Great Blackdragon Debate 3: Open Marriages (OLTR) Healthy or Unhealthy?

Get Free Email Updates!

Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!


Great Blackdragon Debate 3: Open Marriages (OLTR) Healthy or Unhealthy?

As promised, today I’m presenting the third Great Blackdragon Debate! This is where I “televise” a real debate on this blog, where a very brave dissenter and I go at it, and at the end you can decide who won. Today I will be debating "Alex" on the topic of long-term, pair bonded open relationships (OLTRs / OLTR Marriages). Both of us adhered to the 1700 character limit for responses.

-By Caleb Jones

"Seeking freedom from dependents or dependence is not a solid method to continuously self-improve and to live as an emotionally healthy individual." Alex will be debating FOR. I will be arguing AGAINST. Alex’s comments will be in dark blue like this, mine will be in the usual font. As always, I let Alex both start and end the debate with his comments. Here we go!

1. I believe seeking freedom from dependents or dependence is not a solid method to continuously self-improve and to live as an emotionally healthy individual.

2. There's a reason for Disney delusions: Successfully raising children w/ a spouse is THE most satisfying thing a human being can do. In addition, a 1-on-1 relationship w/ a female will be the most deep, intimate relation a man can have in his life. These are relationships w/ dependents, and doing things that will ruin these relationships is ultimately shortchanging oneself from the emotional benefits they provide.

3. Females do not like their male having sex w/ other partners. Women being more emotionally in-tune, even if legal marriage is not compromised by sex w/ a MLTR/FB, the female WILL notice, thus disrupting the pair-bonding relationship, which will eventually be noticed and internalized by the children. Seeking shallow relations w/ other women is a weak substitute for maintaining a healthy relationship, and avoids necessary self-improvement required to make a relationship work.

4. Outside sex, we are social creatures. Humans have evolved to survive in tight-knit groups who trust their lives on each other's split-second instincts. In upper tiers of society (large businesses, politics) even at the very top, you still depend on those below you to succeed. Neglecting the skills required to maintain these relationships closes doors. To run a large operation well, you need to know how it works from the bottom-up, something going freelance can hardly teach you.

5. Learning never stops, and depending on mentors for life-changing advice is quite wise. "If you are the smartest man in the room, you are in the wrong room."

Saying "raising kids with a spouse is THE most satisfying thing a human being can do" is only your opinion. Many people have no desire to do this. Also, repeated studies have shown that having kids reduces long-term happiness. Regardless, I'm for long-term pair bonding, and not against someone having kids (as I have two myself). I'm only against the long-term expectation of sexual monogamy; something the vast majority of humans aren't capable of.

I also agree that a serious pair-bonded relationship (OLTR) can be more satisfying for a lot of people (but not all!) than a constant string of FBs and MLTRs. We don't disagree on that. Yes, many women aren't going to like their husband fucking other women. You know what else most women don't like? Being married to the same guy for 30+ years. That's why so few women do that. They get married, then get divorced. I'm offering a less bad option.

You know what else women don't like? Getting bored with that same husband after many years, particularly once he becomes betaized. This is why most women stop having sex with their husbands (or seriously reduce sex). Does that sound "fulfilling" to you?

Under my option, a man and woman can pair-bond, cohabit, even legally marry (though I wouldn't recommend that), yet the husband never gets betaized, is always able to have sex (with his OLTR or an FB on the side), and doesn't suffer nearly as much when the relationship fails, which it will under your option or my option. Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it less bad than your option? Yup. Without question. I completely agree on your points regarding social skills and forever learning. Having an OLTR does not preclude either of these things.

It seems we are in agreement, that is: FOR the fact that seeking freedom from dependents or dependence is not a solid method to continuously self-improve and to live as an emotionally healthy individual. I feel one can’t be for both long-term pair bonding AND having no dependents; as a man they're mutually exclusive. Also, amendments made pre-debate eliminated parts of my thesis that controverted the subject of an OLTR lifestyle, as per request. However, I’d still like to debate the α2.0 system.

The blog proposes to help out 5-10% of single men that want to make real change "to find a new path to happiness and fulfillment as men", yet such a percentile is at best smaller than the percentile of combined men AND women couples that pull off successful marriages (BD says, 11%, but it may be higher). The gross number of people who successfully marry is already at least double (as it consists of both males and females) the hypothetical target population of α2.0, which has yet to have successful cases documented—except by anecdotal evidence. By those numbers I wouldn’t say OLTR is ‘less bad’, in fact, it seems MORE BAD. Happily married couples make up the 90th percentile, about the same success percentile a startup company aided by a professional program like Y Combinator sees.

α2.0 lacks argument for improving social life w/ other men. Focus on better social foundations leads men to be more powerful. Power is the #1 thing women are attracted to. Power leads to healthy relationships w/ women. Also, it allows for SELECTION of a mate, rather than taking whatever females slipped in through the cracks of more powerful men’s fingers—who consequently make poor marriage materiel.
[vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_raw_html] JTNDYSUyMHRhcmdldCUzRCUyMl9ibGFuayUyMiUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRmFscGhhbWFsZTIwLmthcnRyYS5jb20lMkZwYWdlJTJGcFU1ODMlMjIlM0UlMEElM0NpbWclMjBzcmMlM0QlMjIlMjBodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRmNhbGViam9uZXNibG9nLmNvbSUyRndwLWNvbnRlbnQlMkZ1cGxvYWRzJTJGMjAyMCUyRjA4JTJGVFVNLTcyOFg5MC0xLnBuZyUyMCUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRmElM0UlMEE=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner]
It's entirely possible to be in a pair-bonded relationship with no children, with a woman who makes a decent income. This means you're pair-bonded with no "dependents." Though granted, most of the time the man will be making more money than the woman, in which case he will be supporting her financially to a degree. This is perfectly fine as long as he doesn't beta himself (i.e. he's still fucking other women, he doesn't tolerate her drama or demands, he's legally protected from divorce or breakup, etc).

If you have other arguments against OLTR I'm happy to hear them as long as none of them are ones I already refuted in my recent OLTR post.

You're saying that OLTRs are more bad than TMM because there are less of them. That makes no sense. Only a small percentage of people are aware that long-term OLTR is an option, but 100% of them know all about TMM, thus there are more "successful" monogamously married people than people in long-term OLTRs (perhaps). It's an issue of awareness, not effectiveness. (As time goes on you'll see many more long-term OLTRs in society. Just watch.)

You say, "2.0 lacks argument for improving social life w/ other men." Utterly incorrect. I have never, ever recommended against having a social life or improving social skills. If you can find where I've ever said such a thing, show me. I even included "social life" one of a man's seven core Life Areas described in my book. I have said that a social life isn't super important to me personally, but that's me, not Alpha 2.0. Alpha 2.0 is about being happy. If having a strong social life with other men is important to your happiness, then that's of critical importance and you should get very good at it.

Yes, I guess it may be POSSIBLE to be pair bonded without dependents. It's POSSIBLE to make the OLTR system work...Please see The 2% Rule. Let's expound on the idea of betaization: There's no specific blog post about the murky line b/t being beta & what truly makes a dude α2.0. Supposedly, α2.0 can still have a cubicle job or not focus on a constantly-improving social life w/ other males. Now, it's just been explained non-betas are unfilial, and stonewall women. Whereas in the blog there are some good points: remaining outcome-independent, happy etc. What's the deal?

In terms of effectiveness of OLTRvsTMM, human society throughout history has wildly oscillated b/t trying to make OLTR effective and making TMM work. It's every man's dream to have OLTR--and oft happens in societies where women are marginalized. I'd say prevalence is a good sign of effectiveness, in raw #'s or %s. For example, married people have sex 6 more times per week than unmarried people.

If women have a say in society, it usually follows TMM more--just like in a relationship. It sounds like 'not accepting drama' amounts to giving a female no say in the relation. Not only is that not a 50/50 relation, it's a 100/0 relation. Another example of 100/0 relationships: masturbation. There seems to be little difference b/t wanking and constantly seeking new females to have sex w/. Is this the pinnacle of α2.0?

The highest quality relationship is when each side is trying hard, yet feels the relation is 60/40 in their favor (though it may actually be skewed 45/55 etc.). Relationships are give and take, requiring compromise. The only thing that's compromised by being unfilial in a TMM/OLTR is the relationship.

1. Show me your source that married people have sex 6 times more than nonmarrieds in the Western world. Even dumb teenagers know that's untrue. (Unless you're comparing basement-dwellers to newlyweds, or something similar to skew the numbers.)

2. "Prevalence is a good sign of effectiveness?" Stupid wars are prevalent. Torture is prevalent. So are authoritarian governments, soul-killing 8-5 corporate jobs, (attempted) long-term monogamy, and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Believing that because society does a lot of a thing means that thing is a good idea is the ULTIMATE manifestation of Societal Programming. It's depressing you would even hold such a viewpoint. J. Paul Getty said, "To be successful, look at what the masses do, and do something else."

3. I'm unsure regarding your question on beta vs 2.0. I've never said a true 2.0 could have a cubicle job nor that they stonewall women. Perhaps rephrase your question?

4. You said: "Not accepting drama' amounts to giving a female no say in the relation." Incorrect, because I don't give women drama at all. Does this mean I'm subservient to them?

5. Not sure why you equate masturbating with having sex with new women. Another odd view you've stated here.

6. Compromise (in an OLTR) is okay. Semi-regular unhappiness (hers or mine) is not. If you're with someone very compatible/complimentary, lots of "compromise" won't be necessary. You'll already have what you both want. If a partner needs to "compromise," that's usually an indication they're with the wrong person.

Please re-read the figures I cited:
I'm talking about prevalence vs efficacy in deciding b/t the 'least bad' of two ubiquitous systems.
Housing & email are societal norms, maybe we should go live in the hills and use the postal system. TMM dominated a free market of polygamous and monogamous systems.

Stupid wars & torture are prevalent--in governments that enforce sharia law. We're not living under sharia law here, hence why it's not commonplace for men cheating outside of marriage to be praised.

Also, I’m not debating whether the idea of OLTR is plausible in theory (like God). That'd be a pointless argument. It’s condoning bad behavior in women who are abandoning dignity. It’s encouraging people to act like the very highschool dropouts who perpetuate our welfare state—both irresponsible males running from commitment and girls happily corroborating, then popping out fatherless kids.

Everything male is under attack in 2015, but I have no doubt society will come back begging for strong men. Where are we going to be, encouraging the mindless promiscuity of 18 y-o girls, or selecting and cultivating correct behaviors in women?

Here's the question: Mission aside, does α2.0 have higher morality than an irresponsible & aloof frat bro? Furthermore, on the deathbed, where are the random FBs & MLTRs going to be? When one looks around his grown-ass life to see no loved ones, getting laid last Friday isn't going to seem so grand.

