Single or Taken? You’re Neither

Get Free Email Updates!

Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!


Single or Taken? You’re Neither

I know a lot of people, men and women both, who 'broke up' with an ex, but are still seeing that ex, still having sex with that ex, and usually still have feelings for that ex. These people walk around bragging that they're 'single'. Are they? Really? Do you think a person going out on a first date with them would also consider them 'single'? You and I both know the answer.

-By Caleb Jones

"Are you single?" she asked me.

"One is rarely 'single' or 'taken'," I answered, "Those are two very extreme conditions, and most people are floating somewhere in-between. It's silly we have to use just one of two extreme words to describe our 'relationship status'."

"Well I am," she protested, "I'm taken."

"You're dating someone, and you like him, but you're not taken."

"Yes I am!"
"You're telling me some hot, decently nice guy who's about 23 years old with six pack abs suggests the two of you hang out some time, you're going to say no to that guy?"

"Well...yeah, okay, you're right."

Inaccurate Definitions 

One of the biggest problems in man-woman relations is the ridiculous and obsolete concept of 'single' or 'taken'.

People think (incorrectly) that they're single or taken. They're either off the market or on the market.

You've heard it a thousand times. I'm now having sex with someone I met three weeks ago, so I'm "taken". I'm "off the market". Or, I don't have a serious girlfriend, so I'm "single".

What about me? I'm dating and/or having sex with three women at any given point in time. Am I single? Am I taken? It would be silly to apply either word to me.

Well shit, Blackdragon. You're not exactly normal.

Okay, fine. Let's talk about normal people. I know many of them. For example, I know a lot of people who are married. Are they taken? Most people would say yes.

I also know that a lot of these same people are cheating on their spouses, regularly. In most cases, these people actually have feelings for the people they're having sex with on the side. Are they still 'taken'? Really?

I know a huge number of women who, as soon as they have sex with a new guy about two or three times, suddenly consider themselves 'taken'. Are they? Are they in a real, committed relationship at that point? Really?

I even know a few people who are living with an ex (they're an 'ex' because they 'broke up' at some point), and they still walk around calling themselves 'single'. Are they? Really?

Are you seeing how stupid this is yet? This isn't even a discussion about monogamy vs. nonmonogamy. This is about what normal, real people do in the real world and the inaccurate societal labels they attach to their behaviors in order to sound acceptable.

'Taken' means you're taken. You've made very solid exclusivity commitments to one person and you're actually keeping those commitments. But that represents a very small percentage of the population under the age of 50. (Remember, 49% of adults aren't even married.)

Taken doesn't mean you've just started seeing someone (how can you be taken if you've never had that discussion?), nor does it mean you have a BF/GF/spouse whom you're happily cheating on (how can you be taken if you're having sex with multiple people?).

'Single' means you're single. There is no one else in your life you have any romanticish feelings for whatsoever. Either you're not having sex with anyone, or you're only having sex with people who are pure friends with benefits and that's it.

Because of the Societal Programming poisoning your brain, it's possible you're going to disagree with what I just said. You're going to try to explain to me that the wife who is cheating on her husband is indeed 'taken'. The logic of a woman regularly letting a second man put his penis inside her doesn't affect the word 'taken' for you.

Or, you may try to explain to me that the guy who is still living with his ex-girlfriend is 'single'. The fact they have engaged in some kind of meaningless verbal-only ritual called 'breaking up' suddenly makes the word 'single' a valid word to describe that man in your eyes.
This is similar to the men I occasionally get on here and the forums who will flat-out and with a straight face tell me in no uncertain terms that they are "monogamous" even though they are regularly cheating on their wife or girlfriend. Like them, you have twisted both the definition and the spirit of certain words in order to mash particular scenarios into socially acceptable norms. You're full of shit, but at least it sounds good, and other normal people nod their heads in approval (even though many of them know you're full of shit too.)

Contrast this to me, who describes relationships exactly as they really are, and piss a lot of people off by doing it.

