Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
It is the biggest fear people have about serious, nonmonogamous relationships. It’s one of the biggest excuses people make. Even people who admit that monogamy doesn’t work experience a lot of fear and angst about this. I mean hey, Suzi and Don had an open relationship, and Suzi eventually fell in love with one of her side-guys and left Don. It’s happened to celebrities too. And I read such-and-such book about open relationships and it said that it happens all the time. So, damn. Maybe I should just go monogamous. I don’t want the love of my life leaving me for someone else they have sex with!!! It’s just too risky.
-By Caleb Jones
As most of you know, I’m currently in an OLTR with Pink Firefly. This means I can have sex with FB’s on the side, and do all the time. She is also allowed to have men on the side as FB’s if she wishes. However, there is a very strict set of limitations for how we behave with these people. These limitations are so important that it’s likely our entire relationship would end if any of them were violated. That’s how serious we are about these limitations... and that's exactly how an OLTR should be. Otherwise, you should just have MLTR's. Since my side-women are all FB’s, I can have sex with them, and I can talk to them a little bit as friends, but that’s literally all I can do (unless Pink Firefly specifically asks me to do more with them, and that has happened, but that’s both an exception to the rule and beyond the scope of this article).
This means I do not: Spend the night with my FB’s. Spend any degree of nonsexual time with my FB’s. Have long, deep, intimate talks with my FB’s. Take my FB’s out on dates of any kind. Call my FB’s whenever I’ve had a bad day. Go on trips with my FB’s. Spend any time with my FB’s whatsoever unless we’re having sex or having a reasonably brief, friendly conversation right before or right after sex.
As you can see, if a man or a woman in an OLTR is operating under such a strict set of conditions with these people, it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to create an environment where more romantic feelings will occur in the first place. Let’s take the opposite scenario and examine how most people do open relationships. They basically sit down and declare that the relationship is emotionally exclusive, but sexually open. I’m only going to love you and you’re only going to love me, but we can both have sex with other people on the side if we want. So far, so good. That’s standard OLTR stuff.
However, unlike an OLTR, they don’t set a clear and rigid set of standards for how people behave with side-people. Oh sure, women in OLTR’s will usually throw out a few rules to the guy about how he’d better wear a condom with these girls, and how he’d better not buy them gifts, and some general statements how he’d better not fall in love with anyone else, but these rules aren’t good enough. They’re not clear or specific enough. They leave too much room for feelings to fester and grow with side-people.In every open relationship I have ever seen or heard about where one person started getting feelings for a side-lover, they clearly and blatantly violated the rules of an OLTR. The person not only had sex with a side-lover, but he/she also spent time with that person. They went out on dates. And/or they went on trips together. And/or they had long, intimate phone calls. And/or would spend entire days together. And/or they spent the night with each other occasionally.That is not an OLTR. That is a dysfunctional open relationship.
I’m serious, folks. Every time I have seen this happen in an open relationship, the person was treating a side-lover as more than just a FB. And so of course, feelings grew, and the open relationship either ended or was severely damaged. All you have to do to protect yourself from this problem is establish the clear behavioral parameters regarding FB’s on the side, and make these clearly understood before the OLTR relationship ever begins (this is part of the OLTR Talk, something I will discuss later). This also means that you’ve been dating this person as a MLTR for at least six months (if not longer) so you know that A) she’s the kind of woman who understands these rules and B) she’s the kind of woman who will do what she promises, or at least has higher odds of doing so. This usually brings up the excuse question of, “Well what if she/he promises to do those things, and then violates them behind your back anyway? You can’t trust someone to do what they promise!”
This goes back to excuse #3 right here. If you can’t trust someone, you would never put them in an OLTR relationship with you in the first place. You would only pursue an OLTR relationship with someone you’ve known and dated for a very long time, and who has a long track record of clearly demonstrating and earning your trust. If you get into a serious relationship (monogamous or not; doesn’t matter) with someone you don’t trust, then with all due respect, you’re a fucking idiot. Trust is earned first, serious relationshippy stuff comes second. I realize Societal Programming teaches the other way around, but as usual, Societal Programming is wrong.
There have been many women in my past who wanted to get into OLTR relationships with me, marry me, move in with me, etc, who I said no to. The main reason was because they hadn’t earned my trust, so I politely said no to the OLTR and kept seeing them as a MLTR. See how this works? It's very simple. I challenge you on this. Go back through and think of an example where you saw or heard of a couple in an open relationship or marriage, and one of them fell in love (or caught feelings) for one of their side-lovers, and they left their original partner for this new person (or they didn't but it caused major strife in the relationship). If you think through the scenario, I promise you that person was violating the ruleset of an OLTR, and treating their side-FB as something more than a side-FB.
This problem occurs not because open relationships don’t work, but because most people in open relationships do it wrong. Since Societal Programming doesn’t teach or model open relationships for normal, everyday people, this is not surprising. That’s why I am here; to help teach you the right way to do these things. Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
prepped 2017-11-09 05:25:35
The man with the plan! So, true. You start displaying boyfriend, fiance, husband romantic behavior and women will interpret it to mean she's the one, despite what you've agreed upon. Women want to shut open doors. It's in their nature. And yes, you can and will develop feelings yourself if you don't compartmentalize sex and relationship, fucking up a beautifully non-monogamous lifestyle. Echos my experience.
Colin 2017-11-09 05:30:09
There’s nothing about monogamy that prevents the other person from falling in love with someone else and leaving you!
Canada Man 2017-11-09 05:57:11
Wait what?!! For all of you who didn't know; that BD actually is The Most Vulnerable Man in the entire Manosphere's Industry... He don't hesitate to show his Feminine side.. and disclose any weakness from the bottom of his heart.. to all of you, just like you witnessing right now what he has done to you with this article, because of what? Because he CARES about you. When he's pissed off, sure he may get angry. When he feel bad, he usually cry. When he's mad, he could say something that might hurt other people!!! All of his high & low complexity of emotions and very fully dynamic & uncomfortable of feelings which he must carry away, along with his born-gift of saviour complex to shielding all of you from the harsh reality of life!!! O,man.. BD is the man, The Vulnerable Man.
CSR 2017-11-09 06:02:26
All you have to do to protect yourself from this problem is establish the clear behavioral parameters regarding FB’s on the side, and make these clearly understood before the OLTR relationship ever begins.Well, this and the entire article makes sense except for one detail, which is that men and women have totally, completely different sexual strategies. That would be a nice set of rules for the man or for gay couples as both of them are men so they have basically the same, high T, polygamous sexual behavior. A woman doesn't work this way. Let's say you've been dating a woman for a while as FB, then for a few months as MLTR and upgrade her to OLTR. It is possible for her to accept that you had and will continue to fuck other women on the side? If you are alpha enough, yes. But what about her? I mean, as a man with a correct, open, Alpha 2.0 mentality, you can accept that she fucks other men on the side, but women are serial monogamists. If the relationship is, say, three years old, and she's already fucking other men, there's a 99% chance she doesn't feel enough attraction for you or that she's already looking for the next one. Yes it's an OLTR but it would be naive to believe that for her these men are only FBs. Women don't have FBs, they have FBs they would like to seriously date but they can't because the man doesn't want that. So, I'm 100% in for OLTRs but the ideal situation would be that she doesn't have sex with other men until the relationship is really, really old, as in 8 years old at least. I know we can not say "only the man can have sex on the side" because it sounds selfish but this is the best setup for us and in fact it is what happens if you're alpha enough and she's really attracted to you.
Cherie86 2017-11-09 06:02:28
Another great article! I'll admit, I was concerned about this being an issue as well in the beginning stages of OLTR. But when the rules are properly set up, it really is a non issue. Even though my guy breaks some of the recommended principles, we still follow these rules and it really eliminates it ever becoming a factor.
Mike Hunter 2017-11-09 06:11:10
This usually brings up the excuse question of, “Well what if she/he promises to do those things, and then violates them behind your back anyway? You can’t trust someone to do what they promise!”This has always struck me as a strange objection. What if you're monogamous and your partner cheats on you behind your back anyway? Becoming mono doesn't solve this problem. If someone wants to cheat on you (defined as breaking the agreed upon rules of a relationship) then they will do it. And there's nothing you can do to stop them. Especially if they're a woman.
Cherie86 2017-11-09 06:23:11
Women don’t have FBs, they have FBs they would like to seriously date but they can’t because the man doesn’t want that.@CSR: That is a pretty incorrect statement. I had strictly FBs for years while I was completely single, and was VERY happy with it. Being in an OLTR now, I still have 1 or 2 guys in my rotation that I see sporadically. Maybe every 2 months or so. The desire to still have something different or new is still there, and has nothing to do with my attraction/affection towards my OLTR partner. Also, I respect and understand how it actually benefits our relationship for both of us to have side lays.
CSR 2017-11-09 06:41:33
@Cherie86 I'm not saying it's impossible for a woman to have FBs at the same time she has a serious relationship. I'm saying that when this happens, normally it means the attraction she feels for the "official" guy is either low or there are other interests involved like money. There could be exceptions, maybe you are one of them, but as a man I'd be very careful. It's very, very difficult for a woman to have the same sexual mentality as a man. Testosterone is much lower and their sexual strategy is the exact opposite... If a woman I'm having an OLTR with is already fucking other men on the side AND the relationship is only three, four years old, for me this a huge red flag no matter how alpha I am. A man can be somehow trusted that if he fucks other women on the side, they are probably FBs only. A woman by definition is much more difficult to trust in this matter. Women have zero loyalty, they tend to lie a lot (let alone with their sexual past and current history) and hypergamy is always there. Again, I'm all in for non monogamy (I did it, I currently do it and I've been reading BD for ages) but a man should always avoid to treat women as if they were "equals", specially regarding sex and relationship rules.
Chase Mclane 2017-11-09 06:53:28
I'm curious how you manage to keep these girls around when they know you are already taken with some of these rules. Specifically:
Spend any degree of nonsexual time with my FB’s
Take my FB’s out on dates of any kind.
Spend any time with my FB’s whatsoever unless we’re having sex or having a reasonably brief, friendly conversation right before or right after sex.Assuming they are slim and attractive to very attractive, they can easily find a man who is just as alpha, single, better looking, taller, more ripped, non-clingy and who is as good or better than you in bed. So what is a side girls motivation to essentially be your free call girl? Why are these FB's continuing to see you over hotter, fitter, more sexually attractive, single options, who are just as good or better in bed and will still give them multiple orgasms, who would happily be her FB as well as take them out on dates and spend time talking to them and who would still not get clingy or jealous and who can dangle the relationship carrot or at the very least leave some ambiguity about future relationship potential to let the girls mind run wild? Or a guy just as alpha/attractive as yourself in the same sort of position (ie. OLTR, LTR/married and cheating etc.), looking for only sex, who will pay them cash for the privilege of not having to take them out on dates, who despite paying them will also happily give them good sex on top of that. There is an absolute abundance of these men out there looking for 'free sex' and not nearly enough attractive women to meet that demand. It's a buyers market and you're not offering these girls anything beyond sex. So how are you, as a taken man who they know they have no future with, who is offering them only sex, keeping them over the relentless wave of competition?
Cherie86 2017-11-09 07:09:21
@ Chase You would be surprised as a woman how difficult it can be to find attractive, ripped, great in bed, willing to spoil me and give me attention, but not be clingy or overbearing, and throw a bunch of drama or bullshit my way. I find you usually get some of those things, but not all. So frankly, a decent looking guy, who handles his shit, is great in bed, and doesn't give you drama, is beautiful thing. Alpha behavior is hugely attractive also, and I think most women, who can't even put their finger on what it is, will find themselves SO attracted and at the same time irritated that this guy "Isn't like the rest" that they can't help themselves but want more. You can get all the spoiling and dates from the other beta guys who would just BEG for you to be theirs. But you don't really want to, it just makes you roll your eyes. But hey, we are women, and we like the attention sometimes.
captain 2017-11-09 07:20:25
What do you think about a one night stand only rule BD?
Marty McFly 2017-11-09 07:58:11
Seems like there's a new crop of Alpha 1.0's in waiting for each new article to come out so they can argue their version of 'monogamy'.
JudoJohn 2017-11-09 08:03:46
This is one of the more attractive things about the Alpha 2.0 lifestyle....I'm 45, and focusing on women 25 to 30 (on Tinder...less than 2 weeks, 20 matches, 5 or 6 dialogues, no dates yet but seems close). The plan is exactly to be the side guy, MLTR, but I fully expect these women to continue looking....which is why every time an interaction is going well, I make sure to message another woman right after, or at least keep swiping. The last thing I would try to do is lock one of these women down, but that's no reason not to have a good emotional connection. I see the logic of the OLTR/FB model, but it looks much harder. I guess I'm really happy right now having complete control over my life. Having been in Disney LTR's my whole life, the idea of living with a woman or elevating one so far above all others kind of makes me cringe...although I could see after a decade or so, it might be more appealing. I'd like to say I can't see the logic of a FB, although....one prospect I have lives a couple hours away and wants a "rave bae" she's a 22 y/o wild thing. I'm down for that, I love to dance....if she takes my deal (and I presented it as a deal) she'd be no more than a FB (rule break of spending the night, but the whole pitch is to come to town, have dinner, go party...driving home would be impossible). I also wonder if what this has to do with the Comfort Bombardment of gaming much younger women. One I'm working on who declined a weeknight date but wanted to to hit her up this weekend pressed on the age thing...I won't answer until we're in meat space, but did make reference to pictures of "friends and lovers I'm fond of".....doesn't make much sense to blurt out "I'm looking neither for a one night stand nor to lock you down" but that really is the message.
Anon 2017-11-09 08:09:52
I'm only starting to gain some insight into female psychology, but here are some of my hunches that seem reasonable. Cherie, what's your opinion on this?
Women don’t have FBs, they have FBs they would like to seriously date but they can’t because the man doesn’t want that.BD wrote somewhere that women subconsciously know whether they're looking to hook up with someone outside their relationship, and act on that either way. For example, they would be against traveling alone to some foreign location if they currently feel fully satisfied by their man. I think there are lots of women interested in FBs only, and they act not to become too attached, but this defense isn't very strong and is easily overridden by a clingy man. OLTR rules would strengthen this naturally existing defense.
Assuming they are slim and attractive to very attractive, they can easily find a man who is just as alpha, single, better looking, taller, more ripped, non-clingy and who is as good or better than you in bed.I've found women to be extremely picky. We men have it easy, if we don't like something we just fix it, but for women, everything has to be Just Right. And if she attempts to "fix" you and succeeds, this malleability makes you not Just Right. Such a catch 22. I very much doubt that it's "easy". There can also be something unique about you that other men just can't or won't replicate. Maybe you do This One Weird Thing in bed. Or maybe it's your voice. Or whatever. Some young girls come to me just to escape from their homes, where there's constant shouting, movement and no-one who can really listen to them without interrupting them with one's own problems. They know they can discuss anything with me, and then I'll supply them with a healthy dose of oxytocin. Sure, sex with a stud in a car or even in a public place (because he's broke and lives with his parents) is exciting, but it's not quite what I offer.
CapNCrunch 2017-11-09 08:14:15
I have to throw the BS flag here. First, what man is OK with another guy putting has cock in his girlfriend's mouth, but objecting to a phone conversation? Seriously? I'll going out on a limb here and say, if I had to choose, I'd much rather my SO talk to another dude on the phone than suck his cock. But that's just me. Beyond that, ask yourself, is your sweetie more likely to cheat on you if you allow her to roll around naked in bed with other men, or if you don't? Call me crazy, but it seems the likelihood of your angel running off with another guy increase exponentially if you let her fuck him! Regardless of the "rules" you set, which you have no way of enforcing, the odds that your darling will bond with another man once he is licking pussy and giving her orgasms are pretty freaking high. Leaving aside the obvious challenge of attempting to have sex with your sweetie after some guy railed her a couple days earlier, licking a pussy some other dude just pounded, how the hell would you not get jealous? Forgive me but I simply do not get BD's arguments here.
Cherie86 2017-11-09 08:21:53
Lets not forget that women are EMOTIONALLY DRIVEN creatures. Its WAY more of a threat to the core of a relationship for a woman to have nonsexual connection with another man. Once a connection outside of sex is established, its far to easy for it to blossom into an emotional connection. That is why women's affairs vs men's are completely different. For the most part, if a woman "cheats" its based on an emotional need. When a man "cheats" its usually always physical in nature. They just want something new and its exciting.
JJ 2017-11-09 08:25:49
Do you not find that such a rules based OLTR model that you describe can easily become a fear based model. People have rules because they desire control. A desire from control is born from fear.
Xyz 2017-11-09 08:29:19
BD, what if the guy your oltr is fucking is way too attractive than you or is freaking rich or something like that. I mean is it possible that your girl starts falling for the guy if his smv way too high comparing to yours? Or maybe if the guy starts making moves on the your oltr? I think it is still possible that your oltr can leave you even if you do everything right! Still better than monogamy though!
Félix 2017-11-09 08:32:22
I have to throw the BS flag here. First, what man is OK with another guy putting has cock in his girlfriend’s mouth, but objecting to a phone conversation? Seriously? I’ll going out on a limb here and say, if I had to choose, I’d much rather my SO talk to another dude on the phone than suck his cock. But that’s just me. Beyond that, ask yourself, is your sweetie more likely to cheat on you if you allow her to roll around naked in bed with other men, or if you don’t? Call me crazy, but it seems the likelihood of your angel running off with another guy increase exponentially if you let her fuck him! Regardless of the “rules” you set, which you have no way of enforcing, the odds that your darling will bond with another man once he is licking pussy and giving her orgasms are pretty freaking high. Leaving aside the obvious challenge of attempting to have sex with your sweetie after some guy railed her a couple days earlier, licking a pussy some other dude just pounded, how the hell would you not get jealous? Forgive me but I simply do not get BD’s arguments here.Oh, just wait 'till JOTB gets here.
Cherie86 2017-11-09 08:42:12
I think there are lots of women interested in FBs only, and they act not to become too attached, but this defense isn’t very strong and is easily overridden by a clingy man.I'm not 100% sure what point you are trying to convey here..