To the masturbation theory--frankly, the OLTR system condones treating partners the way a sociopath does. The females are willing victims. This is not an emotionally healthy way to have a relationship.
[vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_raw_html] JTNDYSUyMHRhcmdldCUzRCUyMl9ibGFuayUyMiUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRmFscGhhbWFsZTIwLmthcnRyYS5jb20lMkZwYWdlJTJGcFU1ODMlMjIlM0UlMEElM0NpbWclMjBzcmMlM0QlMjIlMjBodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRmNhbGViam9uZXNibG9nLmNvbSUyRndwLWNvbnRlbnQlMkZ1cGxvYWRzJTJGMjAyMCUyRjA4JTJGVFVNLTcyOFg5MC0xLnBuZyUyMCUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRmElM0UlMEE=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner]
1. That study proves my point. Young married people are fucking a lot, since the marriage is new. Older married people fuck much less (as much or less than single or partnered people), because they're past the 3-year mark.

2. Housing and email shouldn't be chucked for a cabin in the woods, but they should be updated and overhauled to reflect our new society. Email in particular! Saying that "Email is common so we don't need to change it" would be INSANE. That's what you're saying about mono-marriage. As always, I'm not saying chuck it. I'm saying update it to reflect current reality (OLTR marriage).

3. I think you're confusing the terms; refer to the glossary to double-check. When talking about men running from commitment or mindless promiscuity of women, that's one night stands, FBs and maybe MLTRs. That's not OLTR. OLTR is a long-term commitment and doesn't involve immaturity or promiscuity. It's a committed, pair-bonded, stable relationship (unless the two people are idiots, which of course can happen). A married, cohabiting couple raising kids where the guy (or the woman) occasionally and discreetly gets a little on the side isn't the chaos you're describing. That's what I'm talking about here.

4. I agree with you that OLTR is better than lifetime FBs and MLTRs. I've been very clear about that. As a strong proponent of OLTR I will not have any deathbed regrets.

5. Please explain A) how a woman in an OLTR is a "willing victim" and B) if she doesn't commit to an OLTR, what should she do and exactly how should she do it? (Knowing there's an over 64% divorce rate and over 70% infidelity rate in long-term marriages today.)

I'd say the group showing the most emotional stability & self-improvement would have a lot of sex while young, then have kids. They'd sacrifice sex frequency for a quality family set-up, then eventually distance themselves from sexual urges as they find other ways to get emotional satisfaction. Even if it's arduous, this type of relationship has been shown throughout the ages to produce an extremely strong bond. OLTR's comparable benefit is more sex, which does sound good, but in the words of Thomas Sewell, "Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past 3 decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."

It's strange the OLTR system is proposed for only a small percentage of men, yet is supposed to update marriage & mesh well with society. Not to mention the fact that, by nature, OLTR is specifically meant for the short-term, and is entirely conceptualized to achieve promiscuity & immaturity. It's more of a sacrifice of quality for quantity than an upgrade.

The male is the one who should guide the relationship, especially the <4% of males alpha enough for OLTR. He should set an example of balanced relationship. W/ great advice on relationships available for free on BD blog (excluding OLTR), a man could prepare w/ the female for the coming storm. Better yet, the reader would take Sensai BD's advice about self-improvement & evaluating females well and invest a lot of extra (necessary) energy into finding a high-quality woman. Then said male will take extra precautions to get a pre-nup. Nonetheless, he'll secure a divorce-free marriage in addition to his legal protections, envisioning divorce as a worse-case, not an expectation.
[vc_raw_html css=".vc_custom_1591769398097{padding-top: 5px !important;padding-left: 15px !important;}"]JTNDYSUyMHRhcmdldCUzRCUyMl9ibGFuayUyMiUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwJTNBJTJGJTJGd3d3Lm9ubGluZWRhdGluZ3N1Y2Nlc3Nub3cuY29tJTIyJTNFJTBBJTNDaW1nJTIwc3JjJTNEJTIyaHR0cHMlM0ElMkYlMkZibGFja2RyYWdvbmJsb2cuY29tJTJGd3AtY29udGVudCUyRnVwbG9hZHMlMkYyMDIwJTJGMDIlMkZPRE0tMTYweDYwMC0xLnBuZyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRmElM0UlMEE=[/vc_raw_html]
1. The exact relationship you recommend has an 87% failure rate today. We're not talking about "throughout the ages," we're talking about today, 2015.

2. I've never said OLTR is good for society, nor do I want to have that discussion (as stated in the rules for this debate). I have said the current incarnation of marriage is completely broken and needs to be replaced/updated with something less bad. Either that's OLTR or something else no one has come up with yet. At least I'm coming up with something. Instead, most people (including you) frown and compare Disney mono-marriage to an extreme promiscuous player lifestyle (which OLTR is not) and then say forever monogamy is good enough as long as the man is Alpha or something. That is pure bullshit guy-Disney and is not productive.

3. You have still not answered my questions about why OLTR is "promiscuity" and why a woman in an OLTR is a "victim." Please answer these two questions in your next response or admit you don't have an answer.

My frown is a necessary part of the movements in which I raise an eyebrow in healthy skepticism.
In a perfect world, OLTR's rules aren't broken and there is technically no promiscuity. However, wishful thinking and 1$ will buy you a Coke. The theoretical rules disintegrate eventually due to human error, and only skeleton principles will remain. OLTR encourages the basic principle of promiscuity--that is, non-monog relationships. TMM encourages the principle of a tight family unit that demonstrates trust by being filial.

The problem with just 'coming up with something' does not stem from change being a bad thing. Rather, it's the fact that OLTR is one man's theory. To compare this with a system which an entire human society has produced is absurd. We may not be able to decide which system is better for society, but we CAN compare the effectiveness of a single man's theories with that of naturally arising systems. A pertinent example is the works of Karl Marx. Society produced free-trade, democratic systems, while Marx theorized a 'better' utopian society. Results: the naturally arising system was successful, yet EVERY SINGLE government which employed Marx's conceptual ideas resulted in failure (and oppression). A female in OLTR is like Helpful Idiots or Willing Victims who helped put Marxist regimes in power.

Arguing that OLTR (theoretical system) is better than TMM (free-trade propogated) is not productive until we have conclusive evidence of the widespread effectiveness of OLTR in hard numbers. Stating 'problems' with TMM does not prove anything. "In society nothing must be discussed; give only results" -Benjamin Disraeli

1. OTLR is not theory. It's my term for the practice, but the actual practice is not my idea. While you're calling it a theory, millions of people are doing it right now. Please read this.

2. There "might be promiscuity" in an OLTR? Yeah, and husbands and wives in a mono marriage might cheat on each other and might get divorced (they're likely to, actually). Hell, I might win the lottery tomorrow, so I should go buy me some tickets! Weak.

3. You didn't answer my question, for the second time, about women in OLTRs being victims.

4. How are we ever going to have "widespread OLTRs" to get the data you want about whether or not it works if monogamy-lovers like you are against the concept in the first place? Hmmmmmm? The answer is, we won't. People will just keep on divorcing each other, cheating on each other, and fucking up their kids. Like Iron Man said, "Not a good plan."

5. You're repeating yourself about what's good for society and about how open marriages are "theoretical." I've already addressed these points. So I think we're done. I will let you wrap up the debate with one last final statement, and we'll let the readers decide the outcome. This has been a good debate.

The original thesis in my first email postulated that it is emotionally unsound to pursue a life style free of people that depend on you or that you depend on. BD instantly agreed with this point, meaning I won the formal portion of the debate from the get-go.

However, we also began to strongly argue some other interesting points, and still haven’t come to any conclusions. The main focus was on the OLTR system, even after an entire blog post was made to shut down early arguments (in the comments section) that Dawson Stone & I made while formulating debate topics. Similar to the 1st great debate, no uniform agreement was made on the topic, yet one conclusion we can draw is that it seems different relationship styles suit different people—BD likes OLTR, ‘millions of people’ are in open marriages, the vast majority of the civilized world is still using TMM and Mormons have many wives.

As BD often iterates, the most important thing is to have a good mission, and to love your women and raise your children well—regardless of your relationship system. I simply think systemizing promiscuity and things like slowly acclimatizing females into your system without directly telling them what you are doing contain elements of psychotic behavior. It also sets a bad precedent for prioritizing personal enjoyment over a strong, trusting relationship between two people.

Only time will tell what relationship system is the best. No one man will ever determine that. Similarly, no relationship in existence is about one man—it’s about two people. Strengthening (not skimping or avoiding) relationships in your life will always produce the most self-improvement.
Thanks you Alex for a vigorous debate!
You, the reader, are free to comment below as to who you think the winner was (if there was one).
If YOU would like to debate me on any topic for the next Great Blackdragon Debate, comment below or email me and let me know; I’m ready to do another one. I will accept any debate topic in any subject area except for anything having to do with A) nihilism/determinism/free will, B) “what’s best for society,” or C) OLTRs.

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 November 30, 2015
<<Previous Article
Next Article >>


  • Gluteus_Maximus 2015-11-30 07:04:53

    BD instantly agreed with this point, meaning I won the formal portion of the debate from the get-go.
    I don't understand why one would say you "won" over something when both of you agreed. It's not winning or losing. It's just you both agreed. The fact that you brought it up to debate means you were not aware of BD's position, even though he has three blogs and a book up. Now when it comes to venturing into types of relationships outside of TMM, one primary reason people even consider doing it is to overcome their feelings of jealousy. It's a path of growth. A path that TMM inherently does not allow for. I also don't understand why you would say these two things within close proximity:
    It’s encouraging people to act like the very highschool dropouts who perpetuate our welfare state... ...Mission aside, does α2.0 have higher morality than an irresponsible & aloof frat bro.
    You're admitting that being in college doesn't equate to being responsible. And highschool dropouts are more likely to go straight into the workforce than busy college students taking out loans subsidized by the government. Not to mention the second route involves racking up thousands and thousands of dollars worth of debt, that often times people spend large portions of their lives trying to pay back. What is this encouraging? That people should take large sums of money that they don't have from other people. You could also use one word to describe this: dependency. And I bring this up to point out that the socially programmed path is not always the one you should follow. Marriage, or long-term monogamy being another socially programmed path being the obvious other. It, too, encourages dependency on another to fulfill your needs, to make you happy. Contrast this to the desire to overcome jealousy, to not rely on another. Also, as a somewhat side note, but not really, highschool dropouts that do ultimately give up, give up because of the stigma. They don't suit well with the conventionality of the school system, and if they do choose to opt out, they are pressured into thinking they are worthless simply because they do not fit in. It's as much society's fault, or the culture's, as is theirs. At the same time, there are countless stories of dropouts from all levels, that prove that school is unnecessary. They don't even have to be high profile. Parallel to this is that TMM is unnecessary. And just like how dropouts are pressured into thinking they are worthless because they do not fit in, the same happens to people when they feel that monogamous relationships are not for them. These are exemplified by BD's posts about Alpha's who end up cheating, like the one he wrote about Tiger Woods or Arnold Schwarzenegger. School, and the concept of marriage boxes people in. It's not very healthy when you don't allow people to pursue the kinds of lifestyles they wish to pursue. If two people do not wish to be in a committed relationship, that doesn't make it irresponsible or immature. It's actually more immature to say that TMM/monogamy is more beneficial than the alternatives. Also, judging by the way you said " 'millions of people' are in open marriages," not that it matters whether you believe it or not, because any relationship outside of TMM/monogamy is frowned upon, people are not going to be very open about it. To continue with BD's post on Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife, they were found together during/after the divorce process, showing that her dramatic display of disapproval was a matter of showing to the public that she is not weak. To add on this, he even wrote an article about Will Smith and Jada Pinkett, and their open-marriage. You also say TMM is effective simply because it is prevalent. So if a lot of people are doing it, that means it works, right? But if +70% of those marriages are ending up in divorce that still means a lot of people are divorcing as well, so does that still mean marriage works? Now keep in mind. I personally don't care what people do. I'm down for there to be marriage for people who do want to get married, and I'm also down for alternative styles and relationship agreements.

