I’m not the type of person to do something unless I am 100% behind it. When I first started this blog, I posted daily. Now, it has come to the point where I post once/month. Clearly, something has got to give. It’s not that I don’t have the motivation; it’s just that I found myself not engaging in much original content. I could write a bunch of summaries of other articles, but why not just sent a tweet with the link to the article.
I also strongly prefer Twitter because it is easier to engage with supporters. 95% of the emails I get regarding comments are just spam. I think Twitter is a much better platform for expanding what I am trying to do, and thus I will be shutting down this blog and focusing on reaching people via Twitter (and Facebook).
I really like writing, and hope to write op-eds. I realize that my credentials will become diminished without a continuing portfolio of work, but that’s just a risk I am willing to take.
Thanks for Reading. I really appreciate the support.
A. Jarrod Jenkins
Manogamy Movement Founder/Webmaster
Twitter: twitter.com/manogamy or just sent a message to @manogamy
Traci Nobles, a 35-year-old former cheerleading coach from Athens, GA, was one of former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s sexting partners. She talks about her experiences here. She will soon be releasing a “tell-all” book about her experiences entitled “I Friended You.” I went to grad school in Athens, and I thought women there had more class. It’s one thing to be a virtual homewrecker; it’s another to add insult to injury by profiting from it.
Modern Family is a great show. It is witty, family-oriented, and, most importantly, it depicts the diversity of today’s families. The show breaks the mold of the homogeneous family we are used to seeing in Leave It To Beaver or even Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Jay Pritchett, the family patriarch, is in his second marriage, and he is married to a younger, hotter Latina who has a child from a previous marriage. Jay’s son Mitchell is gay and lives with his partner Cameron and their adopted daughter Lilly. The producers of the show took a huge gamble and won big. The show is only in its third season, and it has already cleaned up at the Emmys.
Naturally, every other station had to come up with an answer for ABC’s hit sitcom. This fall NBC released Whitney — a show about a young couple who live together with no plans to get married. I’ve watched every episode thus far, and I think it is a good show. The writing is nowhere as witty as Modern Family and the acting is pretty bad, but the show discusses topics that couples regularly encounter in relationships. The most recent episode is about what happens when Whitney catches her boyfriend Alex checking out another woman. Alex, like most men in this situation, denies it and the story takes off from there. Unlike Modern Family that tackles big issues in relationships, I think Whitney may be able to distinguish itself by carving out a niche in small, day-to-day nuances in relationships. I’ve provided a link to the episode below.
NBC also took a more traditional approach with Up All Night. That show, produced by Lorne Micheals (30 Rock and SNL), is about a young couple adjusting to being parents. The show is funnier than Whitney, but it is not nearly as bold, and I am not sure whether its formula has much staying power.
Finally, there’s New Girl on Fox, which is a show about a woman who moves in with three strangers after she catches her live-in boyfriend cheating on her. In my opinion, this is the funniest of all the new comedies. The show doesn’t break any new ground, as there have been other shows about male/female roommates before, but it’s still worth checking out.
All of these shows can be viewed on Hulu, so give them a chance.
If someone stabs you, are you 1) going to call a doctor or 2) going to sit there and hope someone stabs your attacker? Nevertheless, when we get hurt, our natural reaction is to hope for something bad to happen to the person who hurt us. Of course, this makes no sense because what we really should do is focus on healing ourselves.
Moreover, you can only have control over your own life. There is no guarantee that something bad will happen to the other person. Sure, we can keep that in the back of our minds, but how long will that take?
This is precisely why it takes people so long to get over a bad breakup. Some people will be bitter their entire lives because they never took the time to help themselves, and instead have been waiting for the day when that other person gets what they had coming to them. That is assuming that day ever comes.
The reality is, MOST men will find true happiness with someone else after we have broken a heart or two, or three, or …
Despite this fact, many women hold on to the Beyoncé “Best Thing I Never Had” syndrome. That song is a woman’s tribute to the guy who did her wrong. She moves on, and says “Sucks to be you right now.”
