The Answer to Our Problems

You all know that I am extremely skeptical about “science” in the area of commitment and fidelity because I believe that it is a social construct. Nevertheless, people continue to come up with ridiculous theories on why people cheat.

I’m a firm believer that if you are going to study why people don’t cheat, you should exam people that don’t cheat. This study got it only 1/2 right.

An Oklahoma State University research has been given $349,175 to study the pair bonds of the prairie vole – one of the few monogamous mammals. According to the article

[Dr. Alex] Ophir plans a series of studies to examine how hormones in the brain regulate social affiliation, parental care, territorial behavior, and memory.

“For instance, we will specifically investigate the control of a particular hormone, vasopressin, in brain areas known to influence pairbonding, and ask how the brain functions to maintain monogamous bonds, and promote child care from fathers. We will also ask what influence paternal care has on offspring brain and behavior development,” said Ophir.

Maybe it’s me, but I don’t think that a rodent can help explain why humans cheat. Rodents don’t have Internet websites that cater to cheating (nor do they have Facebook). Rodents don’t have mores (to my knowledge) that influence the decision to cheat or not.

I’m not the biggest fan of quoting comments of people on the Internet, but I think I’ll make an exception here. Here’s the sole comment in response to the article.

Excuse me, but a vole isn’t a human and to fund such research instead of funding research that involves human health and development, while claiming that is what you are trying to fund seems that someone had to dump a bunch of money and had no better ideas.

We have millions of people that are suffering from disorders that need funding and they are looking into voles and “pair bonding.” How about we take that money and fund why Johnny is not learning like the rest of his class or the reasons why people spend their hard earned money on idiotic studies instead of helping those that need help very badly

Source: NewsOn6

The great thing about Google Reader is that it’s extremely easy to search old articles from your feed.  I found this article while searching Psychology Today articles with the word “polyamory” mentioned.  I really just want to copy and paste the entire article because it’s on point, but out of respect, I’m only going to direct you to the source.  Enjoy.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the definitions of monogamy and fidelity.  In a recent Psychology Today article, Dr. David Ley poses the question, “What is fidelity, anyway?”  The article questions why we choose to define monogamy the way we do.  Ley begins the article with a discussion of  author Helen Fisher who believes that monogamy only states a marriage to one person.  She thinks that the requirement of fidelity is something that is not technically required.  Ley also notes that the French have lower rates of infidelity because they define it differently.

I don’t think any of this makes sense.  Let’s start with the definition monogamy.  Dictionary.com has three definitions 1) Marriage to one person at a time 2) The practice of only having one mate and 3) The practice of marrying only once during life.

Fisher and I both likely think that the third definition can be ruled out.  It’s absurd to say that you can’t be monogamous if got remarried after your first husband beat you or cheated on you.  Monogamy is about commitment to that individual.

Now let’s look at the first definition, which would be Fisher’s definition.  This definition is wrong for a couple of reasons.  First, taken literally, monogamy does not require marriage.  You can be in a monogamous dating relationship.  Also remember that homosexuals cannot get married in the vast majority of states.  Nevertheless, they can be in monogamous relationships too.  In fact, if you look at the definition from Psychology Today, you’d see that it has nothing to do with a white gown and rings:

Marriage is the process by which two people who love each other make their relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the joining of two people in a bond that putatively lasts until death, but in practice is increasingly cut short by divorce

Obviously going to the courthouse will make your relationships “official,” but what about an unmarried couple that purchases a home together?  I’d argue that being locked into a 30-year marriage is official.