  • Tony 2015-11-30 07:10:40

    This wasn't a very good debate, it sort of strayed from the main point. The entire point of Caleb's Blackdragon venture is to get those things out of life that you want (sex, money, committed relationship, kids, etc.) while minimizing your dependence on a single person or company. Alex doesn't really address how minimizing your dependence reduces the quality of these things other than just stating that it does. Most people want these things for other reasons, and take the dependence as a cost, the dependence itself is not a benefit. One of the biggest negatives of working an office job is that you're dependent on one company, and if they decide they don't want you anymore it's too bad for you. If you own your own business, you're still dependent on people, but you're dependent on a number of people so if one decides to leave you you're not hurt too badly.

  • FiveSix 2015-11-30 07:21:51

    I was really interested in this debate at first, but stopped after a few exchanges... it didn't sound like Alex actually knew anyone in open marriages or OLTRs, so his points were based on speculation and conjecture. After getting to Alex's blatant stereotyping of an Alpha2, I stopped since it's not worth my time reading anymore of his ranting.

  • Sefus 2015-11-30 08:22:11

    Good debate and great blog, my parents have been great at making monogamy work for them. But I also do not envy the relationship even though they almost never fight or argue, and genuinely don't mind spending most every waking hour together. The only reason I believe it worked is the religious standards aspect which my mother was very sensitive to at a young age, and the fact both my parents are very unambitious. problem is I think she is pretty much doomed to live out a repressed but comfortable religious life, but she would not have it any other way. And my dad is fine with that. However, the passive attitude makes me very uncomfortable. And the unconscious pressure to be monogamous made dating in my 20s a very lonely experience, I believe I was unconsciously exibating clingy behaviors I picked up from my parents and it scared away women. Because I expected women to be meek and mild like my mom always looking for more than sex, I was doing the guy Disney thing it made me 100% miserable and feel like a reject from society. Which is why I'm glad I found this blog and others like it. The social programing is total bullshit. People need to trash the cable TV and quit the heard mentality. They would be happier for sure.

  • Elkay Mann 2015-11-30 09:14:23

    @Sefus: I know that feel bro, I know that feel. Regarding the debate: Alex uses concepts as "OLTR", "promiscuity", "pair-bonding", "marriage" in a way that makes me feel he is in another world. He sounded like the typical Player guy who wants to have sex while searching for "The Perfect Woman" for him, and then transform himself in a TMM husband and paragon man for society to follow. He's happiness must be in tone with society's progress, even at the cost of his own well being. Very noble but suicidal regarding human fulfillment. I wonder if he realized yet that cheating when you promised sexual exclusivity is the rule, not the exception? Even if you don't actually cheat, not having sex because of some lame oath you took, were your happiness must be subdued to your "loyalty", is sad and will make you feel void in the short or long run. Jealously is weakness, and not being able to cope with a partner having other relationships, even if everything is ok or even great with you, is not accepting human nature. Open Relationships are the de facto rule, never the exception, never were and probably never will be. People should just stop the bullshit and stop promising and demandings things from others.

  • POB 2015-11-30 09:23:04


    I believe seeking freedom from dependents or dependence is not a solid method to continuously self-improve and to live as an emotionally healthy individual.
    So your point is we should base our own happiness on other peoples actions, moods, feelings, etc? This is really immature if you think about it. I completely disagree with that.
    Successfully raising children w/ a spouse is THE most satisfying thing a human being can do.
    For some, of course it is. For about 3-5 years going the mono route. After that the woman will substantially drop sex and leave the guy with very limited options: cheating, masturbation or celibacy. Yey, extremely successful lifestyle for any Alpha biologically wired to crave sex.
    Females do not like their male having sex w/ other partners. Women being more emotionally in-tune, even if legal marriage is not compromised by sex w/ a MLTR/FB, the female WILL notice, thus disrupting the pair-bonding relationship, which will eventually be noticed and internalized by the children.
    Most men also don't (when they care). What you're missing here is that two adults (that love and care about each other) can seat together for a couple of hours and reach a middle ground about what their relationship should look like. Why use obsolete models that have a very high failure rate when you can create your own; one that suits the needs of the very parts interested in the situation? I much rather have kids with someone who knows who I am and what I'm doing than have some resented woman who's constantly jealous and looking over her shoulder about things that really do not matter. A good parent is good regardless if he's mono or not, cheating or not, fucking tons of people or just one.
    Arguing that OLTR (theoretical system) is better than TMM (free-trade propogated) is not productive until we have conclusive evidence of the widespread effectiveness of OLTR in hard numbers.
    BD must have some useful data on this one, but my guess is that lots of couples are doing it successfully right now. What happens is it's hidden from public eyes for obvious reason (societal shaming mostly).
    I simply think systematizing promiscuity and things like slowly acclimatizing females into your system without directly telling them what you are doing contain elements of psychotic behavior. It also sets a bad precedent for prioritizing personal enjoyment over a strong, trusting relationship between two people.
    I really don't get why having open relationships should equal being promiscuous. You can have 4 FBs and stay with them (and only them) for a very long time, you can have one OLTR and one FB (who you'll see every month or so) and live happy like that, etc, etc. I've never seen on this blog any encouragement to a promiscuous lifestyle. In fact it's quite the opposite: every post I see here is about establishing healthy sexual relationships with women using different scales of intimacy. Does that sound promiscuous? Also you're coming from a place that pedestalizes women picturing them as little angels of heaven incapable of doing harm. Using your own words: women "acclimatize males" into fucking them and raising their kids since the dawn of ages. And I'm really sorry if I'm bursting your bubble but prioritizing personal long-term happiness (not enjoyment, which is short-term) is absolutely the best way to establish strong trusting relationships. BD is clearly the winner.

  • CrabRangoon 2015-11-30 11:07:28

    Alex seems very steeped in Societal Programming.  He'd rather sacrifice  his own long term happiness for the sake of "society".  I'm sure "society" will give you a big warm hug on your deathbed-most likely just a big middle finger though.

  • Matt F 2015-11-30 11:46:56

    Its very obvious Alex hasn't read much or any of BD blog or any of the available information about open relationships. The problem with his debating is that its coming from a whats good for society standpoint which societal programming encourages. Living a happy life is to be personally responsible for it and not try to be responsible for society or others. You can help and care fo people but ultimately it is their responsibility to be happy. Another large issue is that he uses stereotypes of players that lie and manipulate where as the alpha 2.0 actually uses a different communication style which is not verbal but non verbal and easily interpreted by women. It would have been nice if Alex made logical arguemens instead of stereotypes, emotional opinions, or very skewed poorly attempted comparisons.

  • Patrick 2015-11-30 11:48:37

    Most everyone agrees that long-term relationships can be very positive for both the man and the woman, possibly even starting at a young age (teens-early 20s).  It's just understanding what options (i.e., TMM, OLTR)exist, increasing ones chances for positive outcomes and pursuing the best set of options (i.e. legal, social) for one's personal lifestyle. The history of western-style marriage may surprise many unfamiliar.  I read the book, "Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800".  From what I remember (I read the book about 20 years ago), the institutional and cultural values of marriage have always been changing, at least between 1500-1800 in England.  Back in the 1500s, marriages were more based on business and continuation of the family, much like an Indian-style arranged marriage.  There were dowries, etc.  In the 1700s, the idea of marriages based on romantic love began to be more prevalent in England. The Old Testament provides interested examples of marriage from over 1500-2000 years ago in certain parts of the world.  I am not an Old Testament scholar, but certainly not many people in USA still advocate some of the traditional sexual/marriage practices from that era. (see,,, and . By the way, in Christianity, one of the big arguments that I see is that Christians should follow the rule of God.  If God does not forbid it, then they should follow the rules of the country they live in.  Current marriage laws seem to be in flux, and I sure there are many Christian viewpoints about current marriage cultural in the USA that would be more suited for another post. Of course, this begs the question about marriage in other cultures, but that's for another post, as well. It's no surprise that the idea of marriage is still changing and will always be changing to (hopefully) best suit the cultural in which the union takes place.  The social structure best suited for a small tribal unit in pre-industrial times might be different than the social structures of marriage occurring in the 1920s.  To a degree, current marriage practices seem to be in flux, especially in different socioeconomic situations. But what may benefit society at large may be different than what may benefit a particular individual.  As individuals, it's important to understand what is possible and what are some of best options for long-terms success. I think the perceived main point of disagreement between TMM and OLTR is what best suits an individual in the short and long-term.  Ultimately, you will never know until you try something for a long while. There are always calculated risks and the 2% rule.  Both include possible risks and rewards.  Ultimately, different people may find different social structures more rewarding. Based on current data on BDB, about 10-15% of marriages in the USA are working well.  Unfortunately, not as much data exists on the BD OLTR, but that doesn't make it a bad idea, just less chartered waters. If someone wants to pursue a "traditional marriage" (which isn't maybe that traditional, maybe just 100 years old, possibly), there are many things they can do to optimize the marriage.  Marry a great woman, have legal structures in place to protect one's assets, pursue a life of continual advancement and health, create a great lifestyle for you and your woman. If sleeping with other woman is going to be issue, there may be ways to include that in the "prenup" (lawyers?). Pursing an OLTR could be very close to a TMM minus the current legal structures that may infringe upon certain people's lifestyles.  But you would still want a great woman, legal structures to protect one's assets and the pursuit of a good life for yourself and your woman. I think everyone agrees that long-term relationships can be very positive for both the man and the woman.  But it's just understanding/imagining what options may exist and pursuing the best options for one's desired long-term personal lifestyle.  

  • Parade 2015-11-30 14:32:15

    "Females do not like their male having sex w/ other partners." Really have to disagree with this one. One of my partners has said she enjoys watching me with other women, but doesn't want to hear about it if she's not present/part of the sex. Another wants to hear everything and see pictures of the other people I'm sleeping with. A third wouldn't if I were her boyfriend, but since I'm not she wants to do threesomes and more with me. It is my opinion/experience that women claim they don't like it / want it because of the backlash they'd get by being public about their desires, NOT because they actually don't like it.

  • Jack Outside the Box 2015-11-30 15:00:10

    Jesus Alex! You are so addicted to societal programming that every time you speak I get serious chills down my spine. I don't want to rehash the whole debate, but I'd like to emphasize some points you made that were particularly chilling and shocking to me.