Wrong. If a guy can pull a woman who looks like Beyoncé, he can pull another. Irrespective of race, the dating pool is very much in men’s favor. So as much as women like to think a guy will never find a woman like her, the chances are he will.
I recognize that this isn’t fair, and that’s why I’m saying that there is no such thing as karma. And people who believe in it are only hurting themselves. Because you can control your happiness, as opposed to someone else’s turmoil, when you’re hurt, your only focus should be on getting better.
According to research by Jennifer Gauvain, 30% of divorced women were not happy when they said “I do.” Let me repeat, 30% of women have serious doubts about the guy they are marrying before they walk down the aisle.
I sent this article to my followers on Twitter and nearly every woman said she would rather stay single for the rest of their life than settle. If Gauvain is right, then some of my followers are lying. And it shouldn’t come as a surprise because who is going to admit to settling?
Of course, we ALL know people who jumped at the opportunity of getting married, even if it was with Mr. Obviously Wrong. This is largely due to the pressure society puts on women to get married. Although men may feel pressure from friends and family members to get married, there is no societal push for us to get married.
I can completely understand the anxiety that surrounds the magic number of 27 (it seems like the pressure really mounts when women are 5 years removed from college). But is a lifelong, mundane marriage worth it? Better yet, is it worth potentially missing out on Mr. Right?
Further, what does it mean to be “married” if walking down the aisle feels like “dying a thousand deaths?” I know people who get married for financial reasons out of necessity, but I have never heard of someone willingly getting married solely for the financial benefits.
According to the article, these are the most-cited reasons for reluctantly jumping the broom:
• Age: The self-imposed biological clock is starting to tick a little louder.
• “Marriage will instantly make the relationship better.”
• “It’s my last chance to get married and no one else will come along.”
• “If it doesn’t work out I can always get a divorce.”
Reasons 1&3 are the same. Reason 2 is naive, because everyone knows that marriages bring challenges. And, for Reason 4, if you’re thinking about divorce before you get married, perhaps you should just save yourself the trouble.
Ultimately, I hope the article wakes people up and makes them realize that one should never settle for the sake of getting married. However, I know that the allure of a white dress and a fancy wedding will preserve the status quo for the foreseeable future.
- Jennifer Gauvain: The Shocking Truth for Thirty Percent of Divorced Women (huffingtonpost.com)
If you’re like me, you’ll try anything that has Google’s name attached to it. Google Buzz. Google Voice. Google Music. Google Chrome. Google Chrome OS. And, most recently, Google+.
Like at least 1/2 of exes (someone has to be the cause of the breakup), Google has treated us badly in the past. Google set high expectations for Google Wave. We got excited and then, bought invites on eBay, and then it disappeared less than a year later. Google forced Gmail users onto Google Buzz and were subjected to a class action lawsuit because of it. Google told us that Google TV was going to change the world, but the Logitech Revue has sold so poorly that it has caused Logitech’s CEO to step down and now the $299 device will be sold for $99.
And most recently, we have been let down by Google+. Google+ drew more than 10 million early adopters, but friend streams are starting to turn into a trickle. I knew that Google+ would not amount to much because I witnessed the same thing happen with Google Wave and Google Buzz. But I signed up for it. Why?
Because despite all the bad, I still love Google. I use Gmail, Google Voice, and Google Reader everyday. These are great products and are what make the company great. In that respect, Google is like an ex. There are things we like about him/her. There are things we hate about him/her. But we go back when we, often naively, believe that things will be better this time around.
Eventually, however, we reach a point where we disregard all the good and cut things off for good. Is Google+ our last straw for Google or will be clamoring over invites to Google ++?