Anon 2017-11-09 08:55:31
Cherie, would you agree or disagree, that when you're in a monogamous relationship and you don't want to cheat on your man, you avoid situations where you might be tempted to? Clubs, vacations etc.
Cherie86 2017-11-09 09:03:25
@Anon I don't have monogamous relationships, and have not in years lol... But sure..I guess the general advice from when I WAS, was there is no reason to cheat. You don't put yourself in situations where that is a possibility. And if you really want to, then you need to end that relationship and go do what you want. Don't sneak around and lie. But this isn't a discussion for monogamy.
Anon 2017-11-09 09:10:00
Of course it isn't. But the point still seems true: that in the fascinatingly convoluted subconsciousness of a woman there are safeguards against getting emotionally attached to someone other than the primary man. And the OLTR rules just strengthen that innate safeguard, that's what I currently think.
Anon 2017-11-09 09:13:41
BD, is it true that as a result of the above, the man in an OLTR ends up without any female friends at all? Don't be close with women you want to have sex with but can't + don't be close with women you do have sex with either ⇒ don't be close with women at all, except possibly ugly ones?
CrabRangoon 2017-11-09 09:30:26
Honestly, I don't worry about girls I'm with falling in love with someone else. It's mostly out of your control. Women are dominated by their feelings and emotions which can vary throughout the day, let alone over the course of years. They eventually get bored with their long term guy, monogamous or not. At least with non-monogamous MLTR's, you have redundancies with other girls in case one totally bails. Nothing lasts forever and it's foolish to assume these girls will stick around long term. Everyone under the old TMM type model is always trying in vain to "lock" significant others down which I've always found strange. We're all sovereign human beings and you can never totally know what's going on in someone's head, nor can you truly control them in any way. Of course it's sad when someone leaves to either go be with a new guy or to go find their mono beta provider guy, but I've always been very emotionally resilient and bounce back quick-I realize not everyone is like this though.
No more Mr. nice guy 2017-11-09 09:32:13
CapNCrunch, your comment reminded me of the saying: people saying: “It can’t be done,” are always being interrupted by somebody doing it. The other one that comes to mind is: When someone says something is impossible, they are really saying it is impossible for them No disrespect intended...I think this just points out that some guys are a lot less comfortable with “their” woman fucking other guys - it seems to vary a lot. IIRC, BD thinks this is just SP or OBW, but I wonder if it runs deeper, and is really more of a personality trait.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-09 09:45:48
I’m curious how you manage to keep these girls around when they know you are already takenThey're mostly taken too. Why is that hard to understand?
Assuming they are slim and attractive to very attractive, they can easily find a man who is just as alpha, single, better looking, taller, more ripped, non-clingy and who is as good or better than you in bed.Yes, and they do find those guys who are hotter and more attractive than me. And when they do, they proceed to fuck them, or even get into serious relationships with them. But that doesn't stop them from fucking me as well. Why should that concern me?
So what is a side girls motivation to essentially be your free call girl?What? You got it backwards. I'm her free call guy! Now ask me about my motivation! Please ask me! Please!
Why are these FB’s continuing to see you over hotter, fitter, more sexually attractive, single options,What do you mean by "over?" They're not seeing me over hotter guys. They are seeing those hotter guys also! And because those guys are hotter than me, they fall in love and get into relationships with them, while seeing me as nothing but a fuck toy on the side. Win/win. What's your question again?
who are just as good or better in bed and will still give them multiple orgasms, who would happily be her FB as well as take them out on dates and spend time talking to them and who would still not get clingy or jealous and who can dangle the relationship carrot or at the very least leave some ambiguity about future relationship potential to let the girls mind run wild?Yup, they get all that from those guys. But why would you imagine that that would motivate them to stop fucking me also? They just give me less than they give those hotter guys. And since I have a girlfriend myself, that works out great.
Or a guy just as alpha/attractive as yourself in the same sort of position (ie. OLTR, LTR/married and cheating etc.), looking for only sex, who will pay them cash for the privilege of not having to take them out on dates,I don't sleep with prostitutes or gold diggers. If this is the kind of woman she is, I'll probably spit in her face and never see her again. All the women I'm fucking would be insulted by the idea of taking money from men. All other types of women will get nowhere near my life.
There is an absolute abundance of these men out there looking for ‘free sex’ and not nearly enough attractive women to meet that demand. It’s a buyers market and you’re not offering these girls anything beyond sex.Right, but they're getting their other needs met by other men, so they don't want anything from me besides sex. So what don't you get?
So how are you, as a taken man who they know they have no future with, who is offering them only sex, keeping them over the relentless wave of competition?There is no competition. There's only sharing. They have a future with those other hotter men. But while they're enjoying their future with "Mr. Rich and Way Hotter Than Me Guy," they come to me, a lesser man (in their eyes), for discreet cheating and casual sex on the side. That way, they "have it all." I don't understand your confusion!
No more Mr. nice guy 2017-11-09 09:51:02
A woman by definition is much more difficult to trust in this matter. Women have zero loyalty, they tend to lie a lot (let alone with their sexual past and current history) and hypergamy is always there.This is a really common attitude in the red pill/manosphere, but directly contradicts my experience!!! Sure, I’ve had a couple of women in my life behave badly in these ways, but only a small minority. Have I just been lucky? Made good choices without knowing it? Where does this come from??? BD, any thoughts?
CSR 2017-11-09 10:04:24
@No more Mr. nice guy It's not about being lucky or not. Women behave like this. It's not bad or good, it's just the way they are. If they perceive you as alpha their attraction to you will dissipate 99.9% of the guys they'd meet as long as this attraction persists. The moment this attraction starts to fade away they will either branch swing the shit out of you or leave you without cheating if she's more or less a good person. If a woman is in a recently started OLTR and she's fucking other men on the side... it's very difficult for me to believe she really likes the "main one".
CapNCrunch 2017-11-09 10:09:10
Nice guy, I do understand your point. However, the percentage of men who are not OK with other men putting their penises into their women-folk is so high as to make it near universal, well beyond a personality trait. For even the most open minded man, the natural inclination is to be a least somewhat protective. Whether this is SP or part of our hard-wiring as mammals I'll allow others to argue. Turning to the ladies, are there women who can sleep with a man on a regular basis, have orgasms and not grow emotionally attached? Sure. But again, this is a very small subset of the population. As others have noted, women are emotional creatures. No amount of rules will prevent an emotional bond from growing out of an intimate arrangement over time. You're literally putting the woman you love in another man's bed and saying, it's OK, I trust nothing bad will come of this.
Chase Mclane 2017-11-09 10:10:45
I find you usually get some of those things, but not all. So frankly, a decent looking guy, who handles his shit, is great in bed, and doesn’t give you drama, is beautiful thing.Even if he's in a serious OLTR or Open Marriage with someone else and follows all of the rules outlined above? So doesn't take you out on dates, comes and goes for nothing more than sex and a brief chat, never buys you anything or shows you any attention or affection beyond organizing your next sex meet up via text like he's booking an appointment, with zero emotional attachment on either of your parts? You'd be ok with that over the course of several months knowing that it will never become anything more? Especially considering you go on to say...
Lets not forget that women are EMOTIONALLY DRIVEN creatures.Yes, exactly, and what he's offering side FB's is completely void of any emotion whatsoever, save for some brief pleasantries you'd exchange with a friend or colleague. Furthermore it's absent of even the illusion of future emotional connection (something single guys present, whether consciously or not), because he's already taken. @Anon
Some young girls come to me just to escape from their homes, where there’s constant shouting, movement and no-one who can really listen to them without interrupting them with one’s own problems. They know they can discuss anything with me, and then I’ll supply them with a healthy dose of oxytocin. Sure, sex with a stud in a car or even in a public place (because he’s broke and lives with his parents) is exciting, but it’s not quite what I offer.Yes, exactly, you said it yourself, you are offering them more than just sex with a stud. They know they can discuss 'anything' with you, which means you are breaking the 'long deep intimate talks' rule. Also, are you in a serious OLTR where it's clear to the girls in question that you are taken and they are nothing more than a pure FB and side girl and will ever be anything more? Because if not and you're single or only in one or more MLTR's, it's a totally different situation, and not what I was referring to.
Cherie86 2017-11-09 10:30:33
Obviously, not EVERY woman is ok with just being FB/FWB. But there are many who are. Its an ideal situation for them. A woman who is actively looking for a serious relationship isn't going to stick around for any length of time to be any kind of FB.
Anon 2017-11-09 10:34:46
Chase, at first I misunderstood your comment a bit, but the general idea still stands: women have the most varied and unpredictable requirements, and if you happen to hit more of the right buttons than the hypothetical ripped competitor, you win. Not that it's a winner-takes-it-all game, she might turn to him for some of the buttons and to you for others. Also discussing her problems is, I think, a far cry from "long intimate talks" with cuddling and lovey-dovey stuff. Let's appeal to authority: https://blackdragonblog.com/2013/06/07/love-women/ I'm still a bit unsure where to draw the line though for FBs in an OLTR. Will revisit when/if I get an OLTR. Maybe the usual principle "if you would do this for a male friend, this is OK"?
hilsey 2017-11-09 10:38:40
It's a legit concern but why all this stress and worry if the new relationship won't even last? If you're that doubtful then they shouldn't be OLTR in the first place or just stick to MLTRs.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-09 10:47:12
Well, this and the entire article makes sense except for one detail, which is that men and women have totally, completely different sexual strategies.My solution to this has always been to go after the types of women who represent probably only about 5 percent of the female population. I'm talking about women who have extremely high sex drives, are mostly bisexual, have had 20 sexual partners by the time they're 18, etc..., while avoiding the remaining 95 percent (unless they're taken and want to cheat, or open themselves). I vibe better with those "masculine" women anyway and they tend to have a very masculine sexual strategy and zero ASD (albeit a very feminine physical appearance, since they take care to not look like dykes). They may be only 5 percent of the female population, but there's enough of them to keep me sexually satisfied till the day I die. I'm not like BD in this regard. There is no way I could be with a woman as conservative and feminine (comparatively speaking) as his girl. No matter how physically hot a woman like that is, her mainstream personality would just turn me off.
A woman doesn’t work this way.Solution: Find the women who do. Seek out promiscuous women and the types of women who are accused by their own social circles of thinking like men. Also, try to find women whom mainstream women consider "trash." That's a great indicator of a high quality, high sex drive woman with a masculine sexual strategy who will make you (or at least me) insanely happy! Sometimes, these types of women get together and form their own social circles (i.e. the pagan community). When they do, they see sex as a natural part of friendship and have a "best of both worlds" kind of deal. They fuck (at least occasionally) all of their guy friends AND female friends. They share their men with each other, passing them around from one girl to the next, while having each other essentially on call for an "emergency threesome" or just to relieve each other's sexual tension when a man is not around. Tell me again how mainstream women have a different sexual strategy? LOL!
But what about her? I mean, as a man with a correct, open, Alpha 2.0 mentality, you can accept that she fucks other men on the side, but women are serial monogamists.Women are emotional serial monogamists. If her sex drive is high enough, she'll disconnect the emotions from sex. But yeah, high sex drive women are a minority, but that's no excuse for not seeking them out. There's enough of them out there for you to never need to bother with mainstream women again. Trust me. A lot of these high sex drive women tend to become nurses, for some reason.
If the relationship is, say, three years old, and she’s already fucking other men, there’s a 99% chance she doesn’t feel enough attraction for you or that she’s already looking for the next one. Yes it’s an OLTR but it would be naive to believe that for her these men are only FBs.That's the problem with mainstream women, yes (failure to disconnect sex from love). And that's why if you're like BD who got himself into an OLTR with one of the 95 percent, the odds are overwhelmingly high that she won't want to sleep with other men, even though she's allowed, and will choose to sleep with only you, while you get to fuck other women with her blessing. So either way, it's win/win. The only alternative is monogamy, which doesn't guarantee anything, except you getting cheated on when she loses interest in you (low sex drive) or even when she's happy with you (high sex drive). So monogamy just makes a fool out of you either way. It's lose/lose.
Women don’t have FBs, they have FBs they would like to seriously date but they can’t because the man doesn’t want that.Stop fucking mainstream women (unless they're cheating on their boyfriends or husbands).
So, I’m 100% in for OLTRs but the ideal situation would be that she doesn’t have sex with other men until the relationship is really, really old, as in 8 years old at least.But there's a difference between her not having sex with other men despite being allowed to (because her sex drive is typically feminine and low) and her not having sex with other men because she isn't allowed to. In an open relationship, if she's feminine, she won't fuck anyone other than you unless the relationship is over anyway (win/win). If she's masculine (my type) she will fuck other men, but it won't matter anyway because she can separate sex from love, just like a man (win/win). But, like I said, monogamy is lose/lose regardless.
I know we can not say “only the man can have sex on the side” because it sounds selfish but this is the best setup for us and in fact it is what happens if you’re alpha enough and she’s really attracted to you.Correct. That is what happens naturally anyway (even in an open relationship) if (1) you're alpha enough and (2) she's feminine/low sex drive enough. But then why order her to be monogamous when she will be mono naturally of her own choosing, despite being allowed to be poly, if she's feminine enough? By ordering her to be mono, you are setting yourself up to be made a fool of, which is stupid, especially since super feminine women will choose to be mono anyway without any rules requiring it, so you can fuck other women and avoid double standards! As for me, I'll stick with the only women who turn me on - high sex drive, feminine looking, and masculine acting bisexuals. Cheers!
Chase Mclane 2017-11-09 10:55:10
@Jack Outside the Box
But that doesn’t stop them from fucking me as well.Yes, yes, I know. No woman can get enough of you due to your solid, unbreakable frame that bends space and time as you walk, and because no man can even begin to compare to your exploits in bed since you were given the inside scoop on the Kama Sutra from Vatsyayana himself. Even when Ryan Gosling comes along and sweeps one of your girls of her feet, she still can't get enough of her Jack on the side. In fact, she should be THANKING you for still fucking her! After all, there are only so many hours in the day and Jack has alot of pussy trying to beat down his door. Unfortunately not all of us are gods that can make women beg to just ride our cock from our presence alone. Some of us mere mortals have to bring something else to the table to keep the women we're seeing from dropping us for other guys. You know... Like take them out occasionally for a date, or talk about their feelings when they're feeling down etc. so I was more talking about the rest of us.
Cherie86 2017-11-09 10:57:31
@Jack I think that's a very accurate assesment!
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-09 11:10:32
Yes, yes, I know. No woman can get enough of you due to your solid, unbreakable frame that bends space and time as you walk, and because no man can even begin to compare to your exploits in bed since you were given the inside scoop on the Kama Sutra from Vatsyayana himself.Never said anything even remotely close to that. In fact, I said the opposite - I admitting that many men are hotter than me, which is why these women fuck me only, while marrying or getting into more serious relationships with men whom they perceive as superior to me. Where are you getting this from?
Even when Ryan Gosling comes along and sweeps one of your girls of her feet, she still can’t get enough of her Jack on the side.Another man sweeping a woman off her feet does not prevent the woman from continuing to fuck other men. That was my only point.
In fact, she should be THANKING you for still fucking her!Do you truly believe that women's sex drives are so low that I must be a god to pull this off? Really? I mean yeah, with your super feminine women, I admit this would be impossible, unless I were a god. But I'm not talking about super feminine, low sex drive women here. Perspective.
After all, there are only so many hours in the day and Jack has alot of pussy trying to beat down his door.Currently 3 (not counting the occasional group sex my girlfriend and I have with her friends).
Unfortunately not all of us are gods that can make women beg to just ride our cock from our presence alone.Again, we must be gods to pull this off with super feminine, low sex drive women. And I'm getting the impression that those are the only types of women you know, or the only types you're turned on by. If so, you're right, this is impossible. I sincerely agree.
Some of us mere mortals have to bring something else to the table to keep the women we’re seeing from dropping us for other guys.But what if she has other guys? Or gets married? Or gets a boyfriend? Will that stop her from fucking you? Must she drop you? Do you live in a very conservative environment? Or are you just attracted to super feminine girly girls only, and therefore, believe that no other type of woman exists?
You know… Like take them out occasionally for a date, or talk about their feelings when they’re feeling down etc. so I was more talking about the rest of us.Date no. But "talk about their feelings when they're feeling down," sure.
Gil Galad 2017-11-09 11:22:18
Jarod 2017-11-09 11:27:52
In a monogamous relationship, you can expect that your woman will be having sex with another man or men at some point. Thats just the reality of the world and yet you entered the relationship based on trust. That what BD and the readers here believe right (I do)? So if BD readers agree that you can't expect to "trust" a person that you've known long enough to get into a long term relationship with, why would you "trust" a person in an open relationship? You have already given her the go ahead to have sex with other dudes. She knows you won't have any idea whether or not she is complying with your "rules" and will do whatever her emotions tell her to do. I'm not suggesting that one should be monogamous. I'm just suggesting that whatever is going to happen is going to happen and your "rules" don't mean squat. Why not just allow things to play out and move on when the time comes. It seems to me that if one is concerned about making rules then he has become outcome dependent.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-09 11:30:00
First, what man is OK with another guy putting has cock in his girlfriend’s mouth, but objecting to a phone conversation? Seriously?The type of guy who wants to prevent his woman from having an emotional affair, but is okay with her having a physical one.
I’ll going out on a limb here and say, if I had to choose, I’d much rather my SO talk to another dude on the phone than suck his cock. But that’s just me.Then you don't understand how female psychology works.
Beyond that, ask yourself, is your sweetie more likely to cheat on youCheat on me? We're poly. She can fuck the whole football team for all I care. In fact, that would be hot! That'll get them to start singing the National Anthem again with a smile.
if you allow her to roll around naked in bed with other men, or if you don’t?Allow? I have no power or authority to allow or disallow her to do anything. Men who think they have such power are under a dangerous delusion. We no longer live in villages where neighbors observe neighbors. Giving your woman orders only sets you up to be disrespected and look like a fool.