    Outside sex, we are social creatures. Humans have evolved to survive in tight-knit groups who trust their lives on each other’s split-second instincts.
    Speaking as an introvert, this is the most chilling thing you said here. You want to see humans as cells inside one big human collective. I want no part of you or your Communist Borg collective. I want to be fully independent and self-reliant. What you see as community closeness and love, we introverts see as an Orwellian prison where everyone is chained to everyone else by bonds of "love." Just visualizing these shiny, happy people makes me frozen with fear. Did I mention I hate clowns? I can just picture it: Other people telling me what's best for me. Trying to save me from myself. Condescending to me and patronizing me because they "care about me." Doing things to me by force "for my own good." And all in the name of love! Alex, you are a truly scary person. Just thinking about your desired dystopia makes me sick. At best, everyone would be treated like a child. At worst, all individuality would be erased and replaced with shaming of every non-conformist under the sun. In other words, pure hell for us creative, individualistic introverted types. This is the hell of "dependence" and "weakness" that us individualistic introverts have tried to escape from ever since we turned 18. I'd rather die than go back to those chains! I love being a completely independent and self-reliant man. I wouldn't trade it for any personality-destroying Orwellian community love! NEVER! What you're describing is worse than hell. It's......the American South! Shudder!
    α2.0 lacks argument for improving social life w/ other men. Focus on better social foundations leads men to be more powerful.
    Every Hollywood celebrity would laugh at you here. The greater your social popularity, the greater your prison. The most popular cheerleader in high school is the loneliest person in the world! Everyone is so busy agreeing with her that they don't hear a word she says. Every high school jock - captain of the football team type - is in an inescapable prison - a prison for his personality. Everyone is watching him. Everyone is judging him. One wrong or socially unpopular move and he will be ousted from his throne and replaced by another. Think of politicians, Hollywood celebrities, etc... They are the saddest, loneliest prisoners in the world - constantly scrutinized, trashed daily....there is no room to move. Your fans/friends own you. You belong to them, not yourself.
    Power is the #1 thing women are attracted to.
    Agreed! But power comes from anonymity. Do you have any idea how much power I would have to give up if I became famous? Having no room to move and no space to breathe while being the lowest puppet of your adoring fans isn't power. it's slavery. The type of power of which you speak is a matrix-induced illusion. Yes, some women (gold diggers, status whores) are attracted to popular men with the illusion of power. But when it comes time to cheat on these puppets, they cheat with anonymous men like me! Three months ago, I had a woman in my bed who is married to a "powerful" man under your matrix-induced fictional definition of power. She said she envies me - my absolute freedom, my lack of concern for what others think, my privacy... Her exact words were, "I love how you have so much room to breathe. There seems to be nothing you can't do. You have no worries because no one important knows you exist." That's power! REAL power. Women who have been deceived by the matrix publicly gravitate to men with fake power, but once they discover how weak and imprisoned these men really are, they cheat with anonymous seducers who beckon them.....from the darkness. It is we who then give these women the true freedom and happiness which they always thought they would experience with popular men enslaved to the matrix's opinion polls. Please take the red pill, Alex, and learn the nature of real power.

  • Duke 2015-11-30 15:26:29

    Women who have been deceived by the matrix publicly gravitate to men with fake power, but once they discover how weak and imprisoned these men really are, they cheat with anonymous seducers who beckon them…..from the darkness.
    Classic. I'll be an anonymous seducer all day every day. No shame in my game. Of course it does suck a little to not get social validation, but that tiny bit of validation is not worth all the negatives that come with it.

  • Sundance 2015-11-30 16:38:44

    Alex's points failed on a few levels. Alex: "I simply think systemizing promiscuity and things like slowly acclimatizing females into your system without directly telling them what you are doing contain elements of psychotic behavior." This is pretty much just an empty insult.  It's like saying that waiting a little while to broach the topic of marriage and kids with someone you're dating is "psychotic".  And regarding "Systemizing promiscuity", promiscuity is a  major component to TMM anywhere it is employed.  Systematic, no?   Alex: "Only time will tell what relationship system is the best." Time?  Alex made the analogy that Marxists governments have failed in every country they've been implemented because it is not "natural".  Could not the same be said for every society that implements TMM with the expectation of lifelong monogamy?? Promiscuity and divorce however despised, are ever present features of the TMM in 100% of the societies in which they have been employed.

  • Blackdragon 2015-11-30 17:26:38

    I didn’t want to comment until enough people weighed in and gave their opinions on the debate. This is why I’m no longer going to debate the topic of long-term, pair-bonded nonmonogamous relationships on this blog. Other commenters are free to discuss it here, but I think I’m done. I’ve had several debates about it now, plus debated it in the comments numerous times and in detail. From all these debates it’s now very clear that long-term monogamy lovers clearly don’t have any real facts to back up their points, even if they’re otherwise intelligent, well-meaning men. Their contentions are usually 90% emotion, primarily anger and nostalgia. The 10% left over are facts they present that always either prove my points for me or are decades out of date. If men who think long-term monogamy is a good idea in 2015 (as long as you’re “Alpha” or something) had any powerful, convincing, fact-based points to bring to the conversation, they would have done so a long time ago, kicked my ass, and proved me wrong. Yet I keep giving these guys opportunities to do so, and they can’t produce anything factual no matter how many opportunities I give them. Instead it’s always emotion and “this used to work,” which isn’t helpful, convincing, or relevant to men getting married (or long-term monogamous) in 2015. I’m still taking debate topics from anyone who’d like to debate me in a future debate, so please comment here or email me if you’re interested. I’ll debate any topic with you, but the topic of long-term pair-bonded nonmonogamy is off the table now, at least for these Blackdragon debates (anyone is more than welcome to continue discussing it in the comments). I’ve given that topic ample opportunity already.

  • Sebastian 2015-11-30 20:33:26

    I have been reading this blog for a while now.  It has literally changed my life, my view of women and dating in general.  I discovered the Blackdragon during what will be my last "treat her like a princess" and "she is different then all the rest" TM failed relationship. Following BD's advice... since that time I can honestly say that everything has changed for the better. My work life, my social life and my love life.  My happiness and my confidence has improved exponentially and am still very new at this. Thank you.   Blackdragon: I have been thinking about something and I have been waiting for an opportunity to ask this question.  Do you think it is possible to use a woman's natural behavior and/or sociological programming in such a way that you can create behavioral modification?  For example, have you ever watched the television shows "The Dog Whisper" or "My Cat from Hell?"  This is behavior modification at work. Do you think it's possible to modify a woman's inherent natural behavior in a similar way in order to get more desirable results from her?  Granted a human being has free will and they can be deceptive and devious, but frankly so can dogs.  Especially the more intelligent breeds.  Yet time and time again these shows demonstrate that undesirable patterns of behavior across all breeds and "dog personalities" can be modified in such a way as to yield consistent, very similar and highly desirable outcomes.  It works for dogs, it works for cats... it probably works for lions and elephants. I dare to say that it works for humans? Can this be applied to women?  Can you become the "bitch whisperer?" lol (sorry I had to say it haha!)

  • Sparks 2015-12-01 06:29:03

    This wasn't a debate, it was emotional nonsense from Alex. BD completely owned him/her. I laughed out loud at the 'fucking new women is equivalent to masturbation' bit, almost as funny as the 'married people have 6 times more sex than single people' claim.

  • FiveSix 2015-12-01 08:26:03

    "This is why I’m no longer going to debate the topic of long-term, pair-bonded nonmonogamous relationships on this blog" Thank you! Since we're beating a dead horse here. This site is showing people how to honestly practice polyamory (or whatever label you want to put on OLTR's, MLTR's, etc) while minimizing drama. People who refuse to accept that it works shouldn't bother reading this blog... Fuck 'em.

  • Kurt 2015-12-01 09:35:56

    Sebastian, Yes! Behavior modification works in humans. Every formerly strong, independent man who is now a betafied submissive husband is testament to that fact 😉

  • themaster 2015-12-01 10:06:21

    BD,   I would love to debate you on your premise that the best way to establish an open relationship is via non verbal communication to a woman.   From a moral and ethical standpoint it is wrong as any non verbal communication (aurally or in written word) can always be misinterpreted by the recipient. It's why we have contracts and law written on paper without implying for example that a first time visitor to the USA should automatically know that having sex with a female under 18 years old in most US states ins illegal by observing couples around him. He has to be told by a Citizen or read the laws of the land.   Alpha men do not need to imply non-exclusivity because they arouse women.

  • Blackdragon 2015-12-01 15:16:27

    Do you think it’s possible to modify a woman’s inherent natural behavior in a similar way in order to get more desirable results from her?
    Of course. That's what game is. So is relationship management (the giving and taking away of attention, for example, which is what women crave most). And of course, women do it to us constantly as well, like with wearing makeup, or shirts that accentuate their boobs. They're using our male biology to get us to do what they want (even if that's just to satisfy their biological desires, like the female desire for attention).
    I would love to debate you on your premise that the best way to establish an open relationship is via non verbal communication to a woman.
    Cool. Added you to the debate list. You were already on there for another topic but the above one is better.

  • Dawson Stone 2015-12-01 16:20:08

    @Alex Some decent points but if you are going to quote Thomas Sowell at least spell his name right. 🙂 @BD I agree with many of your points but still feel a non-monogamous OLTR has some issues that are hard to overcome but still a way better relationship construct for a guy not wanting kids. One question is extremely important to me in my mind in thinking about this issue: Question: What constitutes a successful relationship? The problem is society has defined anything that isn't "forever" as a failed relationship. Instead, if we changed the definition to be two people being together for as long as they made each other happy, ending the relationship when that was no longer true and continuing to want the best for each other after the relationship ended it could be a different story. I think I see that as the goal of an OLTR. To be fair, what is best for society is NOT necessarily what is best for the individual. If everyone eschewed marriage it would create real problems for the future of our society and especially for women. By BD's own admission he has had only one OLTR in 10+ years that lasted 3 years (if I remember correctly). Over 80% of marriages last over 5 years. I would be willing to bet that less than 80% of OLTRs last 5 years. And I am guessing that if 11% (I think that is BDs number) of marriages work over the long term (let's say 25 years +) that OLTRs would be no better and perhaps worse when looking at 25 years+. Again, if memory serves me, BD said he knew of only ONE OLTR that was 22 years and the rest were shorter. The data set is smaller but if it were larger I am guessing it would play out the same or probably worse (in terms of relationship longevity at least). I think the point that is being missed isn't which "system" works best. An argument can be made that if one is having kids and raising them, an intact family unit with monogamous parents that at least like and respect each other if not love each other is superior to a non-monogamous OLTR that will almost certainly not last as long as it takes to raise children to college age. Well more than half of marriages will last until the children are off to college or out of the house. I would say it would be extremely unlikely that half of non-monogamous OLTRs would last the 20+ years necessary to raise a child to college age. For those guys not having kids an OLTR would clearly be a superior form of relationship to any form of marriage IMO. But as I was reading this post and the comments I had a bit of an epiphany. Relationships, be it an OLTR or TMM, are a lot like buying real estate. In real estate they say you make your money when you buy, not when you sell. If you buy in smart, baring some epic disaster you are going to make money. If you buy in too high, you are fucked unless you get stupid lucky on the exit. The same can be said of marriage and to a lesser extent OLTRs. Let's take the extreme example of Tom Brady marrying Gisele Bundchen. She has nearly twice his net worth and is a super model. I have no idea how much drama she is or how intelligent she is. But what is Tom Brady's risk in marrying her? Not very high. He won't get taken to the cleaners if he divorces, in fact he would probably get a pay-out even if he was the one cheating or wanting to end the relationship. But I can give a less extreme example. I have a close friend that is a lawyer (for the government so he doesn't make a ton of money) who is married to a doctor. She makes 2x his income, she has stayed in decent shape, they still have regular sex, she is a great mom to their children and is pretty laid back in general. Again, his downside is very low in a divorce. If anything he would come out ahead. The main problem with marriage for most men is way too many men marry and they marry women that present huge downside risk. A CEO marrying a smoking hot fitness instructor takes on a ton or risk for all the obvious reasons. The number of women that are going to be as successful or more successful than the men they date are few and far between. It is common knowledge that women date laterally and up when it comes to career and intelligence but laterally and down with looks. The exact opposite is true for men. They date laterally and down with regard to career and intelligence and laterally and up with regards to looks. Marriage isn't anywhere near a perfect relationship construct, but for those guys wanting a family and where they can minimize their downside risk by marrying smart, I can see the argument. My main point of disagreement with regard to an OLTR is that in my experience there are very, very, very few women that are truly ok with their guy having sex with anyone else. Even the commenter (Parade) on here that said his women was cool with it so long as she could watch proves my point...she WASN'T ok with it if she wasn't there. And huge difference if it is someone you are just dating and not in a longer-term OLTR with. I have met a couple of women that were really ok with it but they were super outliers and every one of them came with other baggage that made them less desirable. Some women will go along with it for a while but my expectation is that with more data about OLTRs you will see longevity rates well below that of a TMM. I am not actually saying that is a bad thing and at least exit costs are much lower for an OLTR. For a guy that doesn't want kids, I can see an OLTR being a reasonable path. But I have a new thought on an alternative approach. Suppose you found a woman that was one of the most beautiful you ever met and one of the smartest you ever met and one of the best lovers you ever met and didn't give you a headache very often about shit and was financially independent. What if you changed your definition of a successful relationship to be one that lasts 1 to 3 years and then ends reasonably amicably? What if the optimal relationship style was 1 to 3 year monogamy with someone you have low exit costs with and you could remain outcome independent? Crazy right? Well it was just a thought.

