14 Dec Financial Support In Serious Non-Monogamous Relationships – Everyone Is Still Confused
Reading Time – 5 minutes
You’re a typical, everyday guy in a normal monogamous relationship. You’re about to propose marriage to your girlfriend or moving in with her for the long term. Once you propose marriage/cohabitation/whatever to her, you say, “Oh, and by the way, once you’re my wife (or live-in long-term girlfriend), I’m not giving you any money ever, for any reason. Because this isn’t a sugar daddy relationship. Okay?”
Would that work?
Would she say yes to that?
Even in the modern-day, left-wing, feministy girl-boss era in which we live, would most women agree to that?
Even if she said yes, do you think that relationship would actually last? Do you think she’ll stick around with you as she sees all of her other female friends and family members get at least some financial support from their husbands or live-in boyfriends?
I’m pretty sure your answer is no, that wouldn’t work.
Keep that in mind.
Let’s say that you were proposing to a woman some kind of partial long-distance relationship, but one that was very serious and very long-term. For example, you’ll live with her seven months a year but five months a year you’re going to do five flags and travel around the world. Or perhaps you’re with her three weeks at a time but then for two weeks, you’ll be in some other country, forever, with that pattern.
Again, let’s assume it was monogamous and perfectly normal other than this one weird partial long-distance part. To repeat, this is a very serious, long-term relationship or marriage with long-term expectations, like the rest of their lives.
When you’re pitching this to her, you again tell her, “I want to be with you the rest of my life like this. But, just so you know, I’m never giving you any money, ever.”
Again I ask, would she say yes to that?
And if for some weird reason she did say yes to that, would it last?
Again, I’m pretty sure your answer would be no.
Keep that in mind.
A few weeks back I finally revealed on YouTube and the Alpha Male 2.0 podcast the new Alpha Male 2.0 PDM system I’m following where I have three wives who I don’t live with in three different countries. These are three women I intend on spending the rest of my life with, and they intend the same with me. It’s a serious relationship/marriage with long-term expectations (ideally, the rest of my life with all three of these women, if I can pull it off, one of whom I’ve already been with 10 years and a second I’ve been with almost six).
When I explained these three new relationships, I showed the five things a man can do that raise the odds (but of course doesn’t guarantee) that a long-term serious woman (OLTR in most cases) will remain with you for 10, 20, or more years without leaving you.
These five things are:
- Maintaining high attraction
- Low drama from you
- Wife or girlfriend status and some degree of exclusivity
- Some level of financial support
- For women under age 35, having kids with them
I explained how I was doing all five of these things with my three PDMs (wives). Everyone understood four of them, but strangely, a decent group of people had a big problem with the financial one.
I clearly stated that I mandated that all three of these women must have their own incomes (and they do) because I wasn’t going to pay all of their bills like some desperate sugar daddy. Yet, when I mentioned I was giving these women some level of financial support, a bunch of people got very confused.
“Wait… what? Why are you paying these girls?”
“Why do you have to pay them?”
“Oh, so this is a sugar daddy thing then.”
“Well, the only reason they’re doing this with you is that you’re giving them money.”
“I wouldn’t pay women like this! WTF?”
But… yes you would. You just said above that in a monogamous relationship, a woman would be expected to receive at least some money from her husband or serious boyfriend at some point in the relationship, or else it wouldn’t work. That it would be perfectly normal for a man to “pay” a woman money in a serious, long-term, monogamous relationship.
So why is it that in a serious, long-term, non-monogamous relationship, suddenly the man providing the woman some level of financial support becomes this bad or weird thing or a “sugar daddy” relationship? Especially considering these women don’t get very much money from me (I’m extremely frugal and I hate spending money and always have, as most people know; not sure why people would suddenly assume I’m spending a ton of money on these women).
It’s all because society isn’t yet accustomed to non-monogamous relationships, including many people who have been in my audience for a long time and even among some people who are practicing non-monogamy right now. That’s why I didn’t get my feelings hurt about this (not that I ever get my feelings hurt, being outcome-independent and having a low-empathy personality is great for long-term happiness).
Even my mom reacted this way when I explained all of this to her many months ago.
“So, why do you have to pay these girls?” she asked, “I don’t like that.”
“I don’t have to do anything,” I said.
“Then why do you give them money?” she asked.
I gave her a confused look and said, “When Dad first asked you to marry him, if he said he would never, ever give you any money or support you financially, would you have said yes?”
“Well, that’s different,” she said.
“So there you go, you would have said no,” I said, “That’s my point.”
“Yes,” she admitted, “But that’s different.”
“How is it different?” I asked, “He wanted you to be his wife for the rest of his life, I want these women to be my wives for the rest of my life.”
She thought for a minute and finally said, “Well… yeah… I guess it’s not different.”
Bingo.
It’s not any different.
Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, the vast majority of women (not all, but the vast majority) will expect some kind of financial support if a man wants to be with them in a long-term, serious, girlfriend/boyfriend, co-habiting, or married relationship.
(Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and people love to point out the one woman they know who works all day while her unemployed loser boyfriend stays home and watches TV. Dude, this is not the norm and you know it. As always, the exception proves the rule.)
When it’s a monogamous relationship, men either reluctantly accept this with reality a groan (most men) or gleefully embrace it and think it’s the way it should be (right-wing tradcons). But when it’s non-monogamous, suddenly this gets “weird” or “beta” or “stupid” or “sugar daddy,” when in fact, the only difference is that it’s non-monogamous. It’s still a long-term, loving, GF/BF or married relationship with no difference except the man is having sex with other women.
This all shows that even in the mid-2020s, even in our extreme left-wing collapsing culture, modern-day Western humans still haven’t fully acclimated to the concept of non-monogamy. Non-monogamy is still considered a little warped or weird even though millions upon millions of Westerners are practicing it this very minute (albeit most of them keep quiet about it instead of shouting it to the rooftops as I do).
Let me tell you something. Years ago I planned on having at least three serious, hardcore competitors in the non-monogamy space. In 2009 I started as the only one talking about this stuff publicly, but I figured that by 2020 or so, when non-monogamy became more widely practiced (which is indeed what happened), I would have at least three other guys on the internet with big brands like mine also teaching specific steps on how to do non-monogamy for men.
I figured I’d have to up my game to compete with these future competitors.
Yet, it’s now almost 2025… and there’s still only one guy in this particular niche. Me.
Isn’t that weird? I honestly wasn’t expecting this. I’m still surprised by it.
Yes, there are a few other guys on the internet who carry on some kind of (usually high-drama) relationship with more than one woman and occasionally mention it in their content, but there is still no one on the internet with any real size of an audience who gives specific techniques and models on how normal men can do this. After 16 years of talking about this publicly, I’m still the only one. Wow.
Not that I’m complaining. I’m very happy owning this niche. That’s exactly what you should do in your business, find a narrow weird niche and 100% dominate it.
I’m just saying that’s yet another indicator that society is still way off from fully understanding non-monogamy the way they do monogamy.
It’s super interesting.
Leave your comment below, but be sure to follow the Five Simple Rules.
SabrinaK
Posted at 10:30 pm, 14th December 2024I thought Pink Firefly was your wife and you had some sugerbabies as FBs (because you can only love one woman). You also wrote a blog post recently about how having several wives is drama.
Now you have three “wives”? And you are paying them all?
SabrinaK
Posted at 12:24 am, 15th December 2024Ah actually briefly fast forwarded through your video. Your romantic life does seem unnecessarily complex for a 50 year old –
1. It seems like you broke your promise to PF then that you will be emotionally exclusive to her… and you just changed your mind. And you are even thinking about having more kids with another woman in Dubai. You have long said humans are pair bonding creatures – are you giving up on pair bonding then?
2. How is this your so-called “PDM” different from just having 3 MLTRs? Seems like you just unilaterally decided to downgrade PF to MLTR as she didn’t like Dubai very much (thus breaking your original promise) and told her to get along with you having other romantic relationships or leave.
3. Even though PF is only with you a few weeks a year, are you paying her an allowance every month? Is the payment you are making to two other women significant compared to THEIR salaries/lifestyle (not compared to YOURS)?
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:26 pm, 15th December 202452 numerically only. I feel like I’m 18. And I have the energy and the testosterone equivalent to one.
She broke her promise to me to not give me consistent drama, so after she did that I had to take corrective action. She knew for 10+ years if she gave me consistent drama I would have to make changes to our relationship she wouldn’t like. She was not surprised when I did so.
Partially. Instead I will pair bond with whomever I’m with in the country I’m in.
1. I am exclusive to only my PDMS. MLTRs is not exclusive in any way.
2. I want my PDMs long-term, as in the rest of my life, and consistently, with no LSFNTEs. MLTRs never have these expectations.
3. Girlfriend behaviors are not allowed in MLTRs. They are in PDMs.
After she gave me drama for an entire year with over 100 warnings that I don’t do drama, correct.
It’s not like I just woke up one day and suddenly changed my mind. It’s also not like she complained about Dubai once or twice and I suddenly changed my mind.
I can’t reveal my financial arrangements with anyone publicly on the advice of my attorneys.
No. To no women.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:29 pm, 15th December 2024Correct, because you can’t live with them, as I said in that article. I don’t live with any of these women and never will. And they’re all in 3 different countries.
SabrinaK
Posted at 03:02 am, 16th December 2024You can’t pair-bond with several women – that’s not pair-bonding.