Call me crazy, but it seems the likelihood of your angel running off with another guy increase exponentially if you let her fuck him!What if I don't let her fuck him? What's to stop her from fucking him and running away with him anyway? The only difference is that I also look like a fool because she disrespected me by breaking our mono agreement. Why would I want to make an agreement that is setup to make me look impotent?
Regardless of the “rules” you set, which you have no way of enforcing,Exactly! So your solution is.....more rules? Even monogamy? Insane!
the odds that your darling will bond with another man once he is licking pussy and giving her orgasms are pretty freaking high.Are you suggesting they're lower if we're monogamous? Do you insert a GPS device into her skin?
Leaving aside the obvious challenge of attempting to have sex with your sweetie after some guy railed her a couple days earlier,How is that a challenge? I've had threesomes with other men in which the other dude pounded her in front of me and then it was my turn.
licking a pussy some other dude just pounded, how the hell would you not get jealous?Because I know that my girl has a high sex drive and is therefore able to disconnect sex from emotions in a way that many women (and apparently men) can't. It also helps when your girl is getting railed by another dude in front of you, turns to you during it, and says "I love you." That kinda makes your heart melt and purges your insecurities.
prepped 2017-11-09 11:32:04
@BD How do you handle the FB if/when she tries to move herself to MLTR, or even OLTR, by suggesting the dating and relationship type activities you described? Just say "NO?" Or do you have to reinforce your initial frame by reminding your FB's that it's just sex and nothing more for the present? I seem to recall PF started as a FB, but then moved to MLTR and now OLTR, correct? Did PF ever want the dating and relationship behaviors and activities while you still considered her a FB?
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-09 11:38:36
Women are perfectly capable of having a human lollipop with no intentions to make him more than that down the line, especially when they already have a main guyThis is what Chase Mclane doesn't understand. When she is having all her romantic Disney needs met by other men, she doesn't require them from you. So she can just use you for sex while getting her princess needs met from others. You don't have to be a sex god. Just delegate her other needs to other men.
JudoJohn 2017-11-09 11:41:21
Damn, never seen this many comments before BD responds....still, very curious about whether or not showing an awareness of this concept, that I know perfectly well that the younger women I'm pursuing will fall in love with someone else, as part of Comfort Bombardment, is a good idea. It stands to reason that they have had dudes fall all over themselves in the past. 100% Player is just as bad, looking for MLTR's not bedpost notches.
Chase Mclane 2017-11-09 12:34:07
This is what Chase Mclane doesn’t understand. When she is having all her romantic Disney needs met by other men, she doesn’t require them from you.Are you trying to suggest that a guy that satisfies all her romantic Disney needs can't possibly be satisfying her sexual needs as well? And if a girl can get a better (in your own words) guy to commit to her, why would she still have sex with you? If she can get a better guy to commit, she can get an even better guy than him as an FB on the side, making you redundant. If a girl wants just sex and only sex, she will just go for the hottest, most sexually attractive guy she can find, and if she's attractive she won't have trouble finding one, they'll be beating down her door. Our leverage, as men, is being able to offer something more to the girls that are looking for more, that's how we beat the ripped stud and get the attractive girl. But the entire premise of BD's post, and if you read and understand my initial questions, is that he doesn't offer them anything more than sex. Better men are offering her that too (if not more), how does one compete, when offering less? @Anon
if you happen to hit more of the right buttons than the hypothetical ripped competitor, you win.What other buttons are you able to hit when the only thing you are offering is sex? Yes, I agree with you, you can hit more of the right buttons if you have the freedom to do so and you are indeed able to win out, exactly! However these rules don't allow that. You are offering a strictly sexual relationship, that's ONE button, sex, and many other men are offering her that and more, and some of them are probably hotter than you. Hence the original question I asked BD.
Gil Galad 2017-11-09 13:14:23
Our leverage, as men, is being able to offer something more to the girlsAnd sometimes, the "something more" is simply not being a slut shamer and not pressing her for a more serious relationship and monogamy after being her FB for a few weeks or months. These men really are rare enough that ordinary men *can* compete with the studs you're talking about, because the studs are often nowhere near being Alpha 2.0s. It's not more complicated than that. Once you've shown a chick that 1° you can actually *stay* a casual FB on the long term and not start trying to lock her down, 2° you don't slut shame and don't give a shit she's seeing other men, 3° you're not the pussy beta version of the above, you have already brought more to the table than a very, very high percentage of the men lining up for her. Almost every time girls respond to "how can you say you have trouble getting sexually satisfied with all those men chasing you", they give a variation of this. Most men are just needy, regardless of how good looking or good at sex they are. Also, you keep missing the point when you ask why she would seek other men if her one guy is giving her all the sexual satisfaction (and Disney) she needs: to some extent (less than men, but as I said, it's a matter of degree, not absolutes), the variety IS the satisfaction. It's not that her guy doesn't know what he's doing or doesn't fuck her often enough or refuses certain things or whatever. If you quit assuming that men and women's needs are diametrically opposed and start viewing them as different but overlapping, it'll be easy to relate to how she just needs new cock at some point.
Chavel 2017-11-09 15:14:12
Solid Advice...And if she goes, she goes...I'd be happy for her and Myself...
Curtis 2017-11-09 15:43:56
@Gil Galas and @BD, Great article and topic BD!! Gil - you are so correct man it's funny! My current lady even told me this exact same thing! That I am just SO different. When she got mad and broke up, I'm like hey I understand and I'm sorry I can't be like 95% of other men that are a) kitty cats / betas or b) controlling and needy guys or c) liars/cheaters that will tell u what you want to hear. And the great news for you is that there are bunches of those men out there so you'll have men all over you very soon! So, they start dating other men and guess what they notice? Lol That Curtis is correct.... BDs approach literally puts you in a class that most men have never heard of OR simply cannot execute themselves for numerous reasons. The guy she went on a date with during our pause phase literally started to hound her w hundreds of texts demanding a better apology from her for canceling going to a concert w him same day as "just friends". Lmao. (She decided to have sex w me instead) She looked at me as he's harrasing her and said, "wow what a clingy creepo Curtis. Your right he would be very controlling w me eventually. He told me at dinner that he only talks to one woman at a time and is exclusive already with me too!". WTF? Just before she broke up, she also shames me for DESIRING to want a threesome with her (although she wanted to as well lol). So, I told her while she's dating around, be sure to get really excited and smile and ask men if they would like to have a threesome with you and your lady friend is up for it too and let me know who they respond. (I explained how you can't ask "do you want to have a threesome or many men will say no") So, after this guy above went clingy on her she then says: "Yeah so I asked like 4 guys, including clingy man, about having a threesome the way you said to ask and we'll....Your right. None of the men said they would not want to take advantage or act on that if given the opportunity." BINGO. Now she is aware that I don't put up w shaming my sexual desires and that what she was looking for does not exist. She is a LOT less Disney now than before. Life is good being one of the rare guys in a world of the same ole same ole ;). But word to the new at this - it can drive chic's absolutely nuts and mad. They will try to push EVERY button they can possibly find. It's so foreign that it drives them kinda bonkers AND they at same time they will get really horny for you as well, further complicating their issues and drama. Be ready for anything and everything thrown at you!! Btw, I always prepare ladies for looking at "love" as a Verb (action) primarily versus a Noun (thing). Meaning love is who I choose to spend most of my time and money on. That is how we prove our love. If you have 2 kids but spend 90% of your time/money/attention on one kid, that's the one your Loving the most. Notice I said loving versus Love. Same with OLTR vs FBs. So, I try to gradually get them away from "in love" to "I want to do loving things daily" so when the NRE phase is over, it's not built on too much emotion. Out...
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-09 17:21:06
Are you trying to suggest that a guy that satisfies all her romantic Disney needs can’t possibly be satisfying her sexual needs as well?Your problem is that you think too rationally and falsely assume that women are rational creatures. They're not.
And if a girl can get a better (in your own words) guy to commit to her, why would she still have sex with you?Here are the reasons women have given me: 1. "Both my sisters and my best friend have at least one lover on the side and I don't want to be left out. So, you think I should password protect my phone?" 2. "I love my husband so much that I want to risk losing him so that I know how badly it would feel. So I think cheating, being worried that I'll get caught, and picturing him divorcing me will help me appreciate him more and bring us spiritually closer together, even though he won't know it." 3. "I need to know if I can pull it off without getting caught. My best friend recently got caught and thinks I'm not smart enough to get away with it. She's a slut and I hate her. I need to prove to myself that I'm more discreet and classy than her." 4. "I love my husband and we have great sex, but he's at work until 9, so what am I supposed to do? Masturbate? That's for kids. I'm not gonna tell him obviously, but I'm sure he'd understand, right? I mean, he is a guy." 5. "I love my boyfriend so much. I think he's gonna ask me to move in with him, but that means we'll probably have sex more often and I'm worried that he'll cheat on me if I don't please him. So I need more sexual experience. Can you help me? It's not cheating if it's out of love for him, right?" And my most memorable explanation came from a woman I had sex with 6 years ago on her wedding morning: 6. "I love the fact that I'm getting married. My boyfriend is everything I wanted in a man and we have a great spiritual connection. So that's why we need to have sex one last time because I'm gonna want it again if you don't give me closure right now. I must devote myself entirely to him, so I need to put you behind me. But my best friend's daughter who's 16 who my mom used to babysit for when she was younger told my mom and my mom told me that it's impossible to get over someone without having official goodbye sex and I don't want to keep thinking about you on my honeymoon." By the way, I fucked her several times after the wedding too! Need I go on?
If she can get a better guy to commit, she can get an even better guy than him as an FB on the side, making you redundant.I think you're overestimating these women's capacity for time management.
If a girl wants just sex and only sex, she will just go for the hottest, most sexually attractive guy she can find, and if she’s attractive she won’t have trouble finding one, they’ll be beating down her door.It's not just about being attractive. It's about being open minded, non-shaming, outcome independent, and a whole host of other things that most men are not. Most men won't allow a woman to breathe like I will. They try to smother them,
Our leverage, as men, is being able to offer something more to the girls that are looking for more, that’s how we beat the ripped stud and get the attractive girl.Right, and sometimes that something more is simply "listening" and periodically nodding. That's over most guys' heads.
how does one compete, when offering less?By getting her used to you and exploiting her laziness. And by giving the appearance of offering more. Not "more" in the practical sense, but in the emotional/spiritual sense. Help her throw rocks at her enemies, create a "you and her vs. the world" vibe while still telling her you're nothing but a friend (though a good friend), convey absolute discretion and open mindedness, talk to her about things her other men don't want to talk to her about, like tips on how to avoid getting caught, etc... There are many ways to make yourself different from other men and get her used to you and your unique vibe/energy. It's hard to explain though. But I'll tell you this - It's not rational. If it were, I'd be fucked!
Chase Mclane 2017-11-09 20:24:54
@Gil Galad Ok great, so finally an answer that really addresses the original question
And sometimes, the “something more” is simply not being a slut shamer and not pressing her for a more serious relationship and monogamy after being her FB for a few weeks or months. These men really are rare enough that ordinary men *can* compete with the studs you’re talking about, because the studs are often nowhere near being Alpha 2.0s.I do agree with this, it's an important trait to have and offer and men who do are not the norm among the general population. In fact the norm is clingy beta's. However what subset of men is less likely to be clingy and needy and not slut shame? The answer to this is the subset of men with the most options. In other words the most attractive men. The most attractive men are alot less likely to be needy or clingy because they have so many other options, when you're talking about the most attractive women these are the sort of men they will see, these men are not so rare among the very attractive subset of men. If all you are offering is sex and not being clingy and are taken, you're going to have a really tough time keeping attractive women around. Maybe if you'd been seeing her for some time before you got into an OLTR with another girl then it will be possible (in her mind it's a case of better the devil you know), but otherwise, you usually have to bring something else above and beyond this to the table to keep them around for any length of time if you meet them when you are already taken.
Also, you keep missing the point when you ask why she would seek other men if her one guy is giving her all the sexual satisfaction (and Disney) she needsNo, I never asked that. I asked if she can get a better man to offer her sexual satisfaction and disney/commitment why would she have a lesser man as an FB? She could get an even better man to give her that if she wants a side piece, one that would be out of her league in terms of offering commitment, but who will happily offer her NSA sex. @Jack
Here are the reasons women have given meThis is a list of reasons why women cheat or want sex on the side, I was never questioning that at any point, of course they do, so not sure why you're listing this. I was asking why a woman who can get a better guy to commit will see you just for sex, if she can get a better guy to commit, she can get an even better guy to just have sex with who would never commit to her because he can do better, but will happily have NSA sex with her. Women do know this.
It’s not just about being attractive. It’s about being open minded, non-shaming, outcome independent, and a whole host of other things that most men are not. Most men won’t allow a woman to breathe like I will. They try to smother themOk great. So as I said above this is finally an answer that answers the original question. I do agree with this, but as I said above it's not enough to keep the very attractive girls around, especially when you're not single.
I think you’re overestimating these women’s capacity for time management.So taking up some stud's offer in the club when out with her friends or replying to a message on one of a million dating/social media apps takes serious time management does it? This is your justification for why she doesn't take up a better/hotter option and drop you for one or more better/hotter men? I think you're grasping at straws with this one.
Right, and sometimes that something more is simply “listening” and periodically nodding. That’s over most guys’ heads.Right, because she doesn't have a heap of friends and/or beta orbiters who can listen to her. You're saying that sitting there and saying nothing and nodding your head is a rare quality that only you can provide her?
but in the emotional/spiritual sense.BD specifically said it had to just be about sex, ergo emotionless, so you can't offer her more in the emotional sense without breaking the rules. That's the entire point.
It’s not rational.This is something that gets thrown around PUA sites alot to try and justify arguments that don't hold up to logical scrutiny. Women are in fact fairly rational, once you understand their motivations and emotions and what drives them, you see the reason behind their actions. 'women aren't rational' is the PUA equivalent of the Christian 'God works in mysterious ways' argument that Christians fall back on when you're holding their belief system up to scrutiny.
Leon 2017-11-09 21:37:19
Ok great. So as I said above this is finally an answer that answers the original question. I do agree with this, but as I said above it’s not enough to keep the very attractive girls around, especially when you’re not single.@Chase: FB comes and goes you know, you don't KEEP them, but your uniqueness, Alpha 2.0 frame will keep her coming back from time to time. When they are tired of their pussy/over-control boyfriend, who will they remember and want to have relaxing sex with? A stud that probably is just another beta/A1.0, or a cool, proven Alpha2.0 who is at the opposite end of the spectrum and can satisfy her to the oblivion as well, if not better? You get the answer. @Jack Outside the Box: You are probably one of the guys that have the most solid Alpha 2.0 frame on this blog IMO. Do you have your personal blog? I'd like to read it. Also, I believe you can contribute a lot to Alpha2.0 Community Forum (alpha20.ning.com), have you visited it?
Blackdragon 2017-11-09 23:58:45
For all of you who didn’t know; that BD actually is The Most Vulnerable Man in the entire Manosphere’s Industry…Yes, yes. I cry daily and spend most of my time hugging my love pillow.
Well, this and the entire article makes sense except for one detail, which is that men and women have totally, completely different sexual strategies.Correct, and I agree with most of your other points, but that doesn't change anything I said in the article. This verbalization and agreement must still be done.
I know we can not say “only the man can have sex on the side” because it sounds selfish but this is the best setup for us and in fact it is what happens if you’re alpha enough and she’s really attracted to you.I know. 🙂
I’m curious how you manage to keep these girls around when they know you are already taken with some of these rules.Because as I said above, many women love having FB's, particularly younger women with far less ASD than older women. Many of my FB's, both now and historically, have boyfriends. Why do they keep seeing me if they have a boyfriend? It's the same answer.... A) some women like FB's, B) they get something from me (usually sexually) that they don't get from their boyfriend. There's also the issue of having sugar babies as FB's, though that's not really an option for younger guys.
So what is a side girls motivation to essentially be your free call girl?Orgasms. Non-needy attention. Etc. Many women can't get these things from the other beta males they date.
What do you think about a one night stand only rule BD?That is technically acceptable but I would never agree to such a thing. I hate one night stands. Too much work. I don't like to work in my woman life. But I'm a Pleasure of Sex man... a Thrill of the Hunt man would feel differently.
Seems like there’s a new crop of Alpha 1.0’s in waiting for each new article to come out so they can argue their version of ‘monogamy’.That will always be the case. Alpha 1.0's will always prefer (cheating) monogamy despite it's numerous problems. Case in point, CapNCrunch...
Blackdragon 2017-11-10 00:10:18
I’ll going out on a limb here and say, if I had to choose, I’d much rather my SO talk to another dude on the phone than suck his cock.1. That's called "monogamy" and that system doesn't work. 2. You are more than welcome to establish a rule that your OLTR can't give other men oral sex. Unlike you, I'm not threatened by other men, and I'm outcome independent so I don't care, but you're free to customize your own OLTR any way you want. (Not that I think you want one. You want monogamy.)
is your sweetie more likely to cheat on you if you allow her to roll around naked in bed with other men, or if you don’t?You can't cheat in an OLTR.
Call me crazy, but it seems the likelihood of your angel running off with another guy increase exponentially if you let her fuck him!Will the odds increase? Sure. Will they increase "exponentially? " No. If you you follow the correct systems in a nonmonogamous relationship (and most men do not), this increase in risk is minuscule, perhaps 1-5%. This tiny increase in risk is more than worth the 10-15 massive benefits you as a man receive in a MLTR or OLTR vs monogamy.
Regardless of the “rules” you set, which you have no way of enforcing, the odds that your darling will bond with another man once he is licking pussy and giving her orgasms are pretty freaking high.Then please explain all the success I've had with long-term, multi-year-long nonmonogamous relationships I've had over the last ten years, as well as the hundreds of other men I've spoken to who have experienced the same. As I always say to men like you, you have fears, but I have data.
Leaving aside the obvious challenge of attempting to have sex with your sweetie after some guy railed her a couple days earlierThis does not bother me. It should not bother you either.
how the hell would you not get jealous?My book, Chapter 4, section 3, and Chapter 12, section 9.