  • Jack Outside the Box 2015-12-01 17:01:20

     BD completely owned him/her.
    BD, was Alex a man or a woman?????? I say woman!

  • Matt T. 2015-12-01 18:42:07

    This debate got way off track! The topic didn't even seem to hint at OLTRs vs. TMM. I was hoping for more of a debate on the emotionally healthy way that a man should live his life. My take: A man should not create goals based on getting away from or free from any person or any thing, including dependents and dependence on people/things. Rather, a man should create goals based on enjoyment, spirituality, family, or any of the seven life areas. For example, a man should not aim to: quit smoking just because he's dependent on the nicotine quit drinking just because he depends on liquid courage stop giving money to his poor sister just because she depends on that $300 per month to pay bills. stop spending three nights a week with his lonely, dependent friend just because the friend has no one else to talk to. Instead, a man should: quit smoking so he can live longer quit drinking as part of a bigger goal to be confident while sober stop giving money to his poor sister while helping her get a better job or helping reduce her spending stop spending three nights a week with his lonely, dependent friend by helping find him more close friends The last four bullet points achieve the same result with far more positive motivations. Wasn't this the topic of the debate or did I miss something? Either way, I still like the OLTR idea.

  • Chris 2015-12-01 21:15:15

    I am writing this in connection with the recent debate that you hosted on your website. It seems to me that many people, yourself included, talking about Open MARRIAGE haven’t a clue what it’s like. You guys talk about Open Marriage (Hereafter, OM) like it’s a realistic option for people. I wonder how many of these guys are MARRIED, not in a OLTR, but MARRIED? Well, I am open-MARRIED. My experience has shown me that this lifestyle is definitely not a realistic option for the vast majority of self-identifying “alphas”. Only a tiny fraction of men could ever make this work with any kind of reliable frequency of success and convenience. (E.g., men with an extra house, or tons of money, or fame.) And, in case you start to suspect that the problem is me, let me assure you, it’s not. I’m an ex-Marine, 5’10” 200 lbs and in awesome physical and mental shape. Very good looking from top to toe. I have my own business, which I started from scratch. I am well traveled, play/write music, have a wide range of interests and passions. Importantly, I exude confidence and have absolutely no trouble approaching and conversing with beautiful women. Like yourself, I’m a libertarian (an Austrian schooler, to be more descriptive) and an all-around hard-ass. I don’t call myself an “alpha” – I don’t need to. The reason this lifestyle is not practical is that for starters, a decisive majority of women simply doesn’t think all that highly of sex. Fortunately, I am married to a woman who loves sex, but she is one of the exceptional ones. All of her friends think her sex drive is comical, even bizarre. A number of her friends “hate” sex either in whole or in part, and frankly, almost all of the rest of them just do it (usually some resentment) to appease their begging husbands. This is not my conjecture. This is what they actually tell my wife. Moreover, a number of women have told me roughly the same: they look at sex the way most guys look at dancing, i.e., they can easily get by never doing it again. Now, I’m not going to claim I know the statistical breakdown on this, but it’s very significant. If my wife’s large number of friends is an accurate sample, we’re looking at maybe 10% of the female population that is SEX-driven in any way approaching the way men are. And I have a feeling that that’s being a bit liberal. The rest of them either are non-sexual or think that occasional sex is an “okay” part of a loving Disney relationship. Next issue: women will put up with sex in order to have RELATIONSHIPS. Women crave RELATIONSHIPS. Women love RELATIONSHIPS. In fact, I would even say that in general a woman’s drive for relationships is probably greater than the drive that sex-driven guys have for sex. This is why the distinction between OM and OLTR is a meaningful one: Women see a guy in an OM as a zero-chance for a RELATIONSHIP. A guy who is in an OLTR, on the other hand, is something they can (in their thinking) win over (exclusively) to themselves. Obviously, you wouldn’t waste 5 seconds on a relationship you knew was all but guaranteed to be sexless. Likewise, the overwhelming majority of women will not waste 5 seconds of their life “putting up with” sex when the chances of a relationship are all but null. It really doesn’t matter if the guy is charismatic, built, and sexy. Most women would rather date a guy who is a 6 or 7 rather than have sex with a 9 or 10 who is 100% not available for a relationship. In which case is a man 100% not available for a relationship? When he is happily married. Sure, unhappily married guys can score some pity fucks here and there. This is essentially how cheaters get laid. The woman sees such a man as a relationship opportunity, even if only a low-probability one. Even guys in a happy and stable OLTR can score on this dynamic. To women, the words “wife” and “marriage” connote things that words like “open relationship,” “girlfriend,” and “OLTR” do not. “Marriage” to women is sacred in a sense that men cannot grasp. Oh, and this brings me to another point: this crap about women being big-time cheaters, as if they are dogs in heat just aching to score! What a joke! Very, very few of my wife’s friends have cheated on their husbands. And believe me, they trust her with all kinds of damning secrets. Sex isn’t important to most women. If they (1) have kids and (2) have a decently kind, attentive, and capable husband, they will feel very little urge to cheat. Their cheating is almost entirely due to their husband’s personality and relationship failings and NOT to sex issues. (And do note that I am not at all hereby justifying women cheating on their husbands, I am merely explaining how they see and describe their own motivations.) I am curious about your statistics on women’s infidelity. I totally doubt them. I would like to know what happens to those numbers once Black people (and some others) are excluded from the survey. Not that I have anything against Blacks, I just recognize that generally speaking their society and family life is severely messed up for a number of reasons. I’m just not seeing all kind of sex-frenzied middle-  and upper-class white girls hungrily hooking up with married guys, even ones that are shit-hot like myself. And it sure ain’t for lack of searching! Oh, I almost forgot. There are indeed some women who are perfectly eager to engage in casual sex or date men in Open MARRIAGES. Yeah, just adjust your online search options and POF and OKC will provide you a dazzling assortment of the ugliest women in your town. Most of them weigh twice as much as my wife and have more jewelry in their face then my wife wears at a dinner. One last thing: Honesty. You yourself have often stated that only pussies lie in order to get laid. I am a scrupulously honest man. Sure, I don’t loudly broadcast all the details about my situation, but I do not hide them. I have never fucked a woman who did not clearly, explicitly know that I’m married. That’s just who I am. Besides, if you’re cool with being a liar, why bother with an OM? Just cheat on your wife! Lie and make it easier! Like one of your commentators stated, there is a sort of psychopathic vibe in this business – at least, that is this case if you are lying or even withholding critical information from the people you are fucking. Of course, this greatly reduces my opportunities for getting some on the side. But honesty is honesty and that’s just who I am. So, let’s summarize: (1) Most women are not all that wild about sex. (2) Those few that are wild about are far more inclined to opt for sex with un-attached (or less-attached) men and avoid married ones because they are women and are ultimately interested in a Disney relationship. (3) The vast majority of women who will readily fuck married guys are butt-ugly. (This is true at swinger parties as well.) (4) The pool of desirable women once these facts are accounted for is extremely small. And of course the pool of guys who are interested in having sex with them is extremely large. Does this mean the dream of OM is impossible? No, but you better be hot stuff! And even then, it’s not easy! And even then, it’s slim pickins. Anybody saying otherwise is full of shit or they’re banging fatties or nasty barfly types and acting like they’re living large. Let me put it another way: I was in an elite unit in the USMC, I started my own business from nothing, I taught myself several languages, I’ve even done highly illegal “operations” in Europe that I cannot speak of in detail, and what I can tell you is that being MARRIED and “getting some on the side” with 8s and higher and using no dishonesty is without a doubt the most difficult undertaking in my life. Sure, it happens, but it is tough! It certainly is not anything that can be marketed to the masses as a viable alternative to TMM. I’m all for men getting some on the side. I hate monogamy. But let me disabuse you and your readers of your erroneous ideas regarding OM, it is far too difficult to be a practical alternative to TMM. If you know for certain that you value sexual variety with beautiful women more than building a future and raising kids with someone as a “MARRIED” couple, that’s fine, but you should know that the only practical option for you is to NOT GET MARRIED, or to STOP BEING MARRIED, or DELAY GETTING MARRIED AS LONG AS YOU CAN. Don’t delude yourself. Unless you are in the top 5% of men your dream life will not happen at all. And if you are in that small fraction, your successes will only be sparse.

  • Blackdragon 2015-12-01 22:42:30

    A number of her friends “hate” sex either in whole or in part, and frankly, almost all of the rest of them just do it (usually some resentment) to appease their begging husbands. This is not my conjecture. This is what they actually tell my wife.
    Yes, monogamous wives well past the three-year mark in a marriage hate sex. I've written about this extensively here. But "monogamous wife" does not equal "women."
    If my wife’s large number of friends is an accurate sample, we’re looking at maybe 10% of the female population that is SEX-driven in any way approaching the way men are.
    It isn't an accurate sample at all. I'm betting most of your wife's friends are not only married, but have been married for longer than three years. As a married man, you're living in a married-person bubble. Go hang around some women well under 30 who are single (and fuck a few of them, if you really are open), then come back and tell me that women don't like sex.
    Those few that are wild about are far more inclined to opt for sex with un-attached (or less-attached) men and avoid married ones because they are women and are ultimately interested in a Disney relationship.
    It's simply amazing you actually believe this stuff. Please read some more on this blog and/or do some more research before you adamantly state things I know for a fact to be clearly untrue.
    Unless you are in the top 5% of men your dream life will not happen at all. And if you are in that small fraction, your successes will only be sparse.
    I've never talked to any man with an open marriage whose experiences are like yours and whose outlook is so depressing. I have a feeling you have deeper problems in your life or in your marriage that you are not relaying here.