I suppose PF moved out quite some time ago (for you to establish “wife-level” emotional connections with other women in Dubai and Paraguay) – I recall your measure of success of your OLTR live-in relationship was 7 years, so likely that experiment was a failure for you.
I quite liked PF here – I feel sad for her. What I have raised in the comments that you swore will “never” happen has happened – you decided to get feelings for some of the FBs you were sleeping with.
I am surprised you actually think these women you speak of will stay around for the rest of their lives – that’s pretty delusional when you couldn’t even keep PF for seven years. You think you can father a baby with your Dubai girlfriend (who is a part-time model in her 20s), then leave her and the baby so you can go away and shack up with some other woman in Paraguay for months on end WHILE also somehow keeping a relationship with PF going? With minimal “drama” with your insanely low drama tolerance? What’s your expectation that you can keep all three women in your life for the rest of your life? I honestly give the odds of success much much lower than most marriages lasting.
I’ll be here though – married and happy in my simple little life – watching.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:56 am, 16th December 2024Correct.
Incorrect. Our relationship hasn’t ended. PF and I are still together and still love each other. We talk every day. I just saw her last month and it was fantastic.
That is not what happened. You need to re-watch my video. I moved PF to the USA, converted the relationship to PDM with her, then I allowed feelings for my FBs to change.
I don’t think that and I have no idea why you would assume I would think anything like that. That is what I would like but I know the odds are against it because I’m rational.
I’m pretty sure you’re the one who thinks your monogamous marriage will last the rest of your life, and you’ll be wrong. Watch.
One of us does indeed have irrational Disney expectations, but it’s not me.
Based on the sharp and argumentative tone of your comments on my blog it’s very clear you are not not happy, and the statistical probability of you eventually getting a divorce, or you eventually cheating on your husband, or your husband eventually cheating on you at some point are sky high.
AlphaOmega
Posted at 06:31 am, 16th December 2024So do you think they will stop meeting you if you stop supporting them financially? If yes isn’t this sugar dating?
Or could you outline where the line is?
What I have done many times in the past with MLTR was that we were mostly meeting at my place and I covered all the food, but most of the time she was tasked with bringing a bottle of wine for us to drink plus if she had travel expenses to come to me that was on her. This worked long term with several women and they never had issues with that.
Only times I was actually supporting a woman financially was when she was a student with no income and it was obvious if I was not going to support her we would not be able to meet / she would not be able to eat with me etc.
If the woman does not work and I cover expenses / most of expenses, I expect she would cook and do all the housework. Which is what you said in the past in your comments as well of how you would make it work.
If you are supporting a woman financially and she doesnt do housework/cook for your etc then this is just sugar dating. Though I would expect houseworks from sugar babies also, but that is because I mostly don’t do standard sugar dating.
Did you post an update on it somewhere? If so I missed it, do you have a link? If you didn’t can you post about this? In a lot of detail? Very curious.
AlphaOmega
Posted at 06:34 am, 16th December 2024You can’t, because you are a woman. Men can and do.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 09:15 am, 16th December 2024No but I think the odds will go up that the relationship won’t last the rest of my life.
Just the very long, very detailed video I did about it at YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zowwp_Trxow
SabrinaK
Posted at 02:40 am, 17th December 2024@AlphaOmega
As Caleb himself admitted – polyamory and pair bonding cannot coexist. Polygamy and pair bonding can, If Caleb is emotionally connecting to multiple women and calling them “wives” – you can call it whatever you like – but its not pair bonding.
@Caleb Jones
My tone has always been sharp and argumentative and that has literally nothing to do with my happiness in my relationship. My monogamous relationship has already outlasted your live-in OLTR relationship (and I actually also moved countries for my husband fyi) and we are still going strong. I can see, however, that your tone is quite defensive.
More questions for you:
1. If your expectation of your new relationship structure is not to last the rest of your life – (a) why do you keep saying the term “rest of my life without LSFNTEs” and (b) why do you pay them to keep the “odds up” that the relationship lasts “the rest of my life”? What exactly is your expectation of your new multiple wives model to last?
2. Are you claiming then your live-in OLTR system was a success? How is the fact you still love PF, or the fact you met her last month, relevant to your live-in OLTR success? You clearly said “love” is not enough to keep a woman in your life as a serious partner, and you are claiming PF has been giving you consistent drama since you have moved to Dubai – so she is not a serious partner in your life. PF has moved out of your house and in a different continent, you are seeing her a “few weeks a year”, and you have already emotionally connected with other women you call “wives” so you are not pair-bonded with her. She is not your OLTR. In what way if your OLTR live-in a success?
3. I noticed (I was not following you closely since you closed your last blog and just followed up briefly from your videos to be fair) – just a year ago you were doing a AMA with PF introducing her as your OLTR and you were trying to get her to agree with your “super FB” idea, so I assume she was indeed your OLTR until then. So within a year you suddenly fell in love with/closely in love with two different women who were just FBs, enough to call them “wives” with hopes of “rest of your life”? Exactly when did your emotional connection start with these other women?