There are some products people universally hate purchasing. For women, it’s pads. For men, it’s condoms. It doesn’t matter how old you are either. But for many sexually active men, it’s a necessary evil. Notwithstanding man’s hatred for purchasing condoms, some Wal-Marts have decided to make it more inconvenient to purchase condoms. Whereas condoms used to be located near the pharmacy, I’ve noticed that some Wal-Marts are now placing condoms behind a cashier along with tobacco products and lottery tickets. This is a relatively bold move for Wal-Mart. Heck, you can still purchase condoms in the regular aisles at more conservative stores like Publix.
I asked an employee why the store moved them and she told me that it was because people opened the packages and stole condoms. While I understand their desire to curb theft, placing condoms behind the cashier is not the optimal solution.
Unlike tobacco products, condoms save lives by reducing the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection or disease. They are also highly effective in preventing pregnancy. Moreover, I’m willing to guess that these individuals stealing condoms are young and/or from lower-income households because many adults don’t use condoms and the ones who do are not going to risk their job for taking a condom out of a box. Also, middle class individuals have more resources to pay for birth control pills (and are more likely to shop at Target).
Rather than having a bunch of adolescents and/or lower-income individuals forego using a condom because they don’t want to look the cashier in the eye, we should be encouraging condom use. I am confident that many of these individuals would have considered using a condom if there was less embarrassment attached with purchasing condoms.
My opinion may not count for much, but I think I’ve figured out a way for condoms to be more accessible and less susceptible to theft: place them near the self-checkout lane. The number one reason why people hate purchasing condoms is because they have to walk around the store with it. The second reason is –even if no one else is in the store– the cashier will see the purchase. Placing condoms near (not necessarily right in front of) the self-checkout line will allow users to discreetly purchase condoms without having to face a human cashier. Also, because this area is more open than the aisles near the pharmacy, there should be less theft.
Wal-Mart does a lot of bragging about how it helps families and communities. If the retailer is serious about helping families and communities, taking measures to cut down on unplanned parenthood, especially amongst teenagers and lower-income individuals, seems like a good starting point.
*I was doing a Google Image search and came across this article that makes the exact same argument, except the retailer was CVS.
I almost missed this article, but luckily I found out about it thanks to one of my favorite bloggers, Kashmir Hill. Essentially, an estranged wife hired a private investigator to keep tabs on her husband. Because the PI had problems finding the man, he suggested that she place a GPS device in the husband’s car. Husband caught leaving driveway with another woman. Husband sues for invasion of privacy.
Appellate Judge Joseph Lisa, Jack Sabatino and Carmen Alvarez said Villanova had no right to expect privacy because the GPS tracked his movements on public streets.
“There is no direct evidence in this record to establish that during the approximately 40 days the GPS was in the … glove compartment the device captured a movement of plaintiff into a secluded location that was not in public view, and, if so, that such information was passed along by Mrs. Villanova to (Leonard),” Lisa wrote.
So essentially this opinion came down to the now-ex husband being in public places. Kash raised the question of whether the fact that there is no expectation of privacy in marriage should have been a part of the decision. That’s a good question, which I haven’t given much though.
It is no secret that men are competitive. We want to be the best at every sport. We want the same for our children. We want to be in the top position in our jobs. And we want to have the newest cars and gadgets on the market.
However, this mentality does not seem to transition into relationships. While it is true that men want to have the most attractive girlfriend or spouse, there does not appear to be any competition for being married the longest or being the most faithful. This, I believe, is a large reason why so many men excel in sports, but not relationships.
Competition is the reason we push ourselves. Just look at any Nike™ or Gatorade™ advertisement. It does not necessarily have to do with the ability to beat someone else, as we often compete against ourselves. The ability to Just Do It™ is essential when the body becomes tired.
This concept applies equally outside of the sports context. When we are exhausted at work, the desire to become partner gives us the extra strength to work through the night. Likewise, when an attractive woman flirts with us, the desire to be 100% faithful gives us the ability to turn her down.