  • Parade 2015-12-01 23:22:05

    Even the commenter (Parade) on here that said his women was cool with it so long as she could watch proves my point
    You misunderstand. All 3 women I mentioned are ok with me having sex with other women. All 3 of them have sex with other guys. One of them thinks it's hot when I share pictures / stories of the other women I'm seeing / hot dates / etc. One of them does not want to hear about it, but it's because she's not included, NOT because she has a problem with me seeing other women. And one of them wouldn't want me to "if I were her boyfriend" but...I'm not her boyfriend, so she doesn't care. (I don't know what being her boyfriend would mean, and I'm not inclined to find out)

  • Jason 2015-12-02 01:19:38

    > Either that’s OLTR or something else no one has come up with yet. Except that someone did come up with it - me -  Sex 3.0 This problem has already been solved. Rolling out the solution globally ... well that's a different problem.

  • POB 2015-12-02 04:36:30


    The reason this lifestyle is not practical is that for starters, a decisive majority of women simply doesn’t think all that highly of sex. Fortunately, I am married to a woman who loves sex, but she is one of the exceptional ones.
    Not trolling or anything, but this is not true. Long-term married and recently divorced women are the horniest kinkiest ones I've met to this day (even if they still like their husbands). Most are just dying to have a new cock inside them.
    Moreover, a number of women have told me roughly the same: they look at sex the way most guys look at dancing, i.e., they can easily get by never doing it again.
    Yes, some women can get by without sex. Buuut I'm willing to bet that if you could remove all societal programming and give them 30 minutes with a young good-looking stud their pussies would get wet in a split second.
    Most women would rather date a guy who is a 6 or 7 rather than have sex with a 9 or 10 who is 100% not available for a relationship. In which case is a man 100% not available for a relationship? When he is happily married.
    Right, they rather date a 6 or 7 because these guys have: 1) scarcity mentality, so no fear of competition and 2) beta behaviors, which they like at first (to fulfill their Disney) but despise later on (because they're bored). What you're missing here is they also like to fuck a 9 or 10 who knows what he's doing (and they do it all the time, sometimes while they're still dating the 6 or 7). About your other, I don't know where all the anger and pessimism is coming from, but I guarantee you don't have to be or do anything fancy or wrong to be successful doing open relationships (even serious ones).

  • Chris 2015-12-02 05:24:48

    The response I'm getting is hilarious. "Anger, pessimism," "deep problems" et al... Hahaha. I'm not a pessimist at all.Nobody here knows me from Adam, nobody has even acknowledged a difference between OM and OLTR, nobody has claimed to be scoring while married (and being honest with side women) as opposed to being in an OLTR (i.e., not MARRIED). Jesus Christ! Just look at Tiger Woods' side pieces. Most of them were double-baggers and a few were barely okay. And Schwarzennegger's housemaid! Please! That was one of the ugliest looking women you're going to find anywhere! If he could pull that one off, it shows that his sexual diet consists of god-knows-what. So you self-styled aces, please give those guys your much-needed game wisdom. Now it is true that recently divorced women are more receptive. I had a newly divorced Puerto Rican woman. She had 5 hysterical, squirting orgasms and said the sex was by far the best she ever had. BUUUUUT, once some beta-ish guy came into her picture, it was game over. She even joked with me that she did not expect Mr Beta to be in the picture long and really wished she was unattached and available for more sex with me, but guess what: The relationship with him weighed more in the scales. Not angry at all. Geez, for tough alpha guys, some of you seem awfully sensitive.

  • Blackdragon 2015-12-02 09:30:00

    "Chris" - Please stop making multiple comments pretending they're from multiple people. I'll have to keep deleting them and if you keep it up I'll have to ban you. Make your points and let them stand. If open marriage so horrible, get divorced and go get monogamous. But don't make sock-puppet comments here. Thanks.

  • DW 2015-12-02 10:44:21

    BD! why did you delete my post??? I am not Chris.

  • Blackdragon 2015-12-02 11:37:48

    Look, if you really are two separate people (and I have no way of knowing that), I can't allow you and your husband to go back and forth on this blog about your dysfunctional marriage while you're both posting from the same IP address. This blog is not a marriage counseling service. For the last time: 1. Just because you two are having trouble in your open marriage doesn't mean open marriages is a bad idea. 2. You two (if there really are two of you) are literally the only two people I've heard out of hundreds with open marriages to have this negative an experience with an open marriage. You guys are an exception to the rule. 3. If you two are truly unhappy with having an open marriage, then close it down and go monogamous, or divorce each other and go get married the normal way. Good luck.

  • FiveSex 2015-12-02 13:10:42

    "I would love to debate you on your premise that the best way to establish an open relationship is via non verbal communication to a woman." I'd love to read this debate, since it's something always on my mind when picking up/going on a date with someone.

  • Chris 2015-12-02 20:25:44

    Blackdragon, you don’t need to get all defensive. You chose to host a debate on the suitability of OLTRs and OMs. I am making comments and posing questions that pertain directly to the subject at hand and I have made no personal attacks against you or any other participant in this discussion. My contributions are focused primarily on the OM side. My wife and I are in an open marriage. So far, I haven’t seen anybody else in an OM contribute anything at all to this discussion, and that includes you. I assure you, I agree with the vast majority of your viewpoints. I have recommended your blog to a number of people and will continue to. However, when it comes to OM, I have to give you a vote of no confidence. Why? (1) You are not even married. (In fact, you are so far from being married that it seems suspicious to you that two people can have the same IP address! It’s funny.) (2) You lump OM and OLTR together when there are substantive differences between the two that have a direct and significant effect on outcomes, and hence, the feasibility of OM as a social regime. (3) Your description of OM does not – by a very long shot – comport with my experience nor with the experience of 100% of the many other young, attractive couples my wife and I know through swinging. You say my wife and I are the only out of hundreds that you know to have the type of experience we describe? I’m baffled by that. There is evidently a world of difference between Minnesota and the PNW. I actually do think there is something to be said for regional variations in Societal Programming, but I’m not buying the idea that it can account for the huge difference between the picture you paint and the reality that I and many, many couples experience here. But I think my next point actually overshadows these first three: In presenting yourself to the dating pool you make damn sure to present yourself as single. You have stated in many places that your way of dealing with women and their knowledge of your other relationships is to keep that knowledge away from them for ideally 3 months! I don’t automatically have anything against this strategy, particularly since you are not married – although if I were to sift through the details, I suspect I might differ with you in certain cases. The point is that this is type of strategy is (1) necessary to you – as evidenced by the fact that you use it and strongly advise others to use it as well, and (2) is an outright mockery of anything we might call MARRIAGE. Lest you should counter that your strategy is not a necessary expedient but only a convenience that may be abandoned at any time without drastically reducing your successful outcomes, I wonder whether you would ever make yourself out to be a married guy and expect anything remotely approaching the outcomes you now have as a single guy. Your whole contention in this debate is that OM and OLTR are viable alternatives to TMM. Moreover, much of the debate between you and Alex extended to society-wide considerations. Seeing no married man has offered anything factual or rational to my previous remarks, I stand by my contention that OM is not practical, nor are its desired ends accessible, to the vast majority of married men who intend on conducting themselves with integrity and getting lays with attractive women. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m saying it’s very impractical and therefore cannot be promoted as some kind of feasible reform to dating/relationships.  Moreover, if a married man gets on-the-side lays only by routinely and strategically throwing his wife under the bus, in what sense can he be called a “husband”? The woman I build a future and a family with? The woman who worships the ground I walk on? Doesn’t seem very manly or husbandly to me… And as for the allusions in your debate to society, what “society” is there when men disown half of the house they are building? Such a society is doomed.

  • Sachmo 2015-12-02 22:11:16

    I actually happen to lean far more to Alex's side of this debate and agree with other comments here. Alex just talks past all of BD's points and seems to be lost in some theoretical fantasy world, arguing about some imagine morality of having dependents.  I think there are good arguments as to why BD's model of OLTR is also a fantasy, but Alex didn't make them here.

  • Sachmo 2015-12-02 22:58:04

    @Patrick great comments on the history of marriage... @dawson Best comment on this thread. I've said this a few times in the comments, but in my reading of "Opening Up" - a very highly regarded book on open relationships - the statistics the author presents paint a WORSE picture of relationship stability in an OLTR.  Which is fine, because as Dawson says, the goal of a relationship is to find happiness, and when it ceases move on.  I agree 100% with BD and Dawson that if you already have kids, have no desire to raise kids, then an OLTR or MLTR framework makes complete sense. But if you WANT to have kids and WANT a shot at relationship stability in order to raise them to maturity then I think there is reasonable empirical data in favor of monogamy.  I would AGREE that you would be sacrificing some personal happiness for the sake of your kids, but I think that is ok, UP UNTIL A CERTAIN POINT.  Each person will have their own point, for example many men are ok going months w/out sex.  I personally would divorce, but I would be willing to tolerate some drama / compromise to maintain a long-term relationship with mother of my kids. Also 100% agree with Dawson, within EITHER framework, you need to have the legal protections in place. One thing that doesn't get stated in this blog enough, people that pursue MLTR / OLTR style relationships can STILL get women pregnant by accident and can STILL get raped in court by child support.  And supposing you have an OLTR, it doesn't work out, and you raise kids separately, you STILL need to have a functional relationship with your ex-gf in order to raise the kids. While I agree with the general attitude and framework of BD's blog, you can't be 100% focused on sex and logistics.  I do think that a true RELATIONSHIP, even an OLTR, requires effort.  Especially once you start co-habitating. @Chris I think you have some great comments.  I wouldn't argue with your experience, but I would say that you don't need to say that you are MARRIED, as long as you EXPLICITLY communicate that you are not looking for a relationship if you are looking for some on the side.  I think that would still qualify as being honest. Also, if your wife is also on this blog, I'd say that you may not be following the rule of discreetness in how you pursue this.  You should both be discreet, and not necessarily tell each other every single detail (like if you took off your wedding ring before you went to the bar)... there are some things you don't need to share.  No it's not being dishonest, there are much more mundane things that couples don't share to make their lives easier. Finally, it also sounds like you are leaning too much on the ex-marine thing and going after whatever is easy and within reach.  You need to put in serious numbers to get results.  I do agree with BD though, if you are a dude, are reasonably decent looking and normal, and you PUT IN THE NUMBERS, you will do fine, regardless of whether you are married.  Ask my married friends...