4. You keep mentioning you met your two other women via “referral game” – did the women who referred you to these women from sugar daddy websites? Back in college there were 3-4 “sugar baby” girls who were friends and often went out with older men or did escorting on the side – the profile of your other two women (‘part time model/ real estate broker” seem to match the type of the group of girls who were more transactional. (I actually have no moral objections to sugar dating at all – but if you got referred primarily by girls you met at sugar daddy sites, and/or you are indeed paying the girls you call “wives” and you think your relationship won’t last long-term without checks coming in – it is indeed sugar dating and I am not sure why you are so defensive about it.
SabrinaK
Posted at 03:09 am, 17th December 2024**disregard my note on polygamy above. Can’t edit comments here for some reason. Polygamy is also not pair bonding.
AlphaOmega
Posted at 06:55 am, 17th December 2024“polyamory and pair bonding cannot coexist”
Again, for you. Or: for Caleb.
It can and does for me and many other men. The fact you cannot comprehend how it can be does not change anything.
There is nothing mutually exclusive about these. It is true perhaps that in this case there will be one main woman, never the less I will still be pair bonded with the other ones.
SabrinaK
Posted at 08:32 am, 17th December 2024@AlphaOmega
As always, you are very confused. You just claiming men can “pair bond” with multiple women does not change the definition of pairbonding.
Oxford dictionary: pair-bond = form a close relationship through courtship and sexual activity of ONE other animal or person
If you have emotional connections to multiple women, you are not pair-bonded to any of them by dictionary definition or any definition of biological pair-bonding.
Both men and women can have emotional connections with multiple partners. They are not pairbonded with any of them.
Paul C
Posted at 06:11 pm, 17th December 2024I haven’t seen the YouTube yet, but, from the contents of this article alone, Caleb (as always) appears both correct and logical. Three notes:
1. As soon as I read the opening paragraph–my first thought was, The man says, “This isn’t a sugar daddy relationship”?!? Wait a sec. Although it’s too reductionist to characterize a TMM merely as a money-for-sex exchange, still, in too many cases the woman eventually shuts off the sex but the man continues to pay. At least in a sugar daddy relationship the man would stop paying. Why, it seems to me, for most men in a TMM, if they had structured their marriage as a sugar daddy relationship instead, that would have been a step up.
2. I know, too, that Caleb is (rightfully) frugal. I suspect that a standard man in a TMM actually pays more for his one wife than Caleb will end up paying for all three women combined. Also, unlike the standard man, Caleb can afford this. Most importantly, Caleb is the happier man.
3. As soon as I read “unemployed loser boyfriend” who stays home–my first thought was, Wow, there must be some serious SP at work in the world here. I can’t even imagine a similar situation with the genders reversed: an “unemployed loser girlfriend” who stays home.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 07:37 pm, 17th December 2024Lots of men who fuck hookers say the exact same thing – “Well, it’s cheaper than marriage.” Well, yeah, but it’s sad that marriage is the standard you’re comparing it to. I’ve always said that marriage is expensive prostitution, whereas hookers and sugar babies are cheap prostitution. So the two sides hate each other because each is trying to muzzle in on the other one’s territory. The hooker wants to lower the prices for beta males, and the wives want to inflate the prices for beta males. This is why traditional marriage is portrayed as the bastion of wholesome family values, while hookers are painted as “evil degenerates.” But the truth is that they are two sides of the same coin – two ways to control betas.
I prefer the third option – no prostitution at all. Just sex in exchange for sex. I know that’s radical to most mainstream men, and they’ve been brainwashed to be slut shamers and say genuinely retarded things like, “well at least the hooker gets paid so she is smarter,” as if getting paid with orgasms is stupid, even though that is the only payment method men seek.
It’s time for men to step outside this two dimensional hookers vs. housewives beta male dichotomy and embrace the third way. I’ve said it before – The female orgasm is the most revolutionary concept in nature, and it threatens to cripple all female dominance and replace it with equality. That is why society is so scared of it, and instead distracts us with this two dimensional “hooker vs. housewife” garbage, which is really just coke vs. pepsi. Meanwhile, those males and females who know the truth are screwing each other like rabbits and laughing about this whole thing!
Are you being serious right now? I had to read this three times. “Unemployed loser girlfriend who stays home” is what is known as a “housewife” or a “homemaker.” whom the man provides for. And you’ve never heard of that?
Female bums and losers who stay home are some of the most powerful women in this world. They are the wives of billionaire CEOs of fortune 500 companies, the wives of world leaders, the wives of bankers, and the wives of the most successful, but beta, men on the planet! AND YOU CAN’T PICTURE THAT???
