack of sexual options for most (i.e. beta) men. Think of it as the Pareto Principle applied to the alpha/beta dichotomy. “If 20% of the men are fucking 80% of the women, then this is what happens to the remaining 80% of men” – or so the argument goes.
If Roissy et. al’s assertions are correct, then it’s not hard to see how BD’s position would only exacerbate the current problem. This concept strikes me as so vital to the position you were taking that I think you lose major points for not bringing it up.
@Blimy, sorry you don’t like my warped sense of humor.
@Anonymouse, there’s some truth to your perception that I was playing the part of a straw man in this debate. At times, I came across sounding like I’m supporting a return to the sexual repression of the past, and that’s not representative of my true beliefs. I’m afraid we may see a renewal of tyranny, but I’m not welcoming it.
But on the other hand, if we’re going to have all this sexual freedom, we need to have a discussion about how to use it wisely. Freedom doesn’t necessarily mean license to do whatever you want.
BD summarizes the debate in terms of three options for society; which actually wasn’t the way the topic was defined! But for clarity’s sake, what I’d argue for is an Option 4:
4. A society in which free individuals who have a preference for monogamy, also recognize the need for caution and restraint around sexual activity outside of committed monogamous relationships. While individuals who prefer non-monogamy, need to pursue their preference openly and courageously, and also with a concern the consequences for the children involved.
BD, about Plato wanting to outlaw laughter: Um, yeah, and Harry Browne wanted you to give up your children for adoption if they piss you off. And Ayn Rand admired a murderer. What’s your point?
I think BD lost this one, and his list of “three options” in the final statement shows why – most of his arguments throughout the debate read like they were against option 1, when that wasn’t what Soul was arguing for.
I may need to reread the whole thing for clarity, but my first impression was that BD was debating a straw man.
Though I’ve probably been around to many arguments lately (I know there’s a difference between arguments and debates) so I’m a little biased right now (coming to a place I go to for sanity). Not harping on anyone who digs the debate.
Damn Soul you have one out-dated argument. Attacking someone who agrees with you for the most part. Arguing B.D.’s beliefs would some how make this country worse if accepted on a large scale. You’re really reaching. If anything those out-dated beliefs you’re clinging to (and so many others are) are making this country immature and incapable of growth and change (and admitting when we’re wrong). What B.D. pushes most is brutal honesty about what we want…wow man just wow. Narrow view.
You’re so worried about the children; with a divorce rate in the 60%’s and climbing what do you think they’re already exposed to? How much lying and negativity is in their faces everyday? Actually don’t want a reply:
BD I love your blog but this one…seemed like arguing for arguments sake. I know that’s not your point but it just got a little ugly, drawn out and honestly was a bit of a turn off. I can’t speak for the rest of your readers but I’d rather read about the ideas you’d like to share, your humorous views, guidelines of life you use that might help others and projects you’re working on; even’ts etc. More constructive things basically. But hey if you want to keep doing these that’s your call-I/we can’t dig 100% of your work…that just might be creepy.