The reality is that the vast majority of people out there exist in one of the many grey levels between 'single' and 'taken'. They are not absolutely, 100% committed and monogamous, nor are they completely without anyone they're having sex with they have feelings for. Because of this, using the words single or taken causes all kinds of confusion, chaos, and hurt feelings that society has just come to accept as a normal part of dating, relationships, and male-female interplay.

Hopefully you don't want to be in this confused, chaotic category along with everyone else. This means you must do two things:

1. Never identify yourself as 'single' or 'taken' unless it's absolutely and objectively true. (And if you're a normal, healthy, fun human being with a healthy sex drive, it rarely will be.)

2. Whenever a woman you're dealing with identifies herself as 'single' or 'taken', in both cases she's probably not being truthful and/or accurate. She's just trying to sound societally acceptable. She's declaring something that will neatly fit into her Facebook relationship status, not something that accurately describes what she's doing. So don't take those words at face value. Instead, ask her some questions and get to the bottom of things. Find out her real status. Then proceed from there.

(As a side note, when I first started dating younger women (as in under age 24) many years ago, I was very surprised to see how little the world 'boyfriend' meant to these women. It's a word they toss around with no meaning whatsoever. Yes, it can mean the guy they've been with for two years, but it can just as often mean the guy they just met and started dating two weeks ago. I'm serious.)

You do yourself a grave disservice when you cackle with an evil glee when a woman tells you she's 'single' (because she's not) or when you get depressed and discouraged when she says she's 'taken' (because she's not).

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.
This article was originally published on July 18, 2013
Next Article >>


  • John H 2013-07-18 07:32:08

    Nice post. You're showing the utter uselessness of two words that hold extreme importance today in most people's lives. I think many of the words we use are useless in a similar regard because they're just not fully accurate when lined up alongside our minds and actions. It's really just incessant lying to themselves, but people just don't think about this stuff at base level. They're oblivious (No wonder slavery existed - and continues to exist - for so long. It's all ignorance.).

  • maldek 2013-07-18 07:48:20

    Single/Taken is not gender neutral. Over 1000s of years it never was a problem for a "taken-man" to have women on the side. History books are full of examples. "Taken" = I am the property of a certain man. Men used to own women and they used to have full control over their sexuality. If a taken woman cheated, she was subject to severe "problems". Like death. In many areas of the world - like islamic countries or africa in general - this is still the case today. The sexual freedom western women enjoy; to fuck whoever they want, without asking her dads permission or the need to marry - is nothing new. History has seen that before. Ancient rome for example, a few decades before its fall, was in similar condition. These periods never lasted long. They always, with not a single exception, ended in war and decay. What follows is a pendulum that swings in the other direction heavily; what used to be "free" will then once again be "taken".

  • YouSoWould (@YouSoWould) 2013-07-18 08:34:19

    For me, they are just convenient labels: Single - open to new sexual relationships Taken - not open to new sexual relationships It's a state of mind as opposed to a description of circumstances. However, this is not how the majority of people use the terms, and you are of course quite correct to criticise.

  • John H 2013-07-18 09:55:14

    The word spontaneous is an example of this kind of misuse. There is nothing "spontaneous" about anything, and yet we use it, ignoring the functionality and truth of such a word. "I'm a very spontaneous person. Yea, I'm currently single and loving it but there's just something about being taken. Someday, I suppose." Oh god.

  • Jack 2013-07-18 12:55:36

    @Maldek: So you're against sexual liberation and want all of us to live like the Taliban, or like the Puritans? Then why are you on a seduction blog? Saudi Arabia would love to have you.

  • Maldek 2013-07-18 14:07:16

    @Jack, it does not do you any good if you attack the messenger. I did not write history, not even a book about history but I can read. History does indeed repeat itself and people who are much brighter than me - like Mr. Martin Armstrong (a very remarkable person btw - have proven that cycles do exist and do indeed make the world go round. I do not expect you to understand this whole concept but maybe you can find at least a grain of truth when I say: The sexual freedom females in the west have today and us alpha males can enjoy without serious personal/financial investment, may not last forever. In fact if you look at demographics or goverment balance sheets all over the west you will realize that there is a little problem on the horizon. I may dislike these future changes as much as you do. Ignorance is no help though.