By contrast, an unemployed loser boyfriend who stays home will always be thought of as a loser in society. He will never get a girlfriend, will just live in a shithole apartment, or with his parents, smoking weed, eating cheetos, and jerking off all day, while society points at him and says, “wow, what a loser.” That’s the price to pay for not having a vagina. If us men – including those losers – want to change this, we must embrace sex for sex, and reject both traditional monogamy and prostitution! There is no other way us men will ever achieve equality at the collective level, regardless of whether we are losers or not.
I may also look down on the male losers, but the difference between me and most men is that when I see a female bum cosying up to a foreign leader as a result of being a politician’s wife, I look down on her too and think to myself – “Get a job, you loser!” I believe in equality. I guess I’m weird that way!
Harrold
Posted at 11:35 pm, 17th December 2024I’m still confused by the legal risks of living with women. I understand with marriage — there is community property, child support and allimony. But what does that have to do with a live-in girlfriend???
Let’s forget about child support for a moment. Of course if you father children, you will have to pay child support. Regardless of whether the relationship is a legal marriage or not.
But I’ve never heard of any man, anywhere, ever having to pay allimony or split community property with an un-married girlfriend. If I do a google search, the word “pallimony” comes up. It was decades ago, and that legal argument failed. Meaning the guy didn’t have to pay anything. There is also the idea of common law marriage. But my google search says that never happned in the US. Only in canada.
Serously, what about your 2% rule of worrying about extremely unlikey problems???
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:30 am, 18th December 2024Right. I’m sure it has nothing to do with it.
You’re not listening because I’ve already answered that question. My goal is “rest of my life,” at all times, yet I’m still rational enough to acknowledge that the odds are decent that won’t happen no matter what I do.
That’s the last time I’m answering that question. Get it through your skull.
Yup. Even when I moved her back to the USA last year we had been together for 9 years, co-habiting for 6 years, I was fucking other women the entire time and it worked fine, I’m still having sex with other women right now, and she’s still with me, loves me, wants to say with me, and I love her. Most men would consider that a massive success. I consider it a moderate success.
The rest of your question is a re-statement of your view that people should stay in a relationship/co-habiting even if they’re unhappy, which I think is insane.
That was more than 2 years ago but yes.
No, your timing is wrong. I didn’t fall in love with anyone last year. That happened this year, well after I made the transition with PF. It takes me a long time to fall in love with anyone, as I’ve said many times. Plus I love PF the most.
Yeah, the referring women were from sugar daddy sites for both girls, but neither of my women has ever been a sugar daddy site to my knowledge.
You need to re-read the above article again, slowly. Would you stay with your husband the rest of your life if told you tomorrow he would never give you one dollar or money or support ever again? You know the answer is no (be honest now), which means by your logic, your marriage is a sugar daddy relationship.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:36 am, 18th December 2024Haha! I still don’t like the transactional aspect of money-for-sex at a philosophical level, but it’s an interesting point.
Correct. Most of the men I know in my personal life are traditionally married and pretty much 100% of them spend more money on their one wife than I spend on all 2.5 of mine if you add up all money spent, debt, and household expenses
I would bet real money that Sabrina’s husband spends more on her than I do on my women.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:45 am, 18th December 20241. Live-in girlfriend gets palimony (which is basically alimony) in many Western states and provinces if the relationship lasts long enough.
2. Most men put their live-in girlfriend’s name on the lease or co-own the house with her, which causes all kinds of chaos and problems during the breakup.
3. Live-in girlfriend can’t legally can’t be removed from the home (in many regions) whenever you want. Example: in the state of Illinois, you can’t kick your live-in girlfriends out of your home if it’s during the winter, not matter how horrible she’s being, even if her name isn’t on the lease; you have to wait until April. This is actually enforced if she complains.
You can’t use anecdotal data to make a point. You should know this. That being said, I have personally spoken to many of these men. But again, anecdotal data doesn’t matter.
Correct, because it’s not called “palimony” in most states/provinces just like it’s not called “prenuptial agreement” in most states/provinces. Palimony is called things like compensatory support, equitable relief, unjust enrichment claims, quantum meruit, and about 20 other legalese bullshit government terms designed to confuse people just like you.
But hey, if you want to go live with your GF in the Collapsing Western World (or maybe you already do) and take zero precautions, go right ahead and roll the dice with your future. That’s not how I choose to live.
SabrinaK
Posted at 09:52 am, 18th December 2024Um. I work at a bulge bracket investment bank and I have a real estate in my name (from my own family) that I collect rent from. And I live in a tax haven.
I am probably more high maintenance than all your sugar babies combined but I likely make more than their incomes combined, and I make a LOT more than my expenses.
All my income go into our joint account so for my husband’s net income is net positive post our marriage. He can “pay” me zero for the rest of our marriage and we will stay married, just not an issue for me – unlike you.