Forgive me but I simply do not get BD’s arguments here.My argument is that long-term monogamy will not work, thus if we want long-term partners, we are forced to utilize other systems that are less bad. And I'm right.
Blackdragon 2017-11-10 00:27:40
Lets not forget that women are EMOTIONALLY DRIVEN creatures. Its WAY more of a threat to the core of a relationship for a woman to have nonsexual connection with another man. Once a connection outside of sex is established, its far to easy for it to blossom into an emotional connection.Exactly, and well said.
Do you not find that such a rules based OLTR model that you describe can easily become a fear based model. People have rules because they desire control. A desire from control is born from fear.Correct. That's why: 1. A man must establish an outcome independent frame and and a strong Mission, so that he never fears his OLTR leaving him. 2. A man not willing to work with a woman on limitations like this should not have an OLTR, and should stick with multiple MLTR's instead (which is a great model!).
BD, what if the guy your oltr is fucking is way too attractive than you or is freaking rich or something like that.Don't care.
I mean is it possible that your girl starts falling for the guy if his smv way too high comparing to yours?Possible? Yes. Likely? No. As always, I focus on what's most probable, not what's possible. Moreover, I have a very long track record of being in long-term relationships with women who were fucking men on the side who were much better looking than me. Lastly, wimpy, submissive beta males are more a threat to stealing your woman away than badass, good looking, rich, high SMV Alphas. Read this.
Or maybe if the guy starts making moves on the your oltr?I would have to trust her that she would handle that situation appropriately, otherwise I would neve make her my OLTR in the first place. This has already happened in my relationships and it's never been a problem. Good looking guys would try to steal HBM away from me all the time. It literally never worked. (HBM was my last serious relationship before Pink Firefly.)
I think it is still possible that your oltr can leave you even if you do everything right!Correct. It's possible. Again, what matters is what's likely, not what's possible.
Still better than monogamy though!Monogamy is so destructive that anything is better than monogamy, even celibacy. (I don't endorse celibacy though.)
BD, is it true that as a result of the above, the man in an OLTR ends up without any female friends at all?No.
Don’t be close with women you want to have sex with but can’t + don’t be close with women you do have sex with either ⇒ don’t be close with women at all, except possibly ugly ones?You should do that anyway, whether or not you have an OLTR, as I've described in detail here and here.
IIRC, BD thinks this is just SP or OBW, but I wonder if it runs deeper, and is really more of a personality trait.It is indeed also a personality trait; I've discussed that before. Some men have more jealous and/or controlling personalities than others.
BD, any thoughts?Yes, women have less "loyalty" (I hate that word, so Alpha 1.0) because as I've talked about in my podcasts, women always know they have more instantly attainable options for sex and partners than men do. If men could get laid and find partners as easily as young women, men would be less "loyal" too. It's not a big deal and not something I concern myself with.
Blackdragon 2017-11-10 00:43:25
However, the percentage of men who are not OK with other men putting their penises into their women-folk is so high as to make it near universal, well beyond a personality trait. For even the most open minded man, the natural inclination is to be a least somewhat protective. Whether this is SP or part of our hard-wiring as mammals I’ll allow others to argue.You just answered your own point. It's not just a personality trait, it's also SP and obsolete biological wiring, as you just stated. Now here's the important part. You have the ability and option of either overcoming your own false SP and bullshit OBW in order to be a happier man, like I did, or you can choose to surrender to these things and make excuses for them, and never achieve long-term consistent happiness. It's up to you.
Yes, exactly, and what he’s offering side FB’s is completely void of any emotion whatsoever, save for some brief pleasantries you’d exchange with a friend or colleague.They get that from other men, or at least can.
Furthermore it’s absent of even the illusion of future emotional connection (something single guys present, whether consciously or not), because he’s already taken.Yes, that's why many of my FB's are already taken themselves. See? It all works out. 🙂
Obviously, not EVERY woman is ok with just being FB/FWB. But there are many who are. Its an ideal situation for them.Exactly. Some women would never have an FB, particularly women with high ASD or provider hunters. I don't date those women. Nor want to.
So if BD readers agree that you can’t expect to “trust” a person that you’ve known long enough to get into a long term relationship with, why would you “trust” a person in an open relationship?That question makes no sense.
I’m just suggesting that whatever is going to happen is going to happen and your “rules” don’t mean squat.As I said to the guy above, even if the rules don't hold 100% meaning within a feminine brain, they must still be verbalized and agreed to (in an OLTR, not MLTR's). And just because they don't mean what they might mean to man doesn't mean they mean zero to a woman. They do mean something.
How do you handle the FB if/when she tries to move herself to MLTR, or even OLTR, by suggesting the dating and relationship type activities you described? Just say “NO?”Yep. Or just say you're too busy or whatever. Women get the point pretty fast.
Or do you have to reinforce your initial frame by reminding your FB’s that it’s just sex and nothing more for the present?No. Too much verbalization.
I seem to recall PF started as a FB, but then moved to MLTR and now OLTR, correct? Did PF ever want the dating and relationship behaviors and activities while you still considered her a FB?No. I was the one who upgraded the relationship, not her. Which is what is supposed to happen. You never upgrade a relationship just because a woman asks. Bad.
When she is having all her romantic Disney needs met by other men, she doesn’t require them from you.Exactly.
Damn, never seen this many comments before BD respondsI've been on a plane to Dubai. I have a busy life.
Marty 2017-11-10 01:29:53
"your sweetie", "your darling", "your angel", "my SO" All this angst about the threat and issues with your OLTR sleeping with other guys is not coming from a strong understand of how a good open relationship works. Or how it affects the women. It's ALL coming from typical, Alpha 1, socially programmed, disney.....ONEITIS! Oh....I have to protect my one in a million.....not like the other girls.....special flower! Otherwise the big baddie rich guys and good looking guys will steal her from me!! And then I'll never find another one like her and I'll have to cry myself to sleep for the rest of my life. (Like John Wik. Hollywood really sucks sometimes!) Grow a pair of balls and try this stuff. It might surprise you. The women love it as well because they don't have to deal this jealous little boys anymore. Its quite refreshing for them. The fact that you don't care if they sleep with other guys and you don't care if they run off with someone else because you know you can find another girl to replace them pretty easy just makes them wet as fuck for you and 10 times less likely to leave you than the normal jealous and monogamous idiot they are used to. 🙂
Rubs 2017-11-10 01:46:28
Nothing. Absolutely nothing you can do as a man (rules, strategies, Alpha 1.0 or 2.0 attitudes...) will prevent a woman from leaving you for a better catch. At best, you may be able to minimise that risk, but never eliminate it. We as men always like to believe we can be in control. We are not. Women always are, whether we like it or not. In the sexual market place women are the gatekeepers of sex. Hypergamy is too strong of a force to be "tamed" by any set of rules. Every woman comes with a expiry date. You are only a temporary phase in the journey of her sex life. Best thing you can do as a man is to enjoy her company for as long as it lasts. She will one day get bored of having sex with you and monkey branch to the next man she can find. It's the natural circle of the sex life of women. Take it as it is or suffer miserably for her leaving you for another cock.
CSR 2017-11-10 02:45:31
Women don’t have FBs, they have FBs they would like to seriously date but they can’t because the man doesn’t want that. Wow, absolutely incorrect. It’s sad to hear men actually say this stuff. This is blatantly false SP and “Madonna / whore” bullshit that men think of women. Many women love to have man FB’s who they would never, ever date in a million years.Let me complete that. It's either what I said OR if they have a FB and are currenty in a LTR/OLTR with someone else, it means she is not really, fully attracted to him.
I know we can not say “only the man can have sex on the side” because it sounds selfish but this is the best setup for us and in fact it is what happens if you’re alpha enough and she’s really attracted to you. I know. ?Yeah, right? So my point is this: as a man in a young OLTR like yourself, even with a full Alpha 2.0, outcome independence mentality, what would you think of PF having sex with other men right now, even under the set of rules/boundaries that you've both agreed? I mean, would you seriously think that PF is still really attracted to you? And I mean real attraction, not the usual "he gives me stability, money, etc." that betas suffer.
Xyz 2017-11-10 03:06:54
BD, suppose your oltr leaves you someday for another guy. Maybe now or few months later or after 3 years or something like that. I know you have all the arrangements like prenup, not marrying legally in US etc. So you won't be financially damaged at all. On what level will you be emotionally damaged? Or will you not give a single fuck cuz you're too busy working on your mission? Please don't give answers like 'it won't happen most probably'. Just wanted to know whether someone has to be vulnerable if they're entering an oltr relationship. Also why did you and hbm breakup?
Leon 2017-11-10 03:18:14
What would you do if a side-guy of your OLTR/OM starts to mock/try to shame you in public (or via public media) on how great your precious girl sucks his cock or how good in bed she was...? Haven't happened yet and I guess the odd isn't high, but still. We can't just shrug here and leave, can we?
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-10 03:32:52
@Jack Outside the Box: You are probably one of the guys that have the most solid Alpha 2.0 frame on this blog IMO.Well thank you. BD disagrees though. He calls me a 1.0 because I get mad at shit (I call it being passionate) and part of my mission is to save the world, or at least the West. But thanks, I appreciate that.
Do you have your personal blog? I’d like to read it.Not until this January (possibly sooner). I've recently been humbled by a truly overwhelming amount of encouragement and support from all corners of the internet and real life on the subject of starting my own blog. A shit ton of people have told me that they can't wait to read it, so I'll be doing it way sooner than I originally planned. I just need to educate myself on the technical side of things, ask a few computer experts and bloggers about certain things I'm not clear on, and probably shell out some money for some technical assistance. But yeah, barring some unforeseen obstacles (and there might be some), I should have a blog in less than two months. Although it will, most definitely, have a fair amount of sex talk with regards to women and seduction, the blog's larger purpose and agenda will be to articulate, promote, and encourage the principles and values of the Alt Lite, which is where I live politically. The Alt Right pukes have given us a bad name and most cultural libertarians are in desperate need of a fixed and coherent intellectual, ideological, and philosophical compass with which to arm themselves in this culture war. That is what I hope my blog will provide. The Alt Lite people need to be turned from an incoherent group of mischief makers and youtube commenters into a coherent and ideologically principled fighting unit. I hope to fill that void. And yes, when it's operational, I'll link to it here. You'll just click on my name and it will take you directly to it. Stay tuned. And thanks for your support!
Also, I believe you can contribute a lot to Alpha2.0 Community Forum (alpha20.ning.com), have you visited it?Yes I've visited, but I've been so busy with my mission (of which the future blog is a part) and my sex life that, quite frankly, I haven't had much time to comment on yet another forum. I probably will in the future, but right now my plate is full.
Lovergirl 2017-11-10 03:40:45
I’m with Chase. If you treat fuck buddies like that I think you are going to have a hard time keeping them around and when they drop off it’s going to be extremely difficult to find new ones without violating all your rules. Then you will be de-facto monogamous. Just sayin...
POB 2017-11-10 04:09:58
If you treat fuck buddies like that I think you are going to have a hard time keeping them around and when they drop off it’s going to be extremely difficult to find new ones without violating all your rules.This is false. Treat current FBs well and fair (don't make fake promises or lie) and they'll always come back - specially when they get tired of the beta or Alpha 1.0 shit from their BFs/hubbies and want zero drama and good sex from a guy. New FBs are the easiest to find! Just hit Tinder, Happn or any app, set their age to 29 max and in two weeks (tops) you'll be adding a new chick to your roster. If you're too old just go the sugar daddy route.
Matt 2017-11-10 04:30:22
BD - I have some questions for you, that I think tangentially apply to the topic above. I don't think you would have hands-on experience, but Im interested in your 5 cents. - How to square Alpha 2.0 OLTR with Swingers Lifestyle? Seems like a perfect match, or possibly even an improvement on your lifestyle (due to efficiency). I mean stuff like participating in swinger orgies, couple swap, gangbangs etc, where both OLTR partners get to play. On that note, can an OLTR be sustained on threesomes alone? - How to square Alpha 2.0 OLTR with cuckold/cuchquean lifestyle, OR BDSM? Both involve a ownership-heavy power-play dynamic inimical to Alpha 2.0 mentality, but at the same time focus on happiness and hedonism - as should be. Can one be an Alpha 2.0 Cuck or Alpha 2.0 Submissive Dude? - How to square Alpha 2.0 OLTR lifestyle with (male) bisexuality? Would a dude in a committed OLTR with a girl, fucking dudes on the side fulfil the requirements for a healthy A2.0? Or does the philosophy requires him to have female FBs as well, lest it would be "de facto monogamy" with his GF? It would be cool if you expanded it into a full article someday, because I think there could be a strong overlap between the kind of men mentioned above and possible Alpha 2.0 "recruits".
Dan 2017-11-10 05:41:54
BD: Women usually develop sexual feelings for guys they work with. I've been in an OLTR with a girl for over a year now, but she's working a new job with a very tight knit group of people that frequently hang out outside of work. When she eventually starts fucking one of these guys, how are any of these rules supposed to work? She's going to end up spending lots of time with whoever the guy is just by being in close proximity. It seems too restrictive to make it a rule that she "can't fuck anyone in her social circle". What's the solution to this?
Curtis 2017-11-10 06:21:17
@BD Instead of "Unconditional Monogamy", have you ever toyed with "Conditional Monogamy" relationships before? Basically, if the lady (or man) does certain bad behavior like kicking me out for example, it triggers Hall Passes. (would have to set ground rules before hand) Another words, she can have the guy mono but it must be earned at all times. Refuses sex - Hall pass. Accuses him of cheating w/ no proof - Hall pass. Refuses a certain sexual act that you both always did before - Hall pass. I have a lady friend/fb ask me about if I ever tried this method and my response to her was that is how Mono relationships should work anyways! By default. She just laughed at me of course. But I can't imagine a man agreeing to be Unconditionally Mono but apparently they are out there according to her. What are your thoughts? Do men or Betas actually allow women to tie them down Unconditionally and treat them poorly and control them and still not go have sex with someone else when this happens?? If so, men are more screwed up than I thought. Surely most of these guys are just cheating. And if so, that means that there really is no such thing as Unconditional Monogamy anyways. Only in the ladies heads. Talk about Disney!
CSR 2017-11-10 06:28:51
Do men or Betas actually allow women to tie them down Unconditionally and treat them poorly and control them and still not go have sex with someone else when this happens??This is what I think usually happens. Normally it's the woman's sexual strategy that wins over a man's if he's a beta.
If so, men are more screwed up than I thought.Most men are betas.
Surely most of these guys are just cheating.In many cases yes but most betas do not even cheat because they are not attractive enough.
And if so, that means that there really is no such thing as Unconditional Monogamy anyways. Only in the ladies heads.True, but unconditional monogamy is not "in the ladies heads". It's always "monogamy as long as I'm fine with him". As always, women say one thing but they mean the other way around or they conveniently omit the part of the sentence they don't want you to hear.
Sag 2017-11-10 07:50:22
OR, OLTR....any kind of those relationships don't make sense to me. Why would I be with a woman if she is allowed to sleep with other guys? If I want to fuck other women, then I don't see the need to be anything else than a FB. I feel like it's the so called beta males who are willing to be in OLTR, guys who can't live alone, who need to call a woman their girlfriend despite her fucking other guys. lol That's like buying a car and allowing stranger people to drive with it at times I sometimes sleep with women who are either married or in relationships while their husbands don't know shit about me. That's a lot better because you never have to pretend anything, it's all about sex and she does all the chasing and leaves anyway.
Curtis 2017-11-10 08:23:16
If we are really being honest here and I could have things the way I wanted 100% w/out worry of being shamed, breaking my state laws, or getting divorced and paying alimony etc, it would look similar to how King Soloman had it lol. That be rockin! But unfortunately, it ain't that easy. I would have a 4-5 bedroom home - one bedroom for me and my office and 3 others for my women or wives. My bedroom would have 2 Cali King beds put together for when we have a foursome =) lmbo. Actually, I'd probably want my very own man cave cabin in the back yard so I can get away from them talking so much and work. But anyways, you get the picture lol. I can't imagine how Soloman took care of 1000 (700 wives and 300 concubines) ladies AND got anything accomplished lol. That being said, maybe God's original system would work best for us men in terms of long-term happiness AND less work on our part? So, basically, sounds like Soloman had FBs/Sugar babbies too they just called them Concubines and then he moved them onto his property maybe idk. If I could make my own Guy Disney movie, that would be it 😉
Blackdragon 2017-11-10 09:56:11
Absolutely nothing you can do as a man (rules, strategies, Alpha 1.0 or 2.0 attitudes…) will prevent a woman from leaving you for a better catch. At best, you may be able to minimise that risk, but never eliminate it.Correct, so if you want a long-term OLTR, your job is to do the things necessary to minimize the risk, and there are many of these things. But your risk will never be zero, of course.
Let me complete that. It’s either what I said OR if they have a FB and are currenty in a LTR/OLTR with someone else, it means she is not really, fully attracted to him.Wrong again. I have personally had FB's who lasted a year or more who were 100% single and had no intention or desire to upgrade our relationship to anything more than a FB. And yes, I've had FB's who wanted more from me. But it was some, not "all."
as a man in a young OLTR like yourself, even with a full Alpha 2.0, outcome independence mentality, what would you think of PF having sex with other men right now, even under the set of rules/boundaries that you’ve both agreed?Whoever said she hasn't already? And if she has (and I'm not saying if she has or has not because that's her personal life) I would not give one shit about it. I'm not threatened by other men, I'm outcome independent, and I trust her.
I mean, would you seriously think that PF is still really attracted to you? And I mean real attraction, not the usual “he gives me stability, money, etc.” that betas suffer.Yes. I would know for a fact, because of her behavior. (Now if you're talking about whether or not her attraction for me will literally last forever, that's a completely different issue of course, but that's a different topic.)