  • lower case jack 2013-07-18 18:59:28

    I agree with the essence of this post. But I think the problem could be solved with clear, concise definitions. Taken - In a committed sexually exclusive relationship AND with an understanding that if love/lust should die there will be no sexual encounters with other persons UNTIL the relationship is dissolved first. This would be the ideal state for monogamous relations. Sadly it doesn't work that way the majority of the time.* Currently sexually inactive - This would apply to someone who is not sleeping with anyone and is looking for a new sexual partner - either fb or ltr. Currently sexually active but still sexually available to new persons - This would apply to those in non exclusive relationships and are looking either for more and new partners or to replace current partners. There are more classifications that you could come up with but these would suffice for most cases. The problem here is that most people don't introspect and don't know what they want consciously. So man people are impulsive. Very few people bring discipline to their sexual lives. Or honor. I do think its possible but in a very different society with different philosophic influences. * I have no problem with women (or men) trying to upgrade or find someone better suited to them. But it would be nice if women (and men) had the decency to END the relationship first before fucking someone new. And of course that applies ten times more for marriages. But a good post though.

  • lower case jack 2013-07-18 19:08:48

    The sexual freedom females in the west have today and us alpha males can enjoy without serious personal/financial investment, may not last forever. In fact if you look at demographics or goverment balance sheets all over the west you will realize that there is a little problem on the horizon. The Manosphere makes this argument alot. Roissy makes it frequently. And there is some surface validity to it. But it needs to be understood that sexual freedom has never existed with economic / political freedom. In other words, we have sexual libertarianism (to a large extent) but we don't have a libertarian political economic order. We have a MASSIVE welfare/regulatory state. The HBD gang (i.e. Roissy et all) like to decry the consequences of sexual libertarianism (i.e. Roissy's "four sirens of the Apocalypse") but they never factor in that there has never been true political freedom to accompany that sexual freedom, not in Athens, not in Rome, not during the British Empire, and not now. Humanity has never seen a truly free society. So we don't know that sexual freedom is responsible for today's societal ills and that a sexually liberated society is unsustainable. I would argue (and I think BD would agree) that sexual freedom would not be a problem were the rest of the elements of political liberty in place. Abolish the welfare state, interventionist regulations, the federal reserve and public education (i.e. state indoctrination centers) and I doubt that female hypergamy would be the problem that it is today. Society wouldn't be on the brink. My 2 cents.

  • Bastardly 2013-07-19 10:07:32

    Damn BD you get a lot of commenters on every post over thinking some very simple truths. Yeesh.

  • Wils 2013-07-19 12:32:45

    “Well…yeah, okay, you’re right.” -- If only women can see logic that quickly AND are capable of agreeing that simply. Almost never happens.

  • Bastardly 2013-07-19 13:33:45

    @BD, though giving more examples of those in between states might have helped.

  • Jack 2013-07-23 01:45:27

    @Maldek: I completely fail to see a connection between sexual liberation and the coming economic crisis, or the fall of western civilization. The only way I can even stretch it is when talking about welfare babies due to female recklessness and irresponsibility. But being reckless and irresponsible is not a necessary side effect of female promiscuity. There are plenty of liberated females who are responsible, don't have welfare babies, and don't rely on socialism to cover up their reckless mistakes. Socialism, and the coming collapse due to it, can be blamed on laziness and childish immaturity, not on sexual freedom itself. A lesseiz faire capitalist system is what is required for prosperity. But this capitalistic system can be attained using the libertarian model, which promotes freedom in both the economic and cultural sphere, not the theocratic model involving puritanical laws, sex hating cultural norms, the cult of female virginity, pre-arranged marriages, or cockblocking fathers! We can have sexual freedom AND economic prosperity. It's called libertarianism. But either way, don't worry about the West. All the debt will be magically wiped off the balance sheet with the stroke of a pen in exchange for accepting a one world currency and government, although the bankers may force us to wallow in hyperinflation for a little while before we are traumatized enough to accept the collectivistic/globalistic group hug of the bankers. My point is, sexual liberation will still be secure. No need to return to the age of cockblocking fathers.