Care to tell me how exactly my relationship is anything close to a sugar relationship?
Um. Your two other “wives” were “referred” from your sugar babies and you pay your “wives” an allowance. Yea, I sort of know how those circles work (we had sugar baby circles in my college back in the days). Again, no moral judgment but you should call it like it is.
Your last AMA with Pink Firefly when you were introducing her as your OLTR was July 2023, which is only roughly a year and a half ago (not “more than two years ago”). Even if you immediately moved her out after that video, that’s not a “long” time to “love” your other “wives”. Your timing seems off.
You will likely keep having dramas and/or making your women life more and more complex in your 50s (as you admit you don’t expect your current wives to last til the rest of your life) – and by your 60s you will just end up having to rely on cashing out to keep women (you are tbh almost already there). I was actually rooting for you and PF a bit. Oh well.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 03:18 pm, 18th December 2024If you have a “relationship akin to marriage,” virtually the same rules apply.
Really?
In which state did it fail? It’s different depending on your home state. So check with a family lawyer in your jurisdiction. In many states, it succeeded. If you live with a woman, even if you’re NOT married at common law, she may demand palimony upon a break up in more than a few states. Again, check your state laws.
Common law marriage is/was a thing in the United States. I’ve been out of the legal game for a while, so I’m not sure whether or not the few remaining states that had it abolished it, but yes, in certain states, if you live with a woman seven years or longer, or one year or longer (depending on the state), you were married at common law, or married against your will is what that means. I think most states have abolished that, but even without common law marriage, there is still palimony that you have to worry about if you live with her, as the courts in some states will judge that as a “relationship akin to marriage.”
Also, if you’re in California, google “the Marvin rule,” or “a Marvin Action.”
Before living with a woman for even one day, you should go to an attorney and draft a cohabitation agreement. There are many loopholes that she can use to get out of that too, sadly, like claiming that she didn’t understand what she was signing, or you not showing her your money or assets, thus claiming that her consent to signing it wasn’t “informed,” and therefore, “null and void,” but it at least makes you safer than without such a written agreement.
More and more courts are treating a couple living together as husband and wife regardless of whether they got legally married or not.
Also, some states like California and Oregon have very liberal definitions of “living together.” If you spend the majority of your time sleeping over at her place, or vice versa, she, as your ex-girlfriend, can claim that you were living together for all practical purposes, thus allowing her to collect palimony. I had a case once where a woman hired a private investigator to take pictures of the ex-boyfriend’s clothes in her closet to try to prove they were “living together” for the purposes of palimony, even though they legally had their own separate addresses. It didn’t work because it wasn’t California or Oregon, but it was close!
Bro, no offense, but you’re thinking like a poor person. Did you know that, in an increasing number of jurisdictions in the US, you can be sued for child support even if you have no children because the single mother that you’re dating claims that her children have gotten “emotionally attached to you?” Did you also know that the courts can pronounce you as the legal father, thus being liable for child support, even if the biological father is paying child support also? So she’s now getting child support from two separate men for one and the same baby, by court order! Scary shit!
Just be smart and stay informed. Check your states laws, consult an attorney, and definitely draft a cohabitation agreement before moving in with a woman. AND STAY AWAY FROM SINGLE MOTHERS, UNLESS THEY’RE JUST FUCK BUDDIES AND YOU NEVER MEET THE KIDS!
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 03:31 pm, 18th December 2024In Illinois, this is true no matter who it is. Let’s say you’re a landlord, and one of your tenants is refusing to pay rent and literally pissing and shitting on the floor. You can’t evict him if it’s winter.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 04:17 pm, 18th December 2024Also Caleb, did you hear what’s going on in New York with “squatters’ rights?” It’s insane.
Let’s say you’re a homeowner, and you leave your house to go on vacation for 30 days. If, during those 30 says, someone breaks in to your home (by, for example, breaking through your window with a baseball bat) and chooses to live there, he is classified as an official tenant whom you cannot kick out, unless you go through official eviction procedures which take TWO YEARS to complete! I’M NOT EVEN CLOSE TO KIDDING!
Also, if you catch an intruder in your home the second he breaks in, and he lies to the cops by claiming that he’s your tenant, and the only reason he broke your window to get in was because you illegally locked him out, it will take MORE THAN 30 DAYS for the cops to investigate this, which means you’re stuck with this intruder for TWO YEARS, and that is only if you initiate formal eviction procedures NOW! New York is psychotic!
An old woman in New York was arrested for changing the locks on her own house in order to keep a trespasser out. He falsely claimed to the cops that she’s been renting a room in her house to him. Now she’s stuck with him for two years!
Don’t believe me? Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTVvvgoIMQ0&t=1s
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:53 am, 19th December 2024Didn’t really read your entire comment because I don’t care. The USA isn’t my problem anymore and will continue to get worse every year. Move to a less-bad country.