BD, suppose your oltr leaves you someday for another guy. Maybe now or few months later or after 3 years or something like that. I know you have all the arrangements like prenup, not marrying legally in US etc. So you won’t be financially damaged at all. On what level will you be emotionally damaged? Or will you not give a single fuck cuz you’re too busy working on your mission?It would depend on how she did it. If, for example, we slowly grew apart over time, and one day she just left me for another dude, and I could see it coming a mile away, then I probably wouldn't care. HBM and I slowly grew apart, and when that relationship ended I felt no sadness whatsoever. I just shrugged and moved on. If, for example, everything was going wonderful between us and out of the complete blue she suddenly dumped me for another dude, then yeah, I would feel bad. (Odds of it actually happening like that: extremely low). I would feel bad for a month or two and then I would move on. Even during my divorce, which was more painful because it was monogamous and there were kids involved, I felt bad for about three months, and then I was happy. I'm a generally happy and independent guy who lives a great life and has a strong Mission, so I bounce back from things like that pretty quickly. (When they happen, which is almost never.)
Please don’t give answers like ‘it won’t happen most probably’.I don't give answers like that. I have no Guy-Disney and I'm not self delusional. Of course our relationship may not work. She won't like it, but when PF moves in, I will make a post on exactly what I think our odds are for success or failure for certain lengths of our relationship, and what exactly I define as "success" or "failure" for a live-in, long term, OLTR marriage. That will clear a lot of things up for guys who ask me questions like this.
Just wanted to know whether someone has to be vulnerable if they’re entering an oltr relationship."Has to" be? There is no "has to." It depends on A) your personality, B) your Alpha 2.0 status and level of outcome independence, C) your level of game skill (so you know you can replace women quickly if needed) and D) how strong your Mission is. At least 3 out of those 4 things are directly within your control.
Also why did you and hbm breakup?We grew apart slowly, and then she started giving me drama semi-regularly. One day she blew up at me while we were on a trip, so after that I just stopped giving a shit and stopped doing any romantic stuff with her, and she left about a month later. It was amicable and I was glad to end it. (Today she's monogamously married to an extreme beta. My prediction is that she'll crank out one or two kids with him and divorce him in less than 6-7 years.)
What would you do if a side-guy of your OLTR/OM starts to mock/try to shame you in public (or via public media) on how great your precious girl sucks his cock or how good in bed she was…?I would make a joke about it and move on. I'm outcome independent and don't give a shit. PF would also stop seeing him immediately. Not because I asked her to (and I wouldn't), but because she wouldn't tolerate seeing a FB who would insult me publicly like that. Frankly, if a FB she ever had did that, she would be WAY more upset about it than I would.
Haven’t happened yet and I guess the odd isn’t high, but still. We can’t just shrug here and leave, can we?Yes, we can. You can shrug and leave no matter what. PF knows I can shrug and leave her whenever I want, and the same applies to her leaving me. That puts a little pressure on both of us to treat other other right and not get complacent about our relationship, as opposed to monogamy where both parties assume (rightly or wrongly) that they've "got" each other and can start treating each other like crap.
He calls me a 1.0 because I get mad at shit (I call it being passionate) and part of my mission is to save the world, or at least the West.Incorrect. Wanting to save the West has nothing to do with Alpha 2.0. I just think it's literally a waste of time. (And, side note, even culture warrior and social crusader Roosh has finally come around to agreeing with me that the West is fucked no matter what anyone does.) I've called you a Alpha 1.0 because of the demands you make on the women in your life, and you agreed you're more 1.0 in that way. And yes, flying into a rage when a stranger on the internet leaves a comment you don't like, as you do all the time, shows a stark lack of the outcome independence and emotional control necessary for the long-term happiness that is a hallmark of the Alpha 2.0. You have a lot of good Alpha 2.0 views, like you're very sex positive and anti-monogamy, but it takes more than that to be a 2.0.
If you treat fuck buddies like that I think you are going to have a hard time keeping them aroundI've had numerous, consistent fuck buddies that lasted 2, 3, 4, and even 6 years straight, with no LSFNTE's or breaks, so you are incorrect. That's not even counting FB's that came and went for even longer periods. What you're saying is you wouldn't stick around with a guy who treated you like that, but not all women are you.
and when they drop off it’s going to be extremely difficult to find new ones without violating all your rules.Incorrect again. My return rate for FB's is 96%. It's even higher for FB's than it is for MLTR's.
How to square Alpha 2.0 OLTR with Swingers Lifestyle?It's fine. Go ahead. Lots of OLTR's are swinger relationships. I would never do it, but I know a lot of married couples who are swingers and they love it.
On that note, can an OLTR be sustained on threesomes alone?No. Threesome-only OLTR's are not recommended and you are virtually guaranteed to end up de facto monogamous when she stops wanting to have threesomes, which she will.
How to square Alpha 2.0 OLTR with cuckold/cuchquean lifestyle, OR BDSM?It's fine. Go ahead.
Can one be an Alpha 2.0 Cuck or Alpha 2.0 Submissive Dude?During sex, yes, if that's what turns you on. Outside of sex, no, the Alpha 2.0 cannot be submissive. That's for betas.
How to square Alpha 2.0 OLTR lifestyle with (male) bisexuality?It's fine. Go for it if that's what you really want.
Would a dude in a committed OLTR with a girl, fucking dudes on the side fulfil the requirements for a healthy A2.0?If he was doing everything else 2.0 in his life, yes. I know one or two gay men who I would classify as Alpha 2.0.
It would be cool if you expanded it into a full article someday, because I think there could be a strong overlap between the kind of men mentioned above and possible Alpha 2.0 “recruits”.I've already said many times that swinging counts as Alpha 2.0. I've also said that I will never write an article about BDSM since there is no common definition for that term everyone can agree on. I don't want to write about gay/bi-sexual Alpha 2.0's since A) I'm hetero so I have nothing congruent to offer men who are not, B) it would confuse my messaging and my brand, and I'd rather make money, and C) it would shift the conversation into areas I'm not interested in. But no, absolute heterosexuality is not required for Alpha 2.0.
Z 2017-11-10 10:16:18
As a long time reader and someone who agrees with 90% of what you have posted here I have a hard time with this set of "rules" as it doesn't seem congruent to a long term solution. Sure it's easy for a woman to lay out those stipulations and have a line of eager FB participants, but as a good looking, moderately successful 2.0 man I can't say I've ever had a woman above a 6 be open to sex according to those guidelines. Sure I have several FB's I could call that this scenario would be ok with but we both know that no FB is permanent and will eventually leave. This dwindling will ultimately lead to de facto monogamy unless I resort to either paying, or lowering my standards to acquire new ones. Please let me know what your plan of action is to keep up the 2.0 lifestyle if you can't build a emotional connection whatsoever to any new partners.
Marty McFly 2017-11-10 10:19:17
@JOTB I'm confused. BD says high-sex drive women are prolific serial monogamists (feminine mating strategy.) How do I find these high-sex drive women who are polygamous (masculine strategy) which you speak of? Preferably who bake and suck dick like it's their job please, thanks.
Blackdragon 2017-11-10 10:37:17
Women usually develop sexual feelings for guys they work with.Obviously incorrect. What a dumb statement.
I’ve been in an OLTR with a girl for over a year now, but she’s working a new job with a very tight knit group of people that frequently hang out outside of work. When she eventually starts fucking one of these guys, how are any of these rules supposed to work?She would have to stop spending time with him if she started fucking him. However, I would tell her it's a very, very bad idea to fuck someone you work with. Have her read this.
It seems too restrictive to make it a rule that she “can’t fuck anyone in her social circle”.Why? That sounds like a perfectly reasonable rule to me. PF and I don't have that rule, but I have no objection to it. You could also make a rule that she can't fuck any men she works with, which is a really good idea anyway. Or you can let her fuck guys she works with if she really wants to, but the rule is she can't hang out with them in social settings if she does. And so on. And if you don't trust her to do any of this, she should not be your OLTR. Unlike with FB's and MLTR's, absolute trust is required for an OLTR.
Instead of “Unconditional Monogamy”, have you ever toyed with “Conditional Monogamy” relationships before?No and conditional monogamy is a terrible idea that is 100% guaranteed to cause drama. I've seen guys in the PUA world attempt this (even after I warned them not do) and it always blew up in their faces. Always. Women are not logical in relationships like this. "Hey, of course I fucked a hot 19 year old after being monogamous with you for a year, but hey babe, you can't get mad at me about it, because remember that super logical and rational conversation we had a year ago about how I'm allowed to fuck other women if you don't put out whenever I want?" Haha! Yeah, right. That will just cause an explosion. Good luck with that. Your entire hall pass idea is far too logical for a woman in a relationship with you. If your OLTR was another man you could probably make it work, but a woman? Nope.
Do men or Betas actually allow women to tie them down Unconditionally and treat them poorly and control them and still not go have sex with someone else when this happens??Some do, some cheat. Depends on the guy. (Betas are still men, so they cheat too. It just takes them a lot longer to cheat than Alpha 1.0's.)
I would have a 4-5 bedroom home – one bedroom for me and my office and 3 others for my women or wives. My bedroom would have 2 Cali King beds put together for when we have a foursome =) lmbo.You would have massive drama.
I can’t imagine how Soloman took care of 1000 (700 wives and 300 concubines) ladies AND got anything accomplished lol.He was a king. He had a large staff to keep them busy/occupied.
as a good looking, moderately successful 2.0 man I can’t say I’ve ever had a woman above a 6 be open to sex according to those guidelines.Then you're doing something wrong, because I've always followed those guidelines, I'm not good-looking (in my opinion) and I've had FB's who were 9's.
Sure I have several FB’s I could call that this scenario would be ok with but we both know that no FB is permanent and will eventually leave.Correct. They will eventually leave (and 94% will come back). This means you need a portfolio of FB's instead of relying on just one.
This dwindling will ultimately lead to de facto monogamy unless I resort to either paying, or lowering my standards to acquire new ones.Huh? What an odd statement. No. 94% will come back if you do everything correctly and you are free to out and get new FB's whenever you like via whatever game you prefer (online dating, night game, daygame, whatever). And sure, paying for it is a third option. I've never lowered my standards. Hell, my standards for physical appearance have increased as I've gotten older.
Please let me know what your plan of action is to keep up the 2.0 lifestyle if you can’t build a emotional connection whatsoever to any new partners.Um, I'm just going to keep doing exactly what I've already been doing for over ten years now. As has already been stated in this thread, many of you are saying what I've already been doing for over ten years is impossible. Also, as I've said many times, you can be friends with your FB's. "No emotional connection whatsoever" is overstating things a little, at least in some cases. My FB's (most of them anyway) are very nice people who I consider my friends, not women I treat like a piece of trash to be banged and discarded. If you treat them like that, of course they won't stick around! Read this.
Curtis 2017-11-10 11:13:12
Here is the SINGLE most difficult challenge I have had so far the last 2 years on BDs system: Only see any one girl (MLTR or OLTR) no more than 1 x per week My current OLTR I see maybe 3 x per week on average and we are discussing living together soon as well. I work from my home office and we are like 2 jack rabbits (meaning we could have sex 3 x per day if we could and have before lol). So, if one gets married or moves in w/ his OLTR, you can't stick with the 1 x per week rule really. Unless I am totally screwed up here and that rule only applies to FBs or MLTRs?? So, what are some cool and innovative ideas that we men can do to prevent her from getting bored and draw out the NRE phase? I have thought about building me a Tiny house/cabin in back yard, travel trailer etc. I also think its important to do things without her and w/ friends too. But one thing is for sure - when I leave and go to my place for a couple of days she is going nuts to see me. I won't have that if we live together....
Blackdragon 2017-11-10 11:29:43
The once a week rule does not apply to OLTR's. You have to keep your frame though, which is harder if you see a woman more than once a week.
Lovergirl 2017-11-10 14:26:11
You say you’ve been doing this for 10 yrs- but not with all the new rules you have laid out with your OLTR. If you had those same rules she wouldn’t be your OLTR because you said she started out as a fuck buddy. Obviously feelings developed somewhere down the line. I’m saying that now that you have those rules, maintaining fuck buddies is going to be much more difficult. Like Chase said, women don’t want to be treated like a free call girl.
Blackdragon 2017-11-10 21:12:07
You say you’ve been doing this for 10 yrs- but not with all the new rules you have laid out with your OLTR.We're not talking about OLTR, we're talking about how I treat FB's.
If you had those same rules she wouldn’t be your OLTR because you said she started out as a fuck buddy.Wrong again. Everything I listed in the article is exactly how I treated PF for an entire year, and there were no problems. We never went out on a date (other than the first 2-3), we never talked on the phone, we never got romantic, etc. (She can verify I'm telling the truth if she reads this.)
Obviously feelings developed somewhere down the line.In her case, yes, and at the appropriate time, I upgraded her to MLTR and thus changed the rules so that dating was allowed. This usually doesn't happen with my FB's but it can sometimes. Most of my FB's saw me for years on end without this ever happening; PF was one of the exceptions.
I’m saying that now that you have those rules, maintaining fuck buddies is going to be much more difficult.Again, you're not understanding (or are pretending to not understand) that I've always had those rules, not just "now." OLTR has nothing to do with it. I've had those exact same rules for FB's for over 10 years, whether or not I had an OLTR, and it's worked just fine.
Like Chase said, women don’t want to be treated like a free call girl.That is not how I treat (most of) my FB's, as I just stated in a comment above. It's not like I bang them the instant they walk into my house and then instantly kick them out as soon as it's over. I don't treat my FB's like crap, not now and not ever. Again, you're projecting. I know from your past comments that you hate the concept of FB, and that's fine, but the system still works. You're saying you would never be an FB. That's great, but not all women are you, (particularly young, low-ASD women in their early 20's).
Agent K 2017-11-10 23:16:34
BD, what adjustments do you suggest for guys who prefer to have sex without condoms?
Chase Mclane 2017-11-10 23:49:38
as a good looking, moderately successful 2.0 man I can’t say I’ve ever had a woman above a 6 be open to sex according to those guidelines.I'm in the same position and in an OLTR, and I have the exact same result. Nothing above a 6 (or the odd 7) if we are talking only sex longer term. You might get lucky and get a ONS with an 8, but rare. Otherwise I need to take them out on the odd date, or show them I care about them at least somewhat another way that would definitely break those rules. So I will take them out on a date around 1 out of 3 times we meet up, or get them the occasional gift, and also have some emotional talks with them, while keeping other strict boundaries. This is the only way I've found it to be possible with very attractive girls. @BD
Incorrect again. My return rate for FB’s is 96%.For this to be true, it means that at a minimum 24 out of 25 girls have returned. Other mathematical possibilities are 48 out of 50, 72 out of 75, or of course 96 out of 100 and so forth. Those are impressive numbers. I guess your girls never even move cities without eventually coming back because they can't get enough of BD.
Wrong again. Everything I listed in the article is exactly how I treated PF for an entire year, and there were no problems. We never went out on a date (other than the first 2-3), we never talked on the phone, we never got romantic, etc. (She can verify I’m telling the truth if she reads this.)But you weren't in a committed live in OLTR and she knew it, so she knew there was a good chance things could develop... and as it turns out, that's exactly what happened.
That is not how I treat (most of) my FB’s, as I just stated in a comment above. It’s not like I bang them the instant they walk into my house and then instantly kick them out as soon as it’s over. I don’t treat my FB’s like crap, not now and not ever.How do you think most guys treat call girls? They generally don't treat them like crap and kick them out as soon as it's over either (sure there are some assholes that do, but that's the exception to the rule, and if they're acting like that they'll probably be refused in future). What you are describing is quite literally a call girl/john relationship but without payment. I've tried this, and girls will actually say things like 'I feel like I'm just your free call girl' and have ended it very quickly. No amount of orgasms, non-clinginess and outcome independence, which is the only things you are offering, keeps them around for more than around a month or two, unless they are max 6/10 as the poster above said.
Blackdragon 2017-11-11 06:57:30
BD, what adjustments do you suggest for guys who prefer to have sex without condoms?None. (Who doesn't prefer sex without condoms?) Get one MLTR or OLTR who you trust, and get one long-term and established FB whom you also trust. If you do this and you're very careful, you can make no condoms work. I would never recommend no condoms beyond two women though.
For this to be true, it means that at a minimum 24 out of 25 girls have returned. Other mathematical possibilities are 48 out of 50, 72 out of 75, or of course 96 out of 100 and so forth.That is correct. Those are my stats. Granted it may take a woman 2-3 years to come back, but odds are she will. If you don't want to believe those stats then fine, but it's the truth.
I guess your girls never even move cities without eventually coming back because they can’t get enough of BD.Incorrect. I said 96% of my FB's come back. I never said they never permanently leave for other cities. Often they do, after they've come back at least once. 96% means that 96% come back to me at least once. I never said 96% come back to me over and over again forever. Many FB's come back once (or twice) then do indeed move (or get married or get to old or get to fat or whatever) and never come back.
But you weren’t in a committed live in OLTR and she knew it, so she knew there was a good chance things could develop… and as it turns out, that’s exactly what happened.If your point is that the difficulty bar is raised when your new FB's know you're "taken," then I don't disagree with you. (Your current FB's already on the roster largely won't care.) OLTR is only for older men of advanced or at least intermediate game so this shouldn't be a huge problem. 1. Build up a roster of long-term and repeating FB's. 2. Once the roster is nice and healthy, get your OLTR. 3. Rely on your returning FB's, who mostly won't give a shit you have a girlfriend or wife. (Next the ones that complain.) 4. Supplement with normal game and sugar daddy game if needed. 5. Good to go. Now, if your point is no woman over a 6 would ever be your FB if you had an OLTR unless she also had a boyfriend, you are wrong. I know you don't want to believe that, but it's true. I have had multiple long-term FB's who were well over a 6 who never had any intention of dating me beyond an FB, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself so want to ignore what I'm saying you're free to do so. Young, hot girls in their early 20's are not provider hunters. At least not usually.
What you are describing is quite literally a call girl/john relationship but without payment.Your problem is that you think women never want unattached sex, and that what's so depressing about your comments, as I said to you above. They do. The love it as much as you or I do. Granted, once they get over 33 and ASD starts rising, and they start turning into Lovergirl, they aren't comfortable with that anymore, but I'm not talking about those women.