  • Maldek 2013-07-23 07:12:19

    Jack, I see my humble self in this thread cornered as "advocatus diaboli". But you asked and I will answer. 50 years ago the common norm was one income per househould. This was enough to live a middle class lifestyle. Over time this has changed. Today we need (at least) 2 incomes per household for a similar standard of living. Why is this? There are a number of compounding reasons. Like rising prices (due to inflation, due to money printing), relative lower wages (due to globalization, your father/grand father was NOT in competion with an indian or chinese sweat-shop-guy) and last but not least rising cost of goverment. The whole idea of "feminism" was a marketing campaign set in motion by the beloved bankers to get the females into the work force, so they could be taxed. The whole thing kinda went on auto-pilot from there. More woman work -> unstable families -> more need to nanny-state -> more need for big goverment -> more pressure for women to work -> lesser quality babies. Watch the movie "idiocracy"; it explains the whole process in a funny, yet shockingly accurate way. And the likely outcome. Sexual liberation (and the fruits alphas (thats us) enjoy on a daily base) is only possible as long as women have an income themselfs OR live off goverment money. In a situation when a woman depends on her husband to feed the family, there is no room for riding the carousel. In times of economic depression, when facing an unemployment rate on the wrong side of 30% people will live with their parents longer, and the traditional gender roles gain influence. Dont believe me? Look at greece or spain TODAY. There is more than 50% (!!) unemployment among the people below 25 in these countries. Google it up, what impact on society this has. On economics. We will not see hyperinflation in any major economy - like the EU or the US. Hyperinflation never takes place in a "core economy" = strong economy with a large bond market. Politicians will not honor their obligations, they never do, and just print money. Bond holders would not like it. Alos this is not whats happening today. Look at europe - austerity is the word on the streets. Goverment will go money hunting. They will squeeze the last drop of life-blood from "the rich" (in reality thats middle class people) and strangle the economy while doing so. They will honor no contract and no morale boundaries in their lust for power. In the US they are even promoting a retro-active change to deny those entry on US soil who gave back their US citizenship in the last 10 years. There is not gonna be hyperinflation, people will pray for it before this is over, but it wont happen. Empires always die the same way, and it is the way of suicide by stagflation and slow economicy decline, due to rising cost of goverment. This is not going to happen overnight. In fact I am long dollar (and short euro) for the next couple of years. But if I am nearly as long living as BD I might still be around and live to see this new world order; and it will be 3rd world style, a tiny elite in a sea of poverty.

  • Blackdragon 2013-07-23 09:37:51

    Sexual liberation (and the fruits alphas (thats us) enjoy on a daily base) is only possible as long as women have an income themselfs OR live off goverment money. In a situation when a woman depends on her husband to feed the family, there is no room for riding the carousel.
    That is generally true, but you're still thinking of the 1950's, when women relied on men AND there was an only 7% divorce rate. You will never, ever see divorce rates that low ever again, even if we return to a more patriarchal system where women rely on husbands to pay their bills. People having 3-8 marriages in their lifetime would become the norm as women leap-froged from provider to provider. True, the current (real) divorce rate may drop a little, say from 63% down to 50%, but you'd still have lots of unmarried, provider-hunting women floating around at any given point while they were between marriages. Under such a system Alphas would still be enjoying these women in mass numbers (to say nothing about sleeping with cheating wives, since infidelity would increase). The rules of the game would change a little, but the game would remain.

  • Minister 2015-07-17 02:00:21

    Blackdragon, why do you think that divorce rates would never return to previous levels?

  • Blackdragon 2015-07-17 07:14:32

    Blackdragon, why do you think that divorce rates would never return to previous levels?
    Technically speaking, history is cyclical, so at some point in the far future divorce rates may return to previews levels, but if/when that happens you and I will be long dead. It would be more accurate to say "Divorce rates in the Western world will never return to 1950s levels in any of our lifetimes."