AlphaOmega
Posted at 05:32 pm, 19th December 2024One, yes. One for each pair bond. Where does it say in your definition that you cannot have multiple such pair bonds. As you showed it does not. You are the one who is confused. It looks to me like you are upset at the reality that others have it differently then you, that does not change the world.
SabrinaK
Posted at 07:37 pm, 19th December 2024@AlphaOmega
Not my definition. Definition from pretty much all biological and societal journals. If you don’t like the definition of pair-bonding as an exclusive relationship (emotional, and usually sexual) between a PAIR of the same species, go and yell at the world, not me. Just shows you can’t comprehend basic concepts (or just ignore basic concepts for the sake of disagreeing).
I actually don’t care about people having different relationship models. I am just pointing out Caleb’s live-in OLTR was a failure (as it did not last 7 years as per https://alphamale20.com/blackdragonblog/2018/01/15/objectives-expectations-live-oltr/) and the fact he still “loves” PF does not make a difference as he is no longer pair-bonded to PF (she is not a OLTR) as he decided to have emotional connections to two of his FB sugar baby “wives”.
AlphaOmega
Posted at 07:54 am, 20th December 2024Completely irrelevant, Caleb has said many times that most of that stuff is wrong because they are unable to face certain reality. It’s fine if you disagree with that, but this not the point I made and is irrelevant to that point.
I do not dispute that pair-bond is a bond between two individuals. I merely state the fact that this does not preclude me from having another such bond with another individual, The two pair bonds are not mutually exclusive and are two completely independent bonds. Same as I can have two identities and so on. None of the definitions touch on this so there is zero contradiction.
Perhaps the comparison would be to have multiple full time jobs. It may not be legal in some places and / or some corporate suits might argue it is not possible by definition but people do it and there are easy ways to even make it easily work. This exactly the same. You and those “scientists” are the corporate suits in this example. Also remember that in science by definition nothing can ever be proven, only disproved, so when some scientific journal claims something has been proven or is a fact that is meaningless pseudoscience.
I doubt it, since you keep arguing about this. If you didn’t care you would just say that ok, others have it differently.
Yes, well obviously. It looks to me like he is now just doing full on sugar dating. And this article sounds like some other blogs he used to criticize.
TL
Posted at 11:35 pm, 20th December 2024I really don’t get the confusion here, it seems as clear as day to me. There are literally almost zero relationships (not just man-woman relationships but ALL relationships) where some form of money is involved. Super weird hangup that people have. But I’m not complaining though, I love some of these intense arguments in the comments section, it’s just back to good old Caleb Jones / Blackdragon blog days. I’m here for it 😉
SabrinaK
Posted at 01:23 am, 21st December 2024@AlphaOmega
You can bond with multiple women (women can also bond with multiple women) but its not pair-bonding by definition. You can have multiple jobs and you cannot have multiple full-time jobs by definition. Definition is just what the society makes the word to mean. So you are just nitpicking.
Otherwise we are in agreement.
@TL
Huge difference between paying a woman an allowance to stay with you and paying for dinner for a woman you are dating/having a joint account with a woman you raise your kids with.
It’s a cop-out to say “oh sugar dating is not that different from normal traditional marriages cos you spend money on women anyway”.
A guy in his 50s paying off good looking sugar babies to keep sleeping with him is like a girl in his 20s banging lots of good looking men – it’s both easy and no one is really impressed by them.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 02:56 am, 21st December 2024If they’re serious and long-term, correct, as I’ve explained several times. AlphaOmega has a weird mental block about this. Sabrina is being an angry Dominant as usual.
And you can use ChatGPT to summarize the video, and you can listen to the video in the background while you do something else, etc.
In my new book I talk about how modern-day humans have attention spans lower than goldfish (literally, scientifically) so the fact that a 2 hour video terrifies people is a symptom of this.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 02:59 am, 21st December 2024Sabrina, goodbye. You’re actively insulting me now which is against the rules here even after receiving a warning from me recently and another a long time ago. Go read a monogamy blog; you’re in the wrong place.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 04:06 am, 21st December 2024This isn’t 100% ad homimem but it’s close. Explain that statement, using logic and specifics, why what I’m doing sugar daddy dating when a man married to a monogamous wife and supporting her financially 100% isn’t. It better be good.
AlphaOmega
Posted at 06:20 am, 21st December 2024Nope, I have done sugar dating in the past and don’t have a problem with it. I am just pointing out what it is. I have also done dating where I did not give the woman any kind of financial support whatsoever.
I think the confusion is from improper definitions. If the woman has no income and needs financial support to eat and you say you wont give her anything then of course she would leave you as this would be seen as you don’t care about her. If she has income and you don’t support her financially as an extra on top of that then that is normal and many couples do that long term without problems. The confusion is because these two very different cases have been blurred in the article.