I realize that the goal of being 100% faithful requires perfection, but some goals for which men aspire require perfection: pitching a no-hitter or Dirk Nowitzki’s 24 for 24 playoff record for free throws. The fact that pitching a no-hitter is difficult does not deter pitchers from trying to do so; to the contrary, the difficulty provides the motivation to meet that challenge.
That’s the way I feel about being monogamous. I am 26 years old and engaged. Numerous people have told me that I will cheat at some point in my life. I could think, “Well, statistically speaking, they are right,” or I could use this as motivation to prove them wrong. I choose the latter and I firmly believe that more men would be committed if they began their relationship with a goal of being 100% committed.
Unfortunately, many men start relationships believing that it is possible that they could cheat sometime in the future. However cheating, unlike pitching a no-hitter, is exclusively within the man’s control. Every man who cheats does so because he wants to.
Competing in the realm of commitment is the most important measure in a relationship. Competing to have the most attractive wife is pointless because looks fade and you can always seek a more attractive second wife. Competing for the longest marriage is admirable, but it has nothing to do with how you were as a husband. You can cheat or be physically and verbally abusive and be married 50 years.
It is only competition for commitment that makes men think twice before acting like Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, Kwame Kilpatrick, Mark Sanford, Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. I used the phrase “think twice” because competition for commitment will not eradicate cheating. Ironically, these men are very competitive, but not where it matters most.
Rather, if these and all men set 100% commitment as their goal, they will be less likely to settle for anything less. A one-hitter is a great game, but it is not a no-hitter. Similarly, cheating just once may be forgiveable, but it still falls short of 100%.
I’ve never really been a fan of online dating. I’ve always seen it as a meeting place for people who do not have luck in the “real world.” Proponents of online dating reference the ability to match people based upon interests. Sure enough, online dating is the number three way people meet (behind family/friends and work).
This week the New Yorker had a feature article on dating sites. The article focused at length on the science behind matchmaking and whether all the research actually counts for something. In the end, the algorithms used to predict compatibility are no better than a friend saying “Hey, I know someone I think you would be interested in.”
According to the article, one of the reasons why online dating does not work is because there are too many options. The article states:
If your herd is larger, your top choice is likely to be better, in theory, anyway. This can cause problems. When there is something better out there, you can’t help trying to find it. You fall prey to the tyranny of choice—the idea that people, when faced with too many options, find it harder to make a selection. If you are trying to choose a boyfriend out of a herd of thousands, you may choose none of them. Or you see someone until someone better comes along. The term for this is “trading up.” It can lead you to think that your opportunities are virtually infinite, and therefore to question what you have. It can turn people into products.
I’ve previously written about this topic. but the New Yorker made me think about this in phenomenon in a new light. Of course datin sites and sites which you can use to find dates (i.e. Facebook) present unlimited options for users of the site, but what about people who do not use the site. In other words, does the fact that Match.com and Facebook exist delay dating decisions for people who could, but do not, use the sites?
I would be interested in seeing some research in this area, but I am sure that dating trends are similar for users and nonusers. Before we had the Internet, we knew that there were attractive people outside of our social circle, but it was difficult to connect with them. However, with the Internet, reaching a stranger from another state or even country is as easy as pressing send. While it seems like everyone is on Facebook (they have 700 million members after all), there are still billions of individuals who do not use the site. If they are at least aware of the site, however, they know that there are millions of people on the site. And with that knowledge comes the realization that they have a safety net if things do not work out in “real life.”
Before the Internet, there was no such safety net. Being alone was a legitimate fear. Once you’d seemingly exhausted all the possibilities in your town/city, where else would you go to find an potential mate?
But that’s the dilemma with the Internet – it provides more avenues to meet people so that you will not be alone, but there are too many options which cause people to be alone. The Internet is here to stay. Staying away from online dating sites likely won’t help because you cannot forget that they exist.
I do not have an answer, but if I had to suggest something, I would say to stop looking for perfection. No one is perfect and if you are willing to toss someone away for one flaw, you’ll be maneuvering through the dating pool for life.
Source: New Yorker