Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Online Dating and Monogamy
There are so many great observations in this article that directly relate to what I talk about regarding beta males, Alpha Males, online dating, Comfort Bombardment, NRE, moving in together too early, women's biological wiring, open relationships, MLTRs, and monogamy...wow, there's literally too much to address in this article with just one blog post.
-By Caleb Jones
- A man's journey going from beta to Alpha.
- Online dating.
So instead of going hog wild with a bunch of random topics, I'm going to discuss the primary premise of the article. Namely how flawed and disingenuous it is.
The article's concern is that because online dating has become so prevalent and easy, it's going to be harder for people to create and stick with monogamous relationships. It's so "easy" now for people to dump that pain in the butt girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse that long term relationships are jeopardized.
What does this mean for society? Of course I've been discussing this topic for many years now. On the surface, this article is correct. Yes, it is indeed easier now for folks to find sexual partners. When reading this article I was reminded about something I heard Tom Leykis say on the radio about ten years ago:
"If you're single and want to find someone to have sex with, go to Match.com. If you're married and want to find someone to go have sex with, go to Classmates.com."
I laughed when I heard that, but I didn't realize at the time the huge paradigm shift that was taking place in society, and how right he was. To wit, a few days later I was listening to Dr. Laura on the radio (a conservative "Dear Abby" type show where people call in about their relationship problems) and sure enough, a woman was calling in about how her husband had been cheating on her...with a woman he had found using Classmates.com.
So the article is correct factually. Where it falls down is the premise. It notes "Jacob's" new found ability to find new sexual partners whenever he wants, so he doesn't have to worry about any one relationship not working out:
“I went from being someone who thought of finding someone as this monumental challenge, to being much more relaxed and confident about it"....Having met Rachel so easily online, he felt confident that, if he became single again, he could always meet someone else.
This is fantastic news. This one skill alone is probably one of the core skills every man needs in the 21st century. Hell, one of the three primary goals of the entire SMIC program is to teach guys how to get to the point where they can have sex with two new women within one month, whenever you want, even if you're starting from complete scratch.
Why is this such an important skill? Because as I've been saying for many years now, on this blog and on forums and in books, a man without the ability to replace a new sexual partner quickly will always, always start clinging to the woman he happens to be with, even if that woman makes him very unhappy. Lack of dating/seduction skill in a man means that man will assume a scarcity mentality, get more needy, get oneitis, put up with more drama and bullshit and rules from his GF/wife, and make his life a less happy place. All bad. Here's evidence of this from the article:
Whatever the flaws in their relationship, he told himself, being with her was better than being single.
Exactly. Because I'm a beta male pussy who doesn't now how to get out there and have sex with new women quickly, I'm going to put up with this bitch who yells at me whenever I leave my socks on the floor and barks at me to take out the trash and "doesn't let me" hang out with my buddies or buy that new truck. If there was ever any one, over-arching problem to male existence in the modern era, that may very well be it.
Having this skill is a very good thing. Why then, does the article starts hinting that having this ability may actually be a bad thing? It says this:
The positive aspects of online dating are clear: the Internet makes it easier for single people to meet other single people with whom they might be compatible, raising the bar for what they consider a good relationship. But what if online dating makes it too easy to meet someone new? What if it raises the bar for a good relationship too high? What if the prospect of finding an ever-more-compatible mate with the click of a mouse means a future of relationship instability, in which we keep chasing the elusive rabbit around the dating track?
“You could say online dating allows people to get into relationships, learn things, and ultimately make a better selection,” says Gonzaga. “But you could also easily see a world in which online dating leads to people leaving relationships the moment they’re not working—an overall weakening of commitment.”
Uh oh. If people can just dump their partners and get new ones whenever they want, stability, monogamy, and commitment will be damaged...
...but I've got news for you...
...that's already happened.
Because women have already had that ability for decades. And have been using it with staggering frequency.
Moreover, they have happily exercised that option over and over again...for about 40 years now. Three-fourths of all boyfriend/girlfriend relationships are terminated by the woman. 82% of all divorces are initiated by the woman. (And don't forget the divorce rate is still over 60% in most American and European cities.) That's a lot of women dumping a lot of men to quickly trade-up to new men.
Now unlike a lot of jaded guys in the Men's Rights Movement or the Seduction Community, I don't find this evil or wrong or sinister. I just view it as women doing what they are biologically wired to do. Just like when a married man who's not getting any sex cheats on his wife, he's not doing it because he's "evil" or "selfish" or "hates is family". No no. That's all societal programming. He's doing it because that's what men have been biologically wired to do for about 200,000 years: have sex with chicks.