I’ve tried this, and girls will actually say things like ‘I feel like I’m just your free call girl’ and have ended it very quickly.Then either you're not doing it correctly, or you're mostly focusing on over 33 women. (Or you're in an usually difficult city like San Francisco or Toronto.) I've had that happen too but it's very rare for me.
No amount of orgasms, non-clinginess and outcome independence, which is the only things you are offering, keeps them around for more than around a month or two, unless they are max 6/10 as the poster above said.Then explain my results. (And those aren't the only things I'm offering.)
Sideburns 2017-11-11 07:14:57
@ Jack in the Box: Q. Why convert people, when you could breed new ones instead? A. Because it's much quicker and less smelly. I really look forward to your Alpha 1.5 wingnut blog. Will it be showing you ''spitting in the faces of prostitutes'' like a sexual champion of the master race?
Chase Mclane 2017-11-11 08:06:20
I said 96% of my FB’s come back.Ok, so what time period in terms of not seeing them do you classify them as 'coming back' for that statistic? If you don't see them for two months and then they return do you class that as coming back and add them to that 96%? Or is that just a case of them never having 'left'? I've had FB's that I haven't seen for a month or slightly more 'come back' but I just look at that as them never having left. It's only when I haven't seen them for 3 months+ that I'd class them as lost. Then if they came back after that I'd call it a return. So what time period do you use? I've read your 6 month rule, so are you saying that 96% of FB's return after you haven't seen them for 6 months?
Your problem is that you think women never want unattached sexWrong and I never said that. What I did say is that if they are very hot, and unattached sex is all they're looking for, they do it with guys that are also very hot, especially the young girls. Why wouldn't they? If all a girl wants is NSA sex from a non-clingy guy then there are heaps of better looking guys offering them that. I may not be as good looking as those guys, but I'm offering them more, if I wasn't, they'd just be FB's with one of the many better looking guys beating down their door.
(Or you’re in an usually difficult city like San Francisco or Toronto.)I'm travelling at the moment, and I don't really know what makes a city unusually difficult, but I live in an Australian city.
And those aren’t the only things I’m offering.I asked what you were offering and you said
Orgasms. Non-needy attention. Etc.So what else are you offering FB's that allows you to beat out the masses of extremely good looking guys offering them the same orgasms and non-needy attention?
CapNCrunch 2017-11-11 18:25:59
In the end, the vast majority of men, me included, don't want other men fucking their wives/girlfriends. Of course, there are no guarantees in life. We are all fallable. However, give each other the green light to have sex with others, and they will. For the average man, he would love to have his faithful wife at home, while he occasionally gets a little on the side. Some men do, and it's simply cheating. Others would love to and don't, if the price to pay is allowing other men access to his wife. For the small number of people who are OK with an open relationship, that's great. I fully support you pursuing the type relationship which makes you happy. But recognize this is a very, very small percentage of the population. Even Pink Firefly stated she would prefer to be in a monogamous relationship.
Dan 2017-11-11 21:27:00
Women usually develop sexual feelings for guys they work with.Obviously incorrect. What a dumb statement.
Sachmo 2017-11-11 22:43:28
It's funny, I almost feel as if this blog post were written for me based on some of the comments I've made here over the years. Here goes my long reply... I recently became acquainted with the work of David Buss who stands head and shoulders above pretty much anyone else on actual research into human mating. He's run more real life experiments than pretty much everyone else. He's one of the founders of evolutionary psychology. He's cited very often. His work has laid waste to a lot of the underpinnings of modern feminism. You can google him, for a short bio - https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/david-buss/ (Sex at Dawn by the way is riddled with a lot of inconsistencies, doesn't hold up to serious scientific scrutiny.) Here's what the evolutionary psychologists have to say... We still have the instincts of a neolithic hunter from 200,000 years ago. Men from this era have two basic patterns of mating: A) Casual Mating - Bang as many chicks as you can, get as many of them pregnant as you can and move on. Don't offer any help raising the kids, heck get out of her village by tomorrow. B) Pair Bonding - Mate with one chick. For at least a few seasons, help provision her offspring. Share some food, help raise the kid, etc. This may not have been until adulthood, like in modern times. This typically might have been through young infancy, and only if the man really liked the woman or wanted to mate with her again, he might continue the relationship. You might define this as serial monogamy. What men look for in women (according to Buss) is one thing only -- how attractive she is. What you and I would call attractiveness are cues to genetic fitness. We could go into all kinds of ways we evaluate genetic fitness such as teeth, smoothness of skin, symmetry of a person's face, etc, but these are all markers of good health. Ok, now onto women. Women look for two things in a mate. One attractiveness / genetic fitness - same as a male. Two - resources. A man with a lot of resources or the capability of getting lots of resources can better provision her offspring. Women will pair bond with a man who provisions her offspring. You would call this man a Beta. But there are some occasions, where she'll just bang a dude with zero expectation of provisioning her offspring... and this happens when the genetic fitness of the male is just off the charts. The theory is that if she somehow is able to raise her child to adulthood, the child will be of such genetic fitness that he / she will have their pick of the litter. Best example I can think for a woman doing this in the modern era is Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler's mother was literally a groupie that followed Aerosmith around and banged Steve Tyler once. Steve probably had no idea Liv Tyler was his kid and back in the 70s, the awareness and enforcement of child support laws aren't what they are today. So she literally followed around this dude, banged him once, had a kid, and her child has the genetic fitness of the father -- that is a one in a million performer. Now people might disagree as to how talented she is really, but the fact is, very few actors / actresses make it to a level that she did, it's something like one in a million and this is a testament to why women go along with the casual mating thing. I can hear BD's reply now -- "WRONG WRONG WRONG, women *love* having casual sex!" And I'm not disagreeing with you man, but only with men whom they evaluate as having high genetic fitness -- at least relative to them. So a woman who is a '6' will happily casually mate with a guy who is an '8'. But a woman who is a '9' is going to be picky as hell. Understand that in the neolithic age, sex had MUCH more risk for women than for men. Women often died during childbirth. Worse, the deadbeat dads back then were far, far more common than today. So if she survived, she may be stuck provisioning a child by herself in the wilderness. Much worse than a single mother today. So for a woman to override her instincts and have casual sex, she really needs to be sure that it's worth it. Now of course all of this machinery in our heads is completely outdated. We have birth control. Women can get abortions. Even if she has the baby, she can force the state to collect child support. But our minds are conditioned by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and the women that weren't extremely careful about this stuff (and men too) did not produce offspring that survived. OK... so onto the OLTR. It is every man's desire to bang lots and lots of women. The casual maters (you might call them Alphas) want to bang women and walk over the hill. The pair bonders -- really offspring investors -- want to pick high quality women and invest heavily in raising the offspring. In real life these men are constrained by resources. But in an ideal world where these men are neolithic billionaires (tribal chiefs), they have a harem. Basically they are pair bonded to multiple women, invest heavily in all of the offspring, and are not constrained by resources. The modern version of this are rich oil sheikhs in Saudi Arabia and Dubai. By the way, you picked an extremely weird time to be visiting that region, but hats off to you man. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. An extremely genetically fit man, can theoretically sire *thousands* of children. In fact men like Genghis Khan most likely DID sire thousands of children. But no women will ever be able to sire thousands of children. It's physically impossible. The world record for a women having live births is something like 60, and for a typical woman in the neolithic age, you would be extremely lucky to give birth to perhaps 10 children and not die during childbirth. So a man literally has a nearly infinite amount of ammo. A woman has 10 shots, and each shot she takes has significant risk to her life. So an OLTR works great for a man, because he can be with his primary lady, invest heavily in her offspring, and have a casual situation with all the other women. This casual / pair bonding thing is a spectrum, and most men are pair bonders who are *opportunisitically* casual maters on the side. But for a women, who's got maybe 10 shots max, her best strategy for siring offspring is to find the best possible combination of genetic material / resources that she can and pump kids out. This might be a tribal chief with lots of resources who fought his way up -- who is a healthy mix of genetic fitness and resources. It might be a neolithic rich loser guy - who has resources from inheritance but sucks on genetic fitness - in this case she attempts to casually bang another guy on the side. Or it might be that she has access to the tribe's Shaqueel O'Neal - who has extreme genetic fitness - and risks banging him with no offspring provisioning. _____ I think the reason your system works, is that you have now banged probably in the triple digits for women. For any new woman you meet, they can probably sense this. So the fact that you've already banged TONS and TONS of women is a huge genetic indicator of fitness. So these women read you as a genetic superstar. So the FBs are happy to bang you, as they would be for any guy with this track record. I think this answers @Chase Mclane and @CSR's points. If you want this system to work, get a track record of banging lots of chicks. The women will smell it on you and the way you behave. It absolutely is an indicator of genetic fitness. BD calls this outcome independence. Now the more interesting question... Is it more likely when you open the relationship up that your woman will leave you? I'm not sure, but my answer still leans to yes. I think it's telling that PF has never answered whether she's banged another guy. My guess is probably not. Or maybe it was a one time thing she regretted or something along those lines. I mean if she's not banging anyone else, it basically validates everything I said above. If she is banging someone else, then it's a signal that the other dude's genetic fitness is at least close to yours. _________ I think for most men, before attempting this, you need to bang lots and lots of women, and basically buy into the MLTR lifestyle for a while. Otherwise, you'll be like one of those losers the NYTimes interviewed, where they opened up the relationship, and the guy was scrambling to meet a woman, and his wife was banging other dudes left and right. ___________ Ultimately though, what the OLTR model secures (along with the MLTR model) is 100% always access to sex. Which is important... but I think you can get a 85% - 90% access to sex with a serial monogamy model too (if you have a dead bedroom, time to bail). But I think there are a lot of other aspects of a relationship that are ultimately quite rewarding, where it's entirely irrelevant if you are in an OLTR or are monogamous. Having children for example would be one of those things -- doesn't matter if you are in an OLTR or monogamous, it's a lot of work / compromise with your wife / lady to have kids if it's important for you to be involved as a father. _______ Anyway, I do agree with you BD that having healthy boundaries would be the key to making something like an OLTR work. If your OLTR starts spending a lot of time texting / talking on the phone / on dates, whatever with another guy, that is grounds to downgrade her / dump her. Healthy boundaries are something you have to navigate in all relationships.
Blackdragon 2017-11-11 22:58:58
Sachmo - Didn't read your comment; too long. CapNCrunch - "I don't like that" is not an argument. Moreover, it's a surrender. Person A: Two plus two equals four. Person B: I hate that! Person A: Uh, okay? Have fun being angry for the rest of your life I guess.
Ok, so what time period in terms of not seeing them do you classify them as ‘coming back’ for that statistic?I don't really have a specific figure. Maybe six weeks?
If you don’t see them for two months and then they return do you class that as coming back and add them to that 96%?Two months? Yes. Though it's rarely that short.
I’ve read your 6 month rule, so are you saying that 96% of FB’s return after you haven’t seen them for 6 months?No. The no contact rule has nothing to do with this.
What I did say is that if they are very hot, and unattached sex is all they’re looking for, they do it with guys that are also very hot, especially the young girls. Why wouldn’t they?A number of reasons: 1. They are Type 2 VYW and don't like men their own age, and prefer men who are older, even if they're not as physically attractive as the younger men. I've fucked lots of these. 2. They are fucking young hot guys and they're fucking you for whatever reason, at the same time. She doesn't see any reason to limit herself. 3. You're straight up better in bed, in that you take the time to give her orgasms that men her age won't or can't... and sure, she's still fucking these guys while fucking you. Again, it's not one or the other. (It's somewhat unusual for my younger FB's to be only fucking me and no one else. You seem to think there's a rule that a person can only be having sex with one person at a time, and that's not the case.) 4. They are secret gold diggers and think they can get something financial out of you that they can't from men their own age. And so on. There are other reasons but those are the more common ones.
If all a girl wants is NSA sex from a non-clingy guy then there are heaps of better looking guys offering them that.Utterly wrong. (Man, you're wrong all over the place here.) Good looking guys are just as needy as normal guys, sometimes even more so, particularly young good looking guys.
I live in an Australian city.Some of Australian guys bring up similar points that you're bringing up here (particularly the fear of good looking men), so there may be something to that.
So what else are you offering FB’s that allows you to beat out the masses of extremely good looking guys offering them the same orgasms and non-needy attention?First of all, many "extremely good looking guys" have horrible game. I've coached many guys and spoken to many good looking guys, and I mean really good looking dudes, who either can't get laid because their game sucks so bad, or won't allow themselves to get laid because of massive oneitis they have for an ex or whatever. "Extremely good looking guys" are not the competition you think they are. In terms of what I give FB's, I also give them acceptance. I never tell them what to do, never get upset with them, never judge them, never try to control them, never imply they're "sluts" or whatever, always listen to them when they talk without argument or judgement, am always happy and upbeat when they communicate with me, etc. This is huge; it's something they won't receive from literally any other man they have sex with, including other men they view as FB's.
Seems like you’re misinterpreting what I said.You said, and I quote, Women usually develop sexual feelings for guys they work with. That's a very clear statement which leaves no room for misinterpretation.
What I mean is it is extremely likely that your OLTR will become increasingly attracted to one of her coworkers, given enough time.And again I will repeat, that is a obviously wrong and a dumb statement. I have over 25 years of experience in the corporate world, working with thousands of people in hundreds of companies over a prolonged period of time, and what you're saying is not only incorrect, but flat out dumb. Sometimes women date guys at their work. But "usually" or "extremely likely?" No. Not even close. If I were to venture a guess, I think that your particular OLTR is a little more extroverted and works with some young, hot guys who she spends time with, and you're getting jealous, or at least uncomfortable about this. Which is fine, but don't project your fears onto the entire world.
There’s no way you aren’t aware that a big chunk of affairs in monogamous relationships happen between the woman and a guy from her work.That's true, but it still doesn't make your statement accurate.
I really don’t see how you expect a woman to be able to avoid sleeping with anyone from her social circle.That depends on the woman. If your OLTR is very extroverted and very social, and is constantly spending time around other people, then I agree having that particular rule probably wouldn't work. You'll have to just specify that kind of spending time won't be an option for her if she actually fucks a dude in her social circle, and then, uh oh, you'll have to actually trust her to follow through on that (and if you can't, she should not be your OLTR and you didn't choose one correctly; it's time to downgrade her to FB or MLTR immediately if this is the case, and failure to do so means you have oneitis). If instead she has a more moderate or introverted personality, "no fucking in the social circle" would be a perfectly fine rule to have. Pink Firefly is a very low-end extrovert, and I could place that rule on her with no problem (though I don't like putting rules on women unless I absolutely have to, so I don't).
Leon 2017-11-11 23:44:12
What would you do if a side-guy of your OLTR/OM starts to mock/try to shame you in public (or via public media) on how great your precious girl sucks his cock or how good in bed she was…?I would make a joke about it and move on. I’m outcome independent and don’t give a shit.
Blackdragon 2017-11-12 00:19:06
What about your public image? Clearly letting someone mock/make fun of you/your girls/your family… directly and freely in public will result in society deems you weak and pussy and it might hurt some of your long-term goalsNot if it was just some random person or some random blogger. That wouldn't harm my overall image at all. I have a bigger audience than people like that, so again, I literally wouldn't care. If the person doing it was some big celebrity who millions of people listened to, that might be a problem, but more than likely I'd end up making money on the exposure, as I've hinted at many times. (Glen Beck made $200 million from his haters. Everyone hates Ann Coulter and she does just fine on her financial goals, trust me. And so on.)
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-12 00:24:44
Q. Why convert people, when you could breed new ones instead? A. Because it’s much quicker and less smelly.Are you still on this? Jesus! Give it up, dude. We won't stop breeding. Ever.
I really look forward to your Alpha 1.5 wingnut blog.Spew your nihilistic filth over there and you will be instantly banned. That will be one of the rules: No nihilism. No anti-human bigotry.
Will it be showing you ”spitting in the faces of prostitutes”No. Prostitutes are not, never have been, and never will be in my life. I ignore them and encourage all other men to excommunicate them completely and permanently and focus on heterosexual women only - women who don't think that they're doing you some kind of a generous favor which merits some type of compensation when they fuck you. To hell with prostitutes! To hell with generous lesbians!
like a sexual champion of the master race?What master race? I'm Alt Lite. We don't give a flying fuck about race. Culture yes, but not race. Stop saying retarded SJW things that make no sense.
Sideburns 2017-11-12 01:24:43
@ Jack in the Box: Sorry. Sorry. Yes, CULTURE. (Wink Wink). I would hate to give the impression you're some kind of bigot. But it's hard when you talk of banning alternative views on sex work, natalism, etc., etc... My Q and A was actually for you. In among the nut-jobbery you do have some good ideas, as we can read above. I actually do encourage you to share them. But you will need to choose, private genes or public memes. You can't focus on both, unless you plan on abandoning your loin fruit and not paying the woman some maintenance. Or do you see that as heterosexual compensation too? Serious question.
Blackdragon 2017-11-12 01:52:59
Sideburns, I've been very patient with you and your off-topic weirdness. You are welcome to bring up the topic of procreation in threads where it's relevant, but if you do it one more time in a thread where it isn't (like this one), you will be permanently banned. Final warning.
Sideburns 2017-11-12 02:35:01
@ Blackdragon: First and final you mean? It's disingenuous of you to describe my posts as "off-topic". You have never warned me before and in fact you defended me over it the last time. Since then I have posted about external vs internal, motivation, martial arts, pregnancy rates and contraception, without spamming or using slogans. And always with a clear link to the topic. Today I was just having a brief personal snipe at the logical inconsistencies of nutty J.O.B. including the anti-prostitute views he brought up right here. He gets a lot of column inches to introduce his fanciful prejudices, sometimes off-topic. Warning taken, but if you would please retract or reword your unfair statement? Your blog of course.
Gil Galad 2017-11-12 03:49:15
@Sachmo: please stop saying "neolithic age". It gives evolutionary psychology a bad image by making you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.