That is exactly my point. You CAN have multiple full time jobs (albeit it might be in breach of contract / law in some places, but you CAN). And many people do. As to how to manage that: you work less hours on those jobs because you are efficient or you outsource some of the stuff, or I simply work 80 hours a week. Might cause problems but you CAN. And people do. The idea that you cannot is based on some pend and paper arguments drafted in an office that have no connection to real world.
It is the same with pair bonding. I can have multiple pair-bonds. Which are fully independent from each other. There is no contradiction. But its true that there can be only 2 people in each pairbond. But I can be a member of multiple pair bonds. Just as I can have multiple identities, multiple full time jobs and so on.
You are nitpicking because your only argument is definitions in scientific papers which don’t even specifically address the scenarios I highlight. Perhaps this is not nitpicking, you just cannot accept and or fathom the idea so you are angry about it.
So how about you accept others have it differently like you claim you do.
AlphaOmega
Posted at 11:20 am, 21st December 2024This isn’t 100% ad homimem but it’s close. Explain that statement, using logic and specifics, why what I’m doing sugar daddy dating when a man married to a monogamous wife and supporting her financially 100% isn’t. It better be good.
From your response I am not sure we understand each other, but there are basically two points I am raising.
1) What you describe is sugar dating by definition because you are claiming you think they would leave if you stop supporting financially. Rather I would ask how is that not sugar dating, or in which way do you see this is is different from sugar dating? To be clear, I do not have a problem with sugar dating, have done it in the past in a limited way and would do it again under certain circumstances, but if I would think continued financial support would be required as you describe I would think it is sugar dating what I am doing.
2) Second part of my comment refers to the notion you raise that you describe this as normal in all relationships. Here again I would say it is the other way, where do you get this idea? Unlike pretty much all your content you have been producing over years this is completely detached from what I have experienced and observed in the world. I also find it is 180degrees at odds with the tone and attitude of your previous content.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:30 am, 22nd December 20241. That is not what I claim. None of these women would suddenly end the relationship if I stopped the financial support. I claim that on the overall, if you add up all factors, the odds of the relationship ending at some point in the future go up at least a little bit if there is no financial aspect whatsoever, which is the exactly the same if the relationship was monogamous.
2. As I’ve repeated about five times and you keep ignoring, a woman in a serious long-term monogamous relationship or marriage would also leave the man (eventually) if he ended all financial support, yet you don’t call those kinds of relationships sugar dating, which makes no sense.
It is normal in all serious, long-term, marriage-like relationships, regardless of monogamous or open or OLTR. I have said numerous times that most OLTR wives benefit financially from their husbands even if they’re following all of the OLTRs rules because men usually make more money than the woman.
OLTR rules are things like keeping finances separate, no co-owned debts or assets, having enforceable prenuptial paperwork, and so on. I have said hundreds of times that financially supporting your OLTR wife is perfectly acceptable if it’s something you want to and that most men will indeed do this. I have never, ever said or even implied that in a serious OLTR relationship is is illegal or bad under Alpha Male 2.0 rules to financially support your OLTR.
So now tell me exactly why A) what I’m doing is sugar dating when if monogamous men do it it’s not and 2) how what I’m doing conflicts with any of my past advice, observations, or tone.
AlphaOmega
Posted at 10:19 am, 22nd December 2024Ok, then I misunderstood and don’t have a disagreement.
So this is the source of the confusion. Actually, I would call those sugar dating as well with the caveat that is fine and normal to support her financially if it would mean she would starve otherwise but I also expect that if she does not work she has to do all the housework at home. in other words she is a full time housewife, then that is her job. If she works, has her on income and I am somehow supporting her financially then that is indeed sugar dating. Or if she does not work but also does zero housework then the same.
I guess it was answered already and we don’t disagree anymore unless you disagree with my assesment above about those cases being / not being sugar dating.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 04:05 pm, 22nd December 2024@AlphaOmega Alright, then we don’t disagree.
That being said, your view that any man who gives his wife or live-in GF any money whatsoever who doesn’t need it to 100% survive is sugar dating means you’re accusing literally hundreds of millions of societally normal men of being sugar daddies doing sugar daddy dating. But okay.
AlphaOmega
Posted at 06:16 am, 23rd December 2024Not if she does the houseworks etc as I outlined. Which is why I thought you reversed your views – because you said previously that the person who receives financial support direct or indirect from the relationship – be it the man or the woman – should do the houseworks.
If she receives regular financial support which she does not strictly need AND she does not do houseworks (they are shared equally / the man also pays housekeeper) then yes it is sugar dating.
But accusing sounds like it is something negative and I condemn it, which I do not as I outlined. One should just be honest about what it is. And yes there are huge amounts of men that do it without even realizing so this “accusation” might help some to identify what it is and decide whether that is what they wish to do or not.