  • Blackdragon 2015-12-02 23:57:16

    I think there are good arguments as to why BD’s model of OLTR is also a fantasy
    An OLTR is a serious, nonmonogamous, possibly co-habiting relationship that lasts a few years. If you think that's a "fantasy," then you're welcome to that very odd viewpoint. I don't deal in fantasy, but again, you're welcome to your opinions. Again, I just don't see the point of debating this specific topic any more. Literally everything there is to say about OLTR or OLTR marriage I've already stated somewhere on this blog or in my books, and any argument against these types of relationships I've already refuted, likely numerous times. If you think OLTRs are a "fantasy," or if you think they're possible but that you would strongly dislike one, that's great. Get monogamous and and suffer the consequences (including divorce if you get married) or just do MLTRs and FBs for the rest of your life. Either is cool with me. I'll be over here being happy. I'm not here to "sell" anyone on the concept of OLTR. I'm here to show men the best way to long-term, consistent happiness. Monogamy isn't it. OLTR is but one path of many that is superior to monogamy. There are many other options in life besides OLTR, as I've discussed many times before. Choose as you like.

  • Parade 2015-12-03 09:46:39

    “I would love to debate you on your premise that the best way to establish an open relationship is via non verbal communication to a woman.” I actually disagree slightly with BD on this as well, in certain cases. If I'm meeting someone where there's a 95%+ chance she's poly I make it clear up front that I'm seeing other people. I don't say it on OKC, but I do if her profile mentions it. I have no evidence to back this up, but I suspect it makes me seem a bit safer in a 'oh, this guy gets it' or 'this guy is pre selected' way.

  • Sachmo 2015-12-03 22:48:03

    @BD I don't mean that an OLTR is a 'fantasy' as in a made up thing.  I would also agree that OLTRs are a perfectly fine way to have a relationship and that they are practiced by many people and that they work for many life situations. But there are some aspects of an OLTR that I wouldn't agree work , particularly having a family.  In this aspect, I think it is a 'fantasy' in the same disney-esque 'till death do us part' fantasy that many people have going into monogamy.  An OLTR is no magic bullet for solving a lot of the problems that cause men and women to break up.  It just makes the entire transition painless, which if anything decreases relationship stability.  All of this is perfectly fine if you don't want to raise a family. If you do want a family, which is a goal that most people have, then I think it follows that you would place more value on relationship stability - even at the cost of *some* personal happiness.  Everyone will have different line where enough is enough.  I think Dawson summarized these points well. I'm not suggesting that we rehash the debate you just had, but since these are the comments, and there are few places on the internet where you will find intelligent opinions on this subject...

  • Elkay Mann 2015-12-04 06:13:27

    @Dawson: "What if the optimal relationship style was 1 to 3 year monogamy with someone you have low exit costs with and you could remain outcome independent?" Are you searching a safe relationship or are you searching for something that fulfills your desires and tastes? What's the point of being monogamous if she is eventually (3 months, 3 years, 30 years...) going to dump you just because? By being poly you reduce the risks and downsides while staying happy and outcome independent easier. The only "downside" of being poly is that you need to know how to deal with jealously, the desire to control, self-consciousness and emotional bursts. It's not for emotionally immature people.

  • Dawson Stone 2015-12-04 09:33:51

    @Sachmo Thanks for the shout out. I am curious how you feel about monogamy versus non-monogamy in an LTR be it married or unmarried. Do you think intimacy is reduced when an LTR is non-monogamous? @BD This is the first time I have see you say that one should only expect an OLTR to last  for "a few years." What I felt was "fantasy" was believing that an OLTR would have any likelihood of being a superior LTR construct. If the stated expectation of an OLTR is a few years (except for the occasional outlier that might be a bit longer) then that makes sense. @Chris You make some really good points in a ton of areas. You personal experience with OM dovetails with my own regarding women seeking a relationship as a key driver. I will say that I totally disagree with your position that most women don't enjoy sex as much as men. Quite the opposite in my experience. Most women can enjoy sex more than a man. With that said, in traditional relationships women are trained to use sex as a bargaining chip (not in your case it would seem) and therefore it removes much of the joy and pleasure from the experience for the woman. Those same women when hooking up with a guy that is an MLTR or FB love sex. @Jason I started listening to your Sex 3.0 stuff and it is really interesting. I haven't gotten all the way through it yet but I am really curious how you deal with being direct and honest upfront about "unfenced" relationships as you call them. In my experience you have to lower your quality of women OR shorten how long they stay in your life or BOTH if you are upfront about your desire to sleep with other women. Additionally, I have found the depth of intimacy is reduced with a woman if she knows you are seeing other women...regardless of how casually you are seeing those other women. This trade off between intimacy and monogamy, which I have no issue with for most women, does become an issue with an exceptional women (top 5% across the board in looks, brains, career, sex, personality, etc.). I am a huge proponent of not having a scarcity mentality and being as outcome independent as possible but in the extreme example of the exceptionally beautiful, extremely intelligent, amazing lover, etc, etc. how does one remain totally outcome independent? A truly exceptional woman (think Adriana Lima graduating from Harvard with a heart of gold who is a freak in bed) is by definition a scare resource. @Elkay Mann See my comments above. Not looking for "safe" at all and also not worried about getting dumped. It is simply my personal experience that intimacy is reduced when you are non-monogamous OR you have to choose to be deceptive either through a lie of omission or outright lie. The "boiling of the frog" approach will help get someone to agree to non-monogamy in the short-term but in the medium or long-term results in passive aggressive behavior and drama. So what I am asking people's opinions about is that perhaps one sticks with a traditional rotation or women when there isn't someone you are seeing that is truly the outlier of outliers on all levels and short-term monogamy (months to a couple of years) when they are exceptional to maximize the experience with the exceptional woman. I agree that 100% outcome independence is a bit harder. Perhaps Jason can weigh in here based on his sex 3.0 stuff.

  • Blackdragon 2015-12-04 10:03:02

    This is the first time I have see you say that one should only expect an OLTR to last  for “a few years.”
    Then you should learn to read more carefully. As just the latest example, I said this several weeks ago: "Most guys, including the ones who really know what they’re doing, are usually looking at a time frame of 2-7 years for these kinds of relationships. This includes me!" As I said above, everything to be said about this I've already said, and every objection I've already refuted. Actually let's play a little game, guys... To anyone reading this, throw at me any objection you have to an OLTR right here in these comments. (That are not nitpicks, Dawson.) Then I'll see if it's something I've already explained or refuted, which it probably is. Let's see if any of you can come up with anything *new.* If you can't, it will prove my point that days of debating this topic are indeed over.

  • Gluteus_Maximus 2015-12-04 11:04:12

    @ Chris most of the guys here aren't married because we're not stupid. it's like saying "you have to take heroine to know how bad it is." the problem with you marriage types is that you selfishly want to prolong things far longer than they should. it's like buying produce and expecting it to stay fresh weeks, months, years after their expiration date. everything has an expiration date. relationships rot. they expire. we, expire. throw that shit in the freezer all you want, or put all the preservatives you want, it's not gonna be the same. you can either go along with how life works, and it works brilliantly if you just let it, or you can mentally masturbate around how you think things should be, or "are." we always have the option to get married, just as you always have the option to get a divorce. this is an unconventional blog about an unconventional lifestyle. why would you even expect the men on here to be married. we don't come here for that shit. scroll back up to the top left of this website. it says "love women while staying FREE" FREE

  • Elkay Mann 2015-12-04 11:23:25

    @Dawson: "It is simply my personal experience that intimacy is reduced when you are non-monogamous OR you have to choose to be deceptive either through a lie of omission or outright lie." Well, that's not my experience. Non-monogamy never changed how I felt for any of the girls I've been with cause I feel and think of every relationship/bond separately, the fact that I love someone doesn't mean I can't enjoy fucking or loving somebody else. If you can't separate things then you still haven't gotten fully rid of the mononormativity from your mind. You still crave for a "special woman" who is "not like the rest", and does not exist. Every person is different, learn to enjoy them for as long as they decide to be part of your life, while giving your best. Eventually they will take distance (unless you do first), that's the harsh reality. Also: Not saying something is not lying. Lying is making her believe you are monogamous when you are not, instead of implying you are not monogamous with your attitudes. "Lie of omission" is implying the lie with your actions. And women ARE NOT stupid, you don't need to tell them anything, they perceive things a thousand times better than men, that's why when they ask, they are not truly asking: They are testing your resolve.

  • Gluteus_Maximus 2015-12-04 11:52:32

    clarifying on: "why would you even expect the men on here to be married." most people commenting here***. i'm sure there are men who are married that go on here that want to get out or convert their situation to something more open or whatever permutation of that.

  • Dawson Stone 2015-12-04 15:11:14

    @Elkay Mann I didn't mean that I can't have the same level of intimacy towards a woman but that in my experience the woman will not provide the same level of intimacy TO ME if you are not exclusive with them. And there is a big difference between thinking someone is one-of-a-kind and thinking someone is rare. The ones that are truly intelligent, low drama, financially independent, young, extremely attractive and kind are few and far between. They do exist there just aren't that many of them. There are plenty of situations where I KNOW a women hopes we are exclusive. She doesn't ask for a while because she likes me and doesn't want to get an answer she doesn't like. That is the lie of omission I am talking about and while it isn't as bad as an outright lie I do feel a little bad when I know she would behave differently if she knew we weren't exclusive.

  • Sachmo 2015-12-09 20:57:45

    @Dawson Well, intimacy is definitely a subjective thing.  Let's say intimacy is a 'sense of closeness' with someone. (That's incredibly broad, but psychologists actually have shown that when asked to draw Venn Diagrams, people  who report higher relationship satisfaction will actually draw them with substantially higher areas of overlap indicating their sense of closeness.  I think most people have a sense of this.) I believe BD and others with more experience in Open Relationships than myself who say that they've experienced deep intimacy with their MLTR / OLTRs.  I would also agree that many mono relationships have a sense of staleness about them.  I would probably guess that being open does not sacrifice any intimacy, and you may live more 'in the moment' with your MLTR / OLTR which is a good thing when you are together. But there is definitely evidence that open relationships are less stable than mono ones, and this is backed up by plenty of anecdotal stories that I've read from people in the community.  I think stability is very under-rated on this blog - you need stability to raise kids as part of a single family unit.  There is also a wealth of evidence that kids in single family households do better than single parent households.  So sure, from a personal perspective, open relationships are the way to go.  But taking kids into account, I think mono (with strong legal protections) is the way to go. If you are one of the lucky 33% that can keep it together over 20 years in a happy mono relationship, great.  If you are part of the other 67% that eventually divorces or separates and you don't have kids that co-habitate with you, then go back to the OLTR thing.

  • Gluteus_Maximus 2015-12-10 08:20:47

    @ sachmo Bro, bro, what stability is there when a member or both cheat in a marriage. When they get bored of each other. Tired of compromise. Start undermining one another. Underhanded insults turning straight into verbal slaps. Arguments. Disputes. Fights, yelling at each other. That's not stability. That's just some dumb shit. I've seen past friends, past because I no longer really bother with having married types in my social circle, but even random people in the mall, guys being emasculated by their wives, girlfriends, in front of EVERYBODY. Imagine being a kid, seeing your dad be a complete pussy. Whether you're a son or a daughter. Your mom treating him like a little bitch. FRQUENTLY. That's not stability man. The evidence you mention that says kids in single family households do better than single parents, I doubt they're taking into account situations the likes of which both parents aren't traditionally together as in not married or living together, but are still raising the kids in some fashion. I haven't looked much into it, since I just don't want kids, I don't really care, but from what I have glimpsed, and I think BD may have even mentioned it somewhere, kids don't really need to see you all the time. It's more about the quality of the interactions. Makes perfect sense to me. It's the same with women. It's the same with friend. Anyways, I agree that stability is important. I just don't think mono is a very conducive environment for it.