We still have the instincts of a neolithic hunter from 200,000 years agoThe Neolithic started 9000 to 15000 years ago and ended 2000 to 5000 years ago depending on location. You were talking about the Paleolithic, not the Neolithic. Also modern human nature solidified more like 50000 to 120000 years ago, not 200k (though anatomically modern humans emerged earlier). The rest of your comment around evopsych was very broadly speaking correct but it's important to remember that male and female sexual strategies are more a matter of degree and varying statistical distribution among individuals than zero-one. I suggest you read about Game Theory, Parental Investment and the former's application to evobio. Specifically, the Hawk/Dove model is a very interesting simplified model to understand why an agent in a given "game" may display two (or more) different behaviors at different times and frequencies rather than a single (mating) protocol. Case in point, why women may definitely go for casual sex and men may definitely be interested in long term pair bonding. Etc.
JJ 2017-11-12 04:32:40
Correct. That’s why: 1. A man must establish an outcome independent frame and and a strong Mission, so that he never fears his OLTR leaving him. 2. A man not willing to work with a woman on limitations like this should not have an OLTR, and should stick with multiple MLTR’s instead (which is a great model!).1. If you do not fear your OLTR leaving you then you would find no need for such rules in the first place. But you do feel the need for rules, ones which are born from fear and the breaking of which are at pain of death (of the relationship). I have no problem with people doing this but this strikes me as a gamble and not an investment. Again not a problem if you like gambling but as long as you are conscious that this is what you are doing. It's exactly what people do when they engage in what I call 2.0 fenced relationships (conventional bf/gf or husband/wife relationships). They promise each other sexual exclusivity for life at pain of death (of the relationship). This is just a different form of gambling. 2. I have multiple OLTRs without such rules and without any significant problems - not MLTRs - though I would simply use the term 3.0 unfenced relationships. I do this partly because of outcome independence but partly because I like to invest and not gamble and the whole rule / fear / control loop takes you in the direction of gambling and towards a contradictory mix of fear based love. Fear suffocates love.
Marty 2017-11-12 04:38:37
Utterly wrong. (Man, you’re wrong all over the place here.) Good looking guys are just as needy as normal guys, sometimes even more so, particularly young good looking guys.Am I imagining this, or is this blog all of a sudden being overrun with guys who have no idea about game or women in general? All of a sudden only good looking guys with money and status are fucking good looking girls? Feel like I'm watching main stream media or a Hollywood movie reading some of these comments. Anyone who knows a good looking women knows how frustrating it is for them to find a decent fuck DESPITE the fact they are overrun with offers from good looking and not so good looking guys. The number of offers is half the problem. Because lots of those good looking guys are fucking hopeless in bed, or needy idiots with all sorts of hang ups or issues. Lots of good looking women have no stomach for weeding out the good ones from the bad and end up fucking no one because of that. Not to mention that some realy hot girls get hardly any offers because guys are too intimidated by them and just don't make a move. Which leaves them with only getting hit on by drunk idiots or uncalibrated morons! Once I started to learn game that was one of my favorite realizations. Even though its a lot more work we as guys have a lot more control over our dating outcomes than even hot girls. And its fucking amazing when as a not so hot older guy you have a hot VYW looking at you very grateful that you swept her off her feet and provide amazing sex and general experience compared to what she is used to.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-12 04:46:08
Sorry. Sorry. Yes, CULTURE. (Wink Wink).Are you implying that I'm lying to you? Or are you implying that it is impossible to culturally assimilate different races? Because you're wrong on both counts.
I would hate to give the impression you’re some kind of bigot.Says the nihilist who wants to commit passive genocide against the entire human species! That's kind of the highest form of bigotry right there. Even the worst Nazi wants some humans to survive, thus making him more decent than you. Google "Irony."
But it’s hard when you talk of banning alternative views on sex work,The first rule on my blog will be a ban on criminal speech and encouraging criminal activity. So no, encouraging prostitution won't be permitted.
natalism, etc., etc…All nihilism will be banned from my blog. Only people who love life and want humanity to continue will be welcome there. People on my blog who have made the decision not to have children for their own selves will be welcome, but not if they preach against it to others or advocate for passive genocide (like you). You may still comment there though as long as you don't do what you do here.
My Q and A was actually for you. In among the nut-jobbery you do have some good ideas, as we can read above. I actually do encourage you to share them.Gee thanks. I wasn't sure if I really wanted to do this, but now that I've been encouraged by Mr. Human Extinction, I've been freed of all my anxieties and the blog will now happen for sure. Thanks Sideburns! Humanity owes you a debt. I bet that makes you sick!
But you will need to choose, private genes or public memes. You can’t focus on both, unless you plan on abandoning your loin fruit and not paying the woman some maintenance.What the fuck? This makes no sense. All bloggers are childless? What? Yes, I can focus on both! Dude, it's called time management. Ask BD (who has two kids). My kids AND my blog AND my mission will be fine! Jesus Christ!
Or do you see that as heterosexual compensation too? Serious question.No. Supporting your child is (and should be) a moral and legal obligation. I will be a full time father and raise my children with their mother. And don't give me that "you can't do both" bullshit. Yes, I can and will, just as others have.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-12 04:59:51
Sideburns, I’ve been very patient with you and your off-topic weirdness. You are welcome to bring up the topic of procreation in threads where it’s relevant, but if you do it one more time in a thread where it isn’t (like this one), you will be permanently banned. Final warning.Oops. Sorry BD. I didn't read this comment of yours before I posted my response to him above. I felt I had to defend myself against his accusations. I'll shut up about it now though, especially since he can't talk about it either anymore. By the way, thank you for that. 🙂
JudoJohn 2017-11-12 07:38:13
@ Gil, I largely agree with you, and Game Theory for learning Game, well, seems obvious (not to mention life is a game). But...
modern human nature solidifiedI simply don't buy this. Evolutionary Psychology is broadly correct, but for 10,000 years we have lived in towns and cities. That doesn't mean deeper effects, indeed from before we were even human, remain. There's little doubt that the AF/BB paradigm is a real thing. But...I think we run into issues when we say that human nature is solid, it is not, evolution continues.
Gil Galad 2017-11-12 09:06:26
@JudoJohn: There's a bit of a misconception here. First, the easy bit: when I say "solidified", I don't mean it won't change again; obviously natural selection is still happening and it will continue to influence us. But it's very slow, so when a change occurs at a scale of one or ten or even thirty generations, that's not our innate nature that has changed to a notable degree, it's culture, which changes much faster because its time units are way shorter than a generation . Now for the trickier part: Whenever people hear that there's a "fixed" human nature (or at least fixed at the scale of a few centuries, since, per the above, on a longer timeline we do continue to evolve), their initial reaction is to call BS because any idiot can see that cultures change, behaviors change, single individuals change, etc. What they don't get is that human nature isn't a simplistic "always do this" program, it's more like a super-complicated, messy algorithm. "If this, then do that, otherwise do this, unless that, etc". E. O. Wilson put it this way using a nature-nurture analogy from photography:
Every human brain is born not as a blank tablet (a tabula rasa) waiting to be filled in by experience but as an ‘exposed negative’ waiting to be slipped into ‘developer fluid’.You can create the illusion that something has no fixed rules by giving it very complex, "if-then" fixed rules. And it makes it even trickier that yes, the rules themselves do have wiggle room, the algorithm is self-rewriting to some degree. And I agree that tons of things we're exposed to are unprecedented for our 100k-year old genes, and the fact that we haven't displayed an Error message equivalent by going mad (though in some way you could argue we've gone mad) shows the program is pretty adaptable.
JudoJohn 2017-11-12 10:02:26
Gil, Good stuff, and great quote by Wilson. Some of us have gone mad, my little brother is a schizo. The human brain isn't all that well worked out yet....much of the powerful forebrain stuff is evolutionarly new....because
our 100k-year old genesI really think we need to go further back than that. It's somewhat limiting to think in terms of just the human part. We're also primates, and bipedism (sp?) got going a long time ago. Even further back, we got our hearts....our hearts are far more reliable than our brains because evolution has had so much more time to work on the problem. A schizo's heart beats reliably as he has the most vivid of hallucinations (of course, all human perception is on some level a hallucination due to the way human cognition works, but let's not digress too far). To get back on topic, there's clearly an number of evolutionary arms races going on. For instance, the size of new born babies skulls and the size of a woman's pelvis.....in contractual terms, this proportion has been highly negotiated. Add to that the whole host of things I'm sure you're quite familiar with.....female sexual vocalization, the fact that our cocks are shaped like plungers, men's superior ability to identify their own offspring, high sperm counts that double when we haven't been with "our" woman for over a week......clearly we're not built to be monogamous, but it's not quite a free for all, either. And clearly, we are not blank slates, not by a long shot. So, will people in an open relationship fall for others? I don't know that that's the right question. Will people in an open relationship fall for others at a different rate than those in Disney Monogamy? I have no clue. I can clearly say the consequences are vastly different, however. I'll also say that BD makes the point but it can't be emphasized enough: OLTR's are way advanced. If you don't have a solid ecosystem of women going, and instead are starting with non-monogamy with the intention of getting an OLTR off the ground sooner than later, I think you're playing with fire (clearly not directed at you, Gil). I'm guessing you need 4-5 years of MLTR's before even thinking of taking the next step....if you ever do (I don't think life long various MLTR's is a bad answer to a difficult question).
Gil Galad 2017-11-12 10:34:45
@JudoJohn: I agree with everything you said. The "100k year old genes" part was just an oversimplification for brevity, but yeah, different facets of our instincts are traced back to different periods of our past. I don't know how likely an OLTR is to fall in love with a second man; intuitively it seems in the "unlikely but not under 2%" category. To be in an OLTR, you have to have jumped more hurdles, agreed on and made more things work properly, than in traditional monogamy, which tends to carry on for a while even when things have gotten sour. OLTR just seems more inherently robust, but I could be wrong. If the woman is already falling out of love with her OLTR, then yeah sure. But my point is that a real OLTR done right implies a lot of "structure" compared to monogamy; and "emotional cheating" is not the same dynamic as raw sex drive (ie when your woman just needs a one-night adventure for variety's sake or a FB on the side). In a dysfunctional OLTR where you should've already downgraded your gf a while ago - or outright nexted her - , your woman falling for another man is a much more plausible outcome. That being said, I think a woman who has "two love boxes" could be in a functional OLTR and fall for another man. But it's speculation since I don't have OLTR experience and will try to stay away from it for at least some years, preferably 10+. Now, is a man who has only 1 love box automatically incapable of tolerating that his chick has 2 and that she's filling the second one? No idea.
Blackdragon 2017-11-12 11:00:55
If you do not fear your OLTR leaving you then you would find no need for such rules in the first place.You're forgetting the woman. She will often want these rules more than you. And I don't "fear" anyone breaking any rules, but that's me.
I have no problem with people doing this but this strikes me as a gamble and not an investment.A thing is only a gamble if something significant can be lost. If my OLTR breaks any of the rules I outlined in the above article, I will lose neither money, nor sex, nor Mission, nor any of my goals, big or small. I would just shrug (and maybe take corrective action if necessary, and it may not be).
I have multiple OLTRsNo you don't. You cannot have multiple OLTR's because you can't have emotional exclusivity with multiple people.
without such rulesExactly; that means you have multiple MLTR's, not OLTR's. With MLTR's there are no rules, which is why they're so awesome.
Fear suffocates love.Agree 100 percent.
Am I imagining this, or is this blog all of a sudden being overrun with guys who have no idea about game or women in general?Oh no, they've always been here. The names change, the specific scenarios change, but the overall objections, fears, and excuses remain the same. Some men can't shake their own scarcity mentality no matter what they read, what they see with their own eyes, or what skills they learn. "It's just too easy to believe it can't be done just because I personally haven't done it yet."
Anyone who knows a good looking women knows how frustrating it is for them to find a decent fuck DESPITE the fact they are overrun with offers from good looking and not so good looking guys.Correct. To be fair, not all good looking women are like this, but a huge amount are.
Blackdragon 2017-11-12 11:04:31
It's always fascinating to me to see the objections to OLTR's from both extreme ends of the spectrum; the terrified and/or jealous blue pill guys who think they can't work, all the way to the young, sex positive extremists who think they're too restrictive. So funny.
Sachmo 2017-11-12 14:58:17
@Gil Galad Fair enough, paleolithic it is. The most generally accepted period for the emergence of anatomically modern humans is 200k years ago. The 'culturally' modern humans is a concept still disputed and not entirely accepted by scientists -- the date for which some might advance would be 60k years ago. The dates and description of Buss's work is correct, you are right though, I was using the word Neolithic when in fact I meant paleolithic. @JudoJohn "I’m guessing you need 4-5 years of MLTR’s before even thinking of taking the next step….if you ever do" I agree with this exactly.
Sideburns 2017-11-13 01:08:26
@ Blackdragon: This was a particularly useful page and I now regret having abused it a little. We have on this page extremely long-winded comments, lots of nerdy technical detail, and quite a few tangents. I myself only wrote a handful of lines off-topic, although I provoked some substantial counterattacks. Also your rules say: "Off-topic comments are allowed (as long as they aren’t spam)". Can you understand my confusion? I get your drift, things could do with tightening up, and I didn't help. But would you clarify things please.
Blackdragon 2017-11-13 01:28:05
Off topic comments are allowed. An individual who repeatedly derails topics in multiple threads with completely off topic crap is not allowed, and I've banned people before for doing so. That's all I have to say on this matter.
JJ 2017-11-13 09:40:16
You’re forgetting the woman. She will often want these rules more than you. And I don’t “fear” anyone breaking any rules, but that’s me.You are ignoring the point I was making which was about the fact that YOU want these rules and how this leads you into the rules / fear / control gamble cycle.
I have multiple OLTRs No you don’t. You cannot have multiple OLTR’s because you can’t have emotional exclusivity with multiple people.Yes I do. Your definition of OLTR is open long term relationship. I have a number of them. Like I said I would use the term 3.0 unfenced relationship not OLTR but these women are not 'fuck buddies' or 'women on the side to my main' I have long term loving relationships with multiple women, have been doing it for 16 years now. I still have the first one I started with 16 years ago and she has met some of my other OLTRs.
Sideburns 2017-11-13 09:55:16
Lol. We're really giving Blackdragon a hard time on this page. Herding Alphas is like herding cats! @ JJ: You appear to be "Example 2: Lover Guy" in the https://blackdragonblog.com/2014/02/06/the-relationship-boxes-concept/ above Even your Lord Byronesque avatar suggests so! ;o)
Blackdragon 2017-11-13 11:02:07
You are ignoring the point I was making which was about the fact that YOU want these rules and how this leads you into the rules / fear / control gamble cycle.Yes, and one of the reasons I want them is because most women will also want them. I don't want to have to screen for a poly-experienced woman or an unusually low-jealousy woman for OLTR.
Yes I do.No, you don't, as I'm about to show you.
Your definition of OLTR is open long term relationship.Incorrect. That is not the definition of OLTR. That's just what the four letters stand for. Per my glossary, here's the definition of OLTR: A very serious relationship, equivalent to a serious boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse, where you are are fully in love with and are committed to one special person but you both are allowed to have sex with other people on the side as long as they’re only FBs or an ONS. This differs from MLTR where side-lovers can be “more” than just an FB. You can't multiple of those (unless you're lying to all of them). You can just have one. You have multiple lovers in your life, but they're MLTR's, not OLTR's. And remember, you can love MLTR's and MLTR's can be very serious and very long-term, including 16 years.
JJ 2017-11-14 04:47:39
Yes, and one of the reasons I want them is because most women will also want them. I don’t want to have to screen for a poly-experienced woman or an unusually low-jealousy woman for OLTR.First of all I don't self identify as poly just as 3.0 and unfenced. I have met many people who are poly and have even been a speaker at a poly conference. Many I met were 3.0 and many were far more 2.0 than 3.0 as their relationships were rules / fear / control based with constant obsession and talk about 'boundaries'. Second of all - without exception - NONE of my GFs had any experience at all with long term unfenced relationships. They were ALL 2.0 and very conventional. I taught them. Thankfully I am a good teacher. Pre-screening not necessary. Even attempting to pre-screen in this sense would be akin to unicorn hunting which ain't a great mating strategy
Incorrect. That is not the definition of OLTR. That’s just what the four letters stand for.If that's what the 4 letters stand for then that is what it means. If that's not what it means then surely it's not a good acronym? You are using OLTR when you really mean EEOR (emotionally exclusive open relationship) though that might not be a good acronym since is sounds like a noise a donkey makes 😉 EEOLTR then perhaps? I am not nit picking or getting into semantics and nor am I giving you a hard time but wouldn't emotional exclusivity operate better based on how people feel rather than a pre-determined rule which (should a party break) could lead to the end of the relationship?
Blackdragon 2017-11-14 04:59:49
If that’s what the 4 letters stand for then that is what it means.Uh, no, the term OLTR means what I says it means since it's my term, and I clearly and specifically defined the term about eight years ago, and it hasn't changed. Four words isn't sufficient to describe the nature of the relationship. If you want to want to go around saying OLTR means something completely different than its actual definition, then you're free to do so, but you'll sound like a weirdo and your statements won't make any sense.
If that’s not what it means then surely it’s not a good acronym?You're the first person in history to ever complain about the acronym, and I have millions of readers, therefore yes, it's a good acronym.
wouldn’t emotional exclusivity operate better based on how people feel rather than a pre-determined rule which (should a party break) could lead to the end of the relationship?Yes. Two people would feel they need it, then get into an OLTR with that established ruleset. If they never felt they needed it, they would remain in MLTR's instead. The desire precedes the rule, not the other way around. I'm not telling people they need to be in OLTR's. (Frankly, most people reading this shouldn't have an OLTR; I have a post about that coming soon.)