It's just like when a woman gets a new exciting boyfriend, then after a few months or years gets bored with him, dumps his ass, and then gets a new boyfriend so she will be excited again. Women have 200,000 years of biological wiring to get bored with a male sexual partner after six months to three years. As always, human beings will act like human beings. This is why modern-day men and women who demand or expect monogamy are eventually always surprised, angry, and frustrated. You don't have to like how human beings work, but you should accept it. I do.
Back to the point of the article. Since women know they can instantly dump their male partners and instantly replace them whenever the hell they want, and since they've been doing it for decades, strongly, I haven't seen mainstream articles in print decry how scary or dangerous or terrible or wrong this is. Yeah, I've seen a few people complain, but most of them are really religious folks.
Other than that, I haven't seen people freak out about the "instability of relationships" because women have figured out they can dump and replace men whenever they like. Moreover, I've seen articles praise this as a great thing for women. Even in the article it talks about life for women before they had this ability:
“Premarital sex used to be taboo,” explains Biderman. “So women would become miserable in marriages, because they wouldn't know any better.
Exactly. As I've been saying forever, long term monogamy sucks just as much for women as it does for men, if not more so. Women shouldn't be forced to stay with some boring, ass-kissing beta they don't like, just like us guys shouldn't be forced to stay with some drama-ridden bitch.
Do you see the problem yet? If you're sharp, you already see the double-standard in this article I'm about to point out. Which is this:
The article, and society at large, doesn't have a problem with "people" having the ability to quickly dump and replace their sexual partners. It has a problem with men having that ability. No one (outside of a few isolated thought communities) has been screaming about the stability of relationships because women have been dumping and divorcing men in mass numbers for 40 years.
See, women having that ability is noble and empowering and fair. But men now having that ability because of online dating...oh no...that's a big problem and we all need to be concerned about that. See, men getting dumped and replaced by more masculine and exciting Alpha Males, that's fine. But women getting dumped and replaced by nicer and more attractive females...oh, that's bad. Can't have that.
This is another notch in the exact trend I was discussing in my prior post. That is, as time goes on and as technology improves, men are going to start acquiring the same sexual abilities and options that women have been enjoying for decades. As I (and some of the commentors) mentioned in that post, a lot of people, (most of them women and beta males) are going to have a huge problem with this.
The fact that online dating has given even average beta-ish guys like "Jacob" in the article the ability to dump and replace his sexual partner whenever he feels like it, which is an ability women have had and used since the 70's, now everyone needs to suddenly start wringing their hands about things like marriage and commitment and children and monogamy and stuff. Oh boy. It has begun. It's going to be a wild ride.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Jerrad 2013-01-20 11:33:29
Brilliant post BD. Do you have any idea or predictions for when the majority of societies relationships will not be monogamous?
Kevin Velasco 2013-01-20 14:03:16
There will always be those who prefer monogamy over non-monogamy and vice versa. Thoughts on this article? Monogamy and Polyamory: Gifts and Shadows - http://www.blog.shakti.co.za/2011/08/monogamy-and-polyamory-gifts-and.html
Onyx 2013-01-20 20:03:18
I love the way you put that: "...the ability to dump and replace his sexual partner whenever he feels like it, which is an ability women have had and used since the 70′s..." Obviously it's much easier for women (who are attractive,) to attract a mate solely on the rolled dice of genetics. With men it's either looks and/or money and/or personality- or raw skill i.e. PUA "magic." But what I don't understand is if it's so easy for women, why are there so much of them on these sites willing to settle for betas like Jacob? Who, to me, sounded quite boring. Please explain BD. P.S. That article made online dating sound incredibly easy, I'm going to have to check it out.
GoodOldRob 2013-01-21 08:07:37
I agree with Onyx that the article made online dating seem like a cake walk for most guys. My own experience with sites like POF is that you have to put in the numbers just as with all gaming. BD's review is refreshing considering a lot of the bone headed comments below said article.
TCF 2013-01-21 09:23:50
" why are there so much of them on these sites willing to settle for betas like Jacob? " Because they are 30 and over 🙂 (think about it)
Blimy 2013-01-21 10:14:24
I think the 'why do they settle for betas' thing is more of an issue with selection. As in there is always more betas but this country produces many MANY more betas than alphas giving most women out there only so many choices. Plus at certain points most women are (usually for a limited time) attracted to more so, and even go looking for, betas.