  • Gluteus_Maximus 2015-12-10 08:55:48

    Damn this 10 minute edit limit. With the "imagine seeing your dad be a complete pussy all the time," blah blah blah. I left out the important bit that many kids grow up thinking that's NORMAL. (Unless they're smart and know that there's something very wrong with that picture and perhaps encountered early on the alternative lifestyle and relationship choices being a possibility for themselves.) Because we've all heard that shit "relationships are about compromise" dur duh durr. Are these the same people being used for research/data on whether a traditional marriage is better suited for child-rearing? Know what I'm sayin.

  • Elkay Mann 2015-12-10 09:28:30

    When "compromise" means "the only thing I have to do is not breaking up for this relationship to be successful", we aren't talking about compromise but idiocy.

  • how it is 2015-12-15 13:47:41

    I've tried having "open" relationships and they just don't work. Brace yourself because you're probably not going to like what you read here. Too bad. Disregard social norms for a moment. Men are instinctively polygynous. We want SEX with as MANY physically attractive women as we can get ("more is better"). Women are instinctively hypergamous. They want to secure COMMITMENT from THE most capable provider/protector ("better is better"). Instinctively, men want MORE and women want #1. Men and women are NOT equal, life is unfair, biology is unfair, and the sexual marketplace is unfair. Men SHOULD have multiple partners and women SHOULDN'T. In my experience, "open" relationships turn out to be anything BUT. By giving BOTH partners the freedom to have sex with anyone they choose, a few things happen. One, the woman inevitably sees more offers than the man. Two, the woman starts losing interest in her primary partner due to finding a SEXIER lover. And three, the woman's rationalizations become increasingly pronounced until she ultimately leaves him (and not necessarily into the arms of another, but simply because she can't stand how "nice" he is for letting her get sex from others). Men should keep mistresses, spin plates, have side dishes, even cheat as he sees necessary. A man should have ONE loyalty: to himself above all others. Women should not stray from a man who has given his commitment, period. That way, everyone is happy. His primary gets the satisfaction of being with a PROUD man that isn't a pushover and is an experienced lover and she STILL gets access to what she really wants when all is said and done: his skills, time, attention, and resources. That being said, I'm of the opinion that a man should never give commitment to ANYONE, but if you've already done it, well, that's your problem. If your wife or girlfriend is free to roam and chase dick, you might as well not even have a relationship. And the ONLY way to get her committed to YOU is to be drowning in pussy yourself. Women LOVE men that have an abundance of sexual options. Yes, I know it doesn't seem fair. But GOOD sex is just NOT a two-way street. And that's just too damn bad ... for women. It's great for men, though.

  • Blackdragon 2015-12-15 14:56:03

    Your advice is based on how you want the world to work. My advice is based on now the world actually does. Your entire comment is filled with women should to this and that. I'm talking about what women do in real life, not what they "should" do. Western women don't tolerate a guy cheating on them. Once you get caught, your days are likely numbered. Fact. You can stay they should stay with you all you want, but that's not normally what they do. You're right. Open relationships don't last, but you're not acknowledging that cheating relationships don't last either (in the Western world anyway). Monogamy doesn't last either. ALL RELATIONSHIPS ARE TEMPORARY. The only difference is the amount of freedom and drama you experience during the relationship, and the amount of chaos and damage you suffer when the relationship ends (which it will). My system is the least-bad.

  • how it is 2015-12-15 16:54:59

    That's interesting. I've cheated many times, gotten caught, straight-up owned it and have never heard a complaint. I do not fear women. Never have. It's obvious to me that "Hell hath no fury" is a towering crock when I look them dead in the eye and own my shit. No, they don't hate us. They don't want to kill us. They don't want to hurt us. It's just that they simply don't care about us. At all. Even when we are attractive, we are utterly invisible to their solipsistic mind. Why do you care what women think? You shouldn't. You have no way to relate and neither does she. What ever happened to "never take a fish's advice on how she would like to be caught and never give her any?" You would be surprised how many women LOVE being treated like cheap, disposable sex objects, despite their objections. Their words mean absolutely nothing. They talk to hear themselves talk ... about themselves. She will never respect me and she doesn't actually want to be respected herself. She has no idea what respect even means. They see that men earn each other's respect and they just HAVE to have it, whatever it is. "Gimme gimme gimme." I used conditionals on purpose because I am smart enough to know that social norms are different than instincts. You are correct that there is some degree of fitting in that one must do, but if you lose touch with your instincts you might as well cut your own dick off. What we are faced with today is women going feral WITHIN society. So more Cro-Magnum, less Homo S. Sappy-ens. When it all comes down to it, she needs me more than I will EVER need her. I am completely self-sufficient and self-reliant. Who has the cock? I do. Who has the resources? I do. Who has the skills? I do. Who has the time and attention? I do. Who defines my lifestyle? I do. Who holds the cards? I do. She has ONE card to play and that card is sex. She has nothing else of value to offer me. Anything else I can do or acquire myself. Fact. The Golden Rule is this: He Who Has The Gold Makes The Rules. I have every right to structure my life as I see fit, as do you. You're free to disagree with my approach and play by HER rules rather than your own and I am free to ignore you. Best of luck. Put all the red pills on your sidebar that you like. But if you play by her rules, then you're as blue as can be.

  • Blackdragon 2015-12-15 21:12:33

    I’ve cheated many times, gotten caught, straight-up owned it and have never heard a complaint.
    I'm not sure I believe you. But assuming you're telling the truth and have NEVER heard a complaint from a woman when you cheat on them, then A) you're very lucky or B) dating a very submissive woman, or C) dating a woman who is not from the West. In any case, what you have as an open relationship (of sorts) so that's great.
    You would be surprised how many women LOVE being treated like cheap, disposable sex objects, despite their objections.
    I know. Those are high-drama relationships. I don't do drama. If you don't mind drama (and you sound like a higher-drama guy), and a lot of men don't, then great, go for it.
    Put all the red pills on your sidebar that you like. But if you play by her rules, then you’re as blue as can be.
    Uh huh. Never getting monogamous clearly makes me blue pill.

  • Alex 2015-12-21 20:10:38

    Hey guys, Thanks for all the great comments from all points of view. This debate really made me appreciate not only what a great sport BD is during the debates, but also: it's extraordinarily intense to have your arguments picked apart by a ton of people, from every angle. So I've got to tip my hat to BD in doing this blog and having all these discussions. Also, my arguments may seem quite emotional, but I have read every article on this blog, and I tried my best to avoid using arguments that were employed before anywhere on the blog. So hopefully it was in line with what BD has requested in the comments section--new approaches to the arguments. My attempts to give new points of view probably made my points seem less factual, but the truth of the matter is that relationships are mostly emotional entities. Psychologists today still have many problems in quantifying relationship data and accounting for individual variations  during studies of love/sex. Marriage/relationship data comes from correlation. There are no truly 'scientific experiments' about 20+ year marriages (and the massive amount of variables involved), only case studies and other quasi-experiments, whose dubious natures are the same reasons that many people question psychology on the whole as a 'serious science'.   Alex @Jack(Off)OutsidetheBox I am a trainsexual, and Thomas the Tank engine is my favorite.

  • elijah 2016-08-24 21:56:09

    I'd say BD got him simply with this one: 1. The exact relationship you recommend has an 87% failure rate today. We’re not talking about “throughout the ages,” we’re talking about today, 2015. Alex never replies to this even in the slightest. We have no evidence that monogamy has EVER worked, but even if it did, it's completely irrelevant to the FACT that we can see it doesn't work today. If the system is so great, why is almost everyone in it so miserable? Why are the people "happy" with it almost exclusively only those that haven't been doing it for very long? Oh, not to mention why is it that in fact, almost nobody is even doing it at all, including those that are such strong proponents? The reality is that de facto, almost everyone IS in an OLTRID (OLTR In Denial: infidelity rates upwards of 70%). The PROBLEM is that they have been convinced there is something wrong with what is actually natural and even HEALTHY human behavior, and all the screwed up lies and dishonesty that result from that conviction. Just as ridiculous as teaching kids that sex, the act that is the reason they are alive, is "dirty" or has any kind of negative moral implications of any kind.  Since this is how people actually behave, we have two choices, the results of each which are clear and evident. 1. We refuse to acknowledge/accept this behavior. We condemn it. Partners are forced to lie to each other about it. Society shames it. Trust and love are broken and damaged, intimacy impossible, children's upbringing is twisted and emotionally damaged, divorces happen everywhere. We constantly fuel and feed our basest emotions - jealousy, possessiveness, selfishness, disrespect for the personal freedom of others, desires to control others, etc. 2. We accept and acknowledge it, we encourage it. We want our partners to be happy. We want our partners to make decisions in an environment of freedom and dare I say, True Love, where the only thing we want for them is to be free and happy, supporting any decision they make towards those goals. Partners are completely honest with each other and capable of trusting one another (having no reason to lie anymore). We grow greatly as human beings (working through some of our basest, animal and therefore unhuman emotions: jealousy, treating other people like property, selfishness, ego), and therefore enjoy deeper intimacy and mutual respect for our partners than was ever possible in TMM. Kids are raised with healthy attitudes about their bodies, sex, and what a partnership that is not only long-lasting but also harmonious looks like. Alex, just this question: why NOT an OLTR? Is this because there is anything INTRINSICALLY harmful in this? Name one thing negative about it that is not the result of social programming. It's only because we have DECIDED to condemn it. That condemnation is the only issue. It's like believing that just because the government has a law stating that wearing a red hat is illegal on the books, and just because everyone in society will shun you for wearing a red hat, wearing a red hat is ACTUALLY immoral and nobody should do it. NO. The law should be taken off the books, and people should be less uptight and judgemental.    

  • elijah 2016-08-24 22:17:59

    To anyone reading this, throw at me any objection you have to an OLTR right here in these comments. (That are not nitpicks, Dawson.) Then I’ll see if it’s something I’ve already explained or refuted, which it probably is. Let’s see if any of you can come up with anything *new.* If you can’t, it will prove my point that days of debating this topic are indeed over.   Just saw this. I like a challenge. Hmm. The Buddha stated that it is "better to eliminate one desire, than satiate 10,000." The more women you sleep with, the more you want to sleep with (I'm pretty sure there's some solid scientific evidence behind this that you yourself have referred to). People would be happier, and set a better example for their kids, teaching them to be happy with what they are given in life, if they were to keep their virginity for marriage, get married, and stay married to the same person their whole lives. The role-model of the OLTR breeds dissatisfaction and the mentality that what we have is not enough, which is the root of all unhappiness.

  • elijah 2016-08-24 22:26:29

    Another one: It is not the joys in life, but the tragedies and the struggles that result in personal growth and developing our characters. The conflicts, the failures, are where we get our deepest and most meaningful lessons, and find our opportunities to become better people. TMM is full of these opportunities, whereas an OLTR does its best to eliminate them from the relationship entirely. Thus, the bonding that can occur between two people stuck in  TMM as they are forced to remain with each other "in spite of everything" is deeper and more intimate than the bonding that can occur between two people in an OLTR.