JJ 2017-11-14 06:09:14
Uh, no, the term OLTR means what I says it means since it’s my term, and I clearly and specifically defined the term about eight years ago, and it hasn’t changed.Hmm this 12 year old craigslist post seems to cover 75% of your term. https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/wdc/121467962.html?lang=en&cc=us Are you sure adding an O in front (which means open and not open but emotionally exclusive) is good? There are 2 basic ways to claim someone in a relationship. 1) Sexually 2) Emotionally You don't do 1 but you do do 2 (which is totally fine and I have no problem with as long as you are both equally cool with it which very much seems to be the case). Making his clear by adding the letter O (meaning open) and then telling people who have relationships that are MORE open than that they don't have an OLTR because they do NEITHER 1 or 2 seems odd. Your logic is to have a true OLTR by your definition I need to be more restrictive and rules based.
Four words isn’t sufficient to describe the nature of the relationship.Agreed which is why I suggested EEOLTR. Anyway, it's your site so of course you can setup your acronyms any damn way you please.
You’re the first person in history to ever complain about the acronym, and I have millions of readers, therefore yes, it’s a good acronym.As you already know I am a fan of your work - both this blog and the books. There really, really needs to be a lot more dudes like you in the world opening people's eyes to the broken system that they have subscribed to (mostly subconsciously and against their will as a result of SP) and I do my bit in that regard too with Sex 3.0 - so I would not compare you to pol pot, mao tse tung, hilter or stalin but they all had millions of followers too. And they didn't even have the benefit of the internet to spread the word. It don't make them right.
The desire precedes the rule, not the other way around.Correct. As they always do.
I’m not telling people they need to be in OLTR’s. (Frankly, most people reading this shouldn’t have an OLTR; I have a post about that coming soon.)I look forward to it.
JJ 2017-11-14 06:13:26
Lol. We’re really giving Blackdragon a hard time on this page. Herding Alphas is like herding cats!Ain't giving him a hard time. I like debating and BD does too. He knows I love his work. We are cool.
@ JJ: You appear to be “Example 2: Lover Guy” in the https://blackdragonblog.com/2014/02/06/the-relationship-boxes-concept/ aboveI like that piece but I don't fit into any of those categories.
K-Man 2017-11-14 06:17:54
Anyone wih real life experience to advise on how this can work out with a live-in OLTR? As old fb's drop out, I guess it is very hard to fill the pipeline. It takes hours of sarging to bang one girl. So you need to tell your GF you will be going out 2x-3x a week to sarge, open, go on first dates... Oops, forgot you can't go on dates. Which makes it even harder to get new FB's. Alternatively, if you pull from online, you again need to block some time - many many hours - to do "blitzes", track things in spreadsheets, etc. Sounds like a big time management issue and setting expectations for the time she will be expecting you to spend doing couple activities. Way more time spent hunting/acquiring new notches than just the time spent fucking them 1x week.
Blackdragon 2017-11-14 07:27:35
JJ I'm not changing my acronym just because you don't like it. Tough shit for you.
Your logic is to have a true OLTR by your definition I need to be more restrictive and rules based.For the last time, no, I am not. I'm not saying you need to be in an OLTR. I am not saying you need more rules. If you like your MLTR's, that's great, keep them, that's wonderful, MLTR's are awesome. I am telling no one to have an OLTR. I'm simply describing the correct way to have an OLTR if they want one. If they don't want one, nothing in the above article applies to them, they are free to ignore it completely, and should.
As old fb’s drop out, I guess it is very hard to fill the pipeline.No it's not. (Unless your game sucks or you look like a pile of shit, but I'm assuming neither of these things are true.)
It takes hours of sarging to bang one girl.Incorrect. Why do you think this? I have an OLTR and it doesn't take me "hours of sarging" to have sex with one new girl. What a stupid thing to assume.
So you need to tell your GF you will be going out 2x-3x a week to sarge, open, go on first dates… Oops, forgot you can’t go on dates. Which makes it even harder to get new FB’s.Jesus, no, incorrect. (Damn, you guys! Why are you all so focused on making this OLTR stuff so complicated?) As I explained here the word "dates" is too general a word. Yes, during an OLTR you're going to have to meet up with new women occasionally at a coffee shop or bar and talk to her for about about an hour. That kind of "date" must be allowed in an OLTR, and when upgrading a woman to OLTR, you'll have to explain to her that sometimes (not all the time, but sometimes) you'll have to do first and second "dates" with new women to get them into the FB rotation. After you have sex with them twice and they're now FB's, now you can't have any dates with them.
Alternatively, if you pull from online, you again need to block some time – many many hours – to do “blitzes”, track things in spreadsheets, etc.For fuck's sake, by my online dating book. I don't send "many many hours" doing blitzes and in spreadsheets when I'm in sarging mode, OLTR or not. Online dating's great strength is that it doesn't take very much time as compared to other game styles. Some of you guys seem hell bent on trying to convince yourselves that OLTR's won't work no matter what. Not only are you factually incorrect, but this is a really shitty attitude to have. I think some of you guys should just surrender and go monogamous. Maybe suffering under monogamy for a few years might snap you out of your negativity towards more happiness-conducive relationships.
Cherie86 2017-11-14 13:37:21
Some of you guys seem hell bent on trying to convince yourselves that OLTR’s won’t work no matter what. Not only are you factually incorrect, but this is a really shitty attitude to have.I think most of this attitude comes from guys that are just simply not in any place/desire to have an OLTR. Which is FINE! Nothing wrong with that at all! Why the need to refute it I do not understand. Just like all the discussion here about why a woman would possibly want to be "just a FB". But it's the same guys that are looking to create just that, yet are arguing that no woman will be ok with that? Are we arguing for the sake to argue? lol
Cherie86 2017-11-14 14:22:45
@K-Man From my perspective, you should never just STOP looking for new women, even if you have an OLTR and your perfect # of FBs. There could always be someone new/better/hotter available to you. Also, you should KNOW that your FBs are most likely not going to last, and not sit around waiting until they ghost on you for their next boyfriend. By this stage of the game also, there should never be HOURS of time spent in acquiring new women. You are better than that. Also, there is no reason you "can't go on dates". It's kind of expected. Unless you get incredibly lucky and happen to find some random horny woman who just wants a lay for the night, you are going to have to "get to know them" a little. There is no reason to over verbalize to your partner though. A simple "Hey babe, just to let you know, I am going out Thurs and I wont be home." Ok, no prob. End of story. I am not going to grill on with Whom/Where/When/Doing What
K-Man 2017-11-14 15:42:36
BD, I respect your writing as it is always based on vetted personal experience, but after following you for a while I understand you have not had a live-in OLTR so far, correct? I'm not a newb, I'm a decent-looking guy with above-average game, but it does take me hours and hours to get a new lay. You say it only takes you 3 hours face-time, but what if you include your all-in time: time to do "blitzes", time to email around, driving time, lost time when you meet a girl but she doesn't dig you, or you don't dig her (doesn't look like her online pictures for example), etc. Even some of the best PUA's average only about 10% meet-to-lay ratio - so the 3 hours might easily be 30 when you include those didn't convert to a lay. It adds up, and eats up from the limited time one has available to spend with one's OLTR, assuming one also has a 9-5 job, hobbies, Mission, time with buddies, and all the stuff a man does. And if you have kids (like I do) - there's only so many hours in a day, and I have other stuff I'd rather be doing than hunt for new FB's after the old ones drop off. Life is too short, I guess. That's why in my corner of the woods one just goes to brothels every now and then. An hour with a good-looking whore costs about half a day's wages, so no big deal to do it a few times per month. But I agree an OLTR might be an ideal arrangement for someone who does not want kids, and perhaps even better if the OLTR is not live-in.
Ron Gordon 2017-11-14 21:46:15
I would like to ask a basic question about logistics that I cannot recall being discussed. In case you live with a woman but also have FBs, where is the act with FBs taking place? In the same bed as the woman you live with? Thanks.
Blackdragon 2017-11-14 23:17:52
I think most of this attitude comes from guys that are just simply not in any place/desire to have an OLTR. Which is FINE!Correct. As I said, I have an article coming soon that addresses all this.
Are we arguing for the sake to argue? lolMany commenters do, yes.
I understand you have not had a live-in OLTR so far, correct?Correct. I've researched it extensively though, interviewed over 100 men with them, etc.
You say it only takes you 3 hours face-time, but what if you include your all-in time: time to do “blitzes”, time to email around, driving time, lost time when you meet a girl but she doesn’t dig you, or you don’t dig her (doesn’t look like her online pictures for example), etc.Yes, that adds more time, but not very much. The entire point of my online dating system is to minimize that time. Blitzing takes only 20 minutes or less. Emailing takes virtually zero time because I do that on the fly with my phone while doing other things. And so on.
Even some of the best PUA’s average only about 10% meet-to-lay ratio – so the 3 hours might easily be 30 when you include those didn’t convert to a lay.That's daygame. Yeah, daygame is a fucking grind. That's why I don't do it anymore. With online game, 99% of the no's take virtually zero time since you're just dealing with copy and paste openers, not meeting girls on the street. You have some first dates that don't work out, but my first-date-to-lay ratios are well over 60%, not 10%. I've had blitzes where they were literally 100%.
That’s why in my corner of the woods one just goes to brothels every now and then. An hour with a good-looking whore costs about half a day’s wages, so no big deal to do it a few times per month.I have no objection to paying for side-sex in an OLTR, at all. That's perfectly fine; go for it.
Duke 2017-11-15 13:22:15
I understand you have not had a live-in OLTR so far, correct?Correct. I’ve researched it extensively though, interviewed over 100 men with them, etc.
Blackdragon 2017-11-15 19:20:28
Not sure if I remember correctly, but I thought you lived with HBM (maybe just part time), or whatever her name was.Yes, part time. She lived with me 3-4 days a week for about 3 years.
Gang 2017-11-16 01:42:23
I love this blog, but there is one very cringing and confusing detail: the OLTR acronym. The concept is great for me. But the acronym, my god, I don't think you could have come up with something more confusing if you wanted to. I side with JJ on this one. I hope to this point you realise that much of the confusions and questions around the concept of OLTR comes from the fact that you use this terrible acronym to point at it. First, can we ditch the LT please? It's utterly irrelevant to the concept. A given FB may indeed be more long term than a given OLTR. Whereas Emotionally Exclusive, is core to the concept you are conveying. Can't have several Open Long Term Relationships? What the hell is this guy saying, *open relationships* duh, it makes no sense at all. My first impression. Then talking about several MLTRs is grammatically correct. But if I want to speak about one given particular MLTR, it's just grammatically incorrect. A multiple long term relationship? *One multiple relationship* Dafuck? That was my first reaction. FB, OLTR and EEOLTR, or even just: FB(s) , OR(s) and (one and only) EEOR (not compatible with OR(s) => emphasis on EE, much more straight forward. Plus FB and OR take less time and space to write, and so do they take to be lived, compared to a EEOR => bigger commitment and compromise. This idea could already be somewhat carried within the size of the accronyms. We don't get that there is a giant leap between MLTR and OLTR just by looking at the acronyms. It gets even more confusing when MLTR disappears in your book (which I love and is of tremendous value to me) and is replaced by WD, which does not have the exact same definition as on the blog. I understand that you are not detailed focus and were coming from the PUA scene. And that it's probably too late to do anything about this criticism at this point for the sake of continuity in the blog.
Gang 2017-11-16 01:55:39
LSNFTE, Hard/Soft next => GREAT acronym / jargon.
Blackdragon 2017-11-16 03:45:52
I'm not going through all the trouble of changing my acronyms because a grand total of two people out of million+ complain about it. Or even three or four. If I start getting piles of emails from hundreds of men telling me they hate the acronym, then of course I will consider changing it. I have a feeling I have nothing to worry about.
It gets even more confusing when MLTR disappears in your book (which I love and is of tremendous value to me) and is replaced by WD, which does not have the exact same definition as on the blog.Ah, now that is confusing and other people have indeed complained about that. My fault. Very shortly I will updating and clarifying what I meant by WD. (The material has already been written; it will be available very soon.)
Marty 2017-11-16 05:46:05
I’m not going through all the trouble of changing my acronyms because a grand total of two people out of million+ complain about it.I love this blog too. Its so easy to meld your concepts into the various situations we might find ourselves in with about 2 seconds of effort. (eg. my swinger style OLTR. Good to see some recent questions and responses about that confirming my assumptions as well aside. ) But blows my mind how anal people on here get about trying define each acronym's to fit their own situation to perfection. Bit of imagination and working within the spirit of the advice wouldn't go astray guys!!! Seriously! FFS! :/
Gang 2017-11-17 07:49:47
Changing the OLTR acronym would be too much trouble I believe too. I don't believe it's much of a problem for your readership as it mostly impacts the first impression. If anything, it may just turn off some new lurkers who stumbled across your blog from becoming part of your readership and potential customers.
Gang 2017-11-17 09:49:22
No matter how physically hot a woman like that is, her mainstream personality would just turn me off.I am confused as to where I stand myself, for potential OLTR material I mean. Probably somewhere between BD and JOTB. I certainly feel that in term of personality and asexual time spent I would feel rather turned off by a mainstream woman's personality. But on the other hand, I don't see myself fucking more than once a week any woman who isn't extremely hot for me and feminine in looks... In an other thread, BD clarified that in his ugly/average/cute/hot he considers cute the minimum requirement for an OLTR in term of physical attraction. He also clarified that he advises against having an OLTR with the hottest girl a man is fucking and also against being in an OLTR with the woman who is the most sexually compatible with this man, as in both cases, and even more so combined, he considers this dangerous. In other words he advises the OLTR to be neither the most sexually compatible nor the most attractive woman in the rotation. Where would you say your OLTR stands on the ugly/average/cute/hot scale? Same question in term of sexual compatibility with you? I have myself tremendous difficulty wrapping my mind around what would be the point in that. The only person I have ever felt emotionally exclusive with, and this is new to me, and desiring to see more than once a week (ideally 2 or 3) is one with whom I feel 99% sexually compatible (I remove 1% because she wouldn't do any type of group sex. for comparison, all other sexual things being mind-blowing, I can't feel more than 69% sexually compatible maximum with a woman who doesn't like my favorite kink - anal. I consider less than 15% sexual compatibility an immediate deal breaker after 2 trials on 2 different days, reasons could be: she is total starfish, or she is okay sexually but I dislike the scent of her skin too much, etc... ), who I find matching 99% of my physical attraction type (since I first met her, I haven't seen anywhere any woman that I find more attractive, and I get a high jist by selling the scent of her skin). And crosschecking among other male friends who saw her and also other random unknow men drooling all over her, she is definitely in the 'hot' section of the scale, no doubt about it. She's also turning 20 and her life is a mess so she can't qualify for an OLTR really. Rather a high drama open relationship. Exception where I can see BD OLTR advice working for me is: being with a bisexual unicorn, and I mean one who would perhaps even be more lesbian than straight in term of how driven she is to find corresponding partners. Up to the point where she would actually be a great wingwoman. I used to have an MLTR now more like a FB, who qualifies as masculine in sexual strategy and could qualify for OLTR, she prove remarkable in showing no drama nor jealousy whatsoever, and she seems to have a strong drive for sex with women, but not much experience in this specific domain so far. Solid sexual compatibility, I would say 80%. But I find her in the low range of cute, a bit too skinny for me and not a huge fan of her scent either. And I don't feel a burning desire for seeing her more than 1 time per week, unless something particular happened.
Gang 2017-11-19 21:53:36
About the what Alpha 2.0 has to offer to a FB: http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/how-internet-porn-is-changing-how-men-and-women-are-having-sex
While 50% of women in a relationship said they orgasmed during sex most of the time, only 40% of single women did.Now it's probable that 'single' women tend to fuck more often the men who make them cum, which means the proportion of men who make women often cum is probably below 40%, perhaps less than 30%. 30% is similar to the proportion of women who do anal at least occasionally I believe. And for me who likes anal, there is definitely a 'jackpot' effect to stumbling across a woman who does anal. However I imagine the difference between sex without anal and sex with anal to me, is nowhere near as important as the difference of sex with orgasm and sex without orgasm for a woman. So I guess the importance of this 'jackpot' effect is multiplied for a woman. So already just purely sexually only an Alpha 2.0 is probably in the top 30% best sexually compatible man, just by making her cum every time. Add to that additional sensual compatibility if you feel that you 'click' with that woman, that means you are already in the top 10% sexual-compatible men for that woman. That's a HUGE thing to offer. Add no slut shaming, no controlling, no needyness, outcome independant, honest etc... frame, and now you are probably in the 2% exception to the rule, a statistical miracle in the eyes of a woman. And I didn't even talk about the material lifestyle et financial stability that you display if you are making 75kUSD with no debt. Even if you follow the advices about not paying for anything so she doesn't benefit it in any direct way, she certainly can identify you as stable which is still attractive to her (the 15% provider vibe as BD talks about), so you are now what? In the 0.5% top men. And I didn't even talk about your physique, which assuming you are of average height and lift weight is most probably in the top 50%. So now you are among the 0.25%. Sure you don't go on dates and you are no boyfriend opportunity, but you are extremely rare in respect to things that many women would respond favorably. That is AFTER sex and 'lock in'. I don't deny that the tall handsome ripped dude have it incredibly much easier to get to sex compared to average/short skinnyfats (ask me how I know). But AFTER sex occurred 2 times, the statistics show that there is high probability she keeps fucking you because you are in the 1% exception to the rule, on par with the average tall handsome ripped dude.
Gang 2017-11-19 22:18:01
There is one rule though that I can't personally bring myself to follow (and it's not exactly stated like that in this article) : 0 cuddles whatsoever with a FB. Assuming the talks are kept to a rather non intimate and aromantic level, this rule feels way too strict to me. I think it's counter productive and very inorganic, compared to throwing in a bit of friendly rather aromantic cuddles, especially right before and after sex for a few minutes (not long hours).
Emma 2018-03-03 07:17:45
If a potential OLTR is an experience poly-advocate and is totally fine with you having other MLTR as long as she gets to keep hers too, would you still have that rule of only keeping others as FB? And why? I know by your definition this isn't a OLTR since the rule is part of the deal, but just want to know that if de facto you'd want to plan your future with her as a serious gf.