Blackdragon 2013-01-21 10:33:37
Online dating isn't "easy" in that it doesn't require effort. It does. But it's very "easy" as compared to other types of game, i.e. meeting vast amounts of women at bookstores or staying up until 2am on a weeknight to lay some chick at a club. Why do you think I love online dating so much?
Do you have any idea or predictions for when the majority of societies relationships will not be monogamous?What Kevin said. That's why the excuse I often hear of "Well what if EVERYONE DID THIS????" is completely nonsensical and invalid. Even in a society where nonmonogamy is completely normal and accepted, I estimate that at least 20% of the population would still be monogamous (or at least try very hard to be so like people do now). Regardless of society's norms, there will always be religious people, traditional people, needy people, jealous people, controlling people, etc. Thus, monogamy.
...why are there so much of them on these sites willing to settle for betas like Jacob?Like the other commentors have indicated, these women aren't settling. Betas are very desirable for women at certain points in a woman's life. A guy who constantly tells you you're pretty and hands over his paycheck with a smile is a pretty handy thing to have when you're a woman. (At least for a few years until you start getting bored.)
Kevin Velasco 2013-01-22 01:44:26
Hmm... I'm starting to wonder if monogamy's high failure rate has something to do with many people coming from dysfunctional families. The Western world is fucked up.
Alejandro 2013-01-22 10:16:41
....implying the arranged marriages and "marry however your parents choose and don't complain about it" situation of the eastern world are much better.
Kate 2013-01-23 17:23:52
It is easy to meet people online, but I truly believe there are just as few people one really connects with online as they would in real life. So, its very deceptive. You can meet a lot of mediocre people quickly, but there's still a lot of sorting to do and it may be a year or more before you meet someone you like as well as the person who last dumped you (because they were going back to the buffet).
Blackdragon 2013-01-23 17:50:26
You're a woman. Your standards are much higher than ours. 🙂 The smaller the size of your "potential partner checklist", the easier dating, and life, becomes. (By the way, I tell men the exact same thing.)
Kate 2013-01-23 17:52:56
My God, you're right! I almost forgot 😉
sensoryoverload35 2013-01-23 23:57:32
I think things will play themselves out as they 'should' according to mainstream society. The divorce rate is already pretty damn high, and I don't see anything that is going to change the overall indoctrination towards monogamy. If anything, beta-ization will continue but it will be 'easier' for betas to meet women. To me that means that you're just going to have more chaff to sort from the wheat. Or, people conditioned towards monogamy will simply have a greater pool to choose from before they get married. If anything doesn't this just bias towards having higher quality monogamous relationships? The really funny thing is how insecure this and many other articles are about monogamous relationships.
space_monkey 2013-01-24 16:34:03
So a guy that is dating 5 girls at once and fucked 3 of them on the first or second date is beta? How much of a sex addict do you need to be to be considered as 'alpha'?
Blackdragon 2013-01-24 16:52:24
So a guy that is dating 5 girls at once and fucked 3 of them on the first or second date is beta?I'm not sure if you're referring to my post or the comments. If you're referring to my post, you need to re-read it. Of course he's not a beta, but he was. I clearly said in my post that he was on a journey from beta to Alpha. That's why I referred to him as "beta-ish" when he first started getting laid.
space_monkey 2013-01-24 17:44:11
Oh, right. I wasn't too clear there. I was referring to Onyx and TCF's comments which seemed to indicate that Jacob is still a beta. I mean, he could be... but it would have to be "greater beta," IMO.
Paul 2014-10-15 02:49:38
"Women have 200,000 years of biological wiring to get bored with a male sexual partner after six months to three years" I totally agree but don't forget that there was no concept of monogamy or exclusive relationships in pre agricultural communities and recreational sex was a shared commodity (no TV) which assisted social cohesion, great idea I must say!
Blackdragon 2014-10-15 21:50:42
I totally agree but don’t forget that there was no concept of monogamy or exclusive relationships in pre agricultural communitiesCorrect! Monogamy is an artficial constrcuct to account for the fact there were no paternity tests back then. But now there is, so...
and recreational sex was a shared commodity (no TV) which assisted social cohesion, great idea I must say!Oh yes! Monogamy works so well! No one ever cheats or gets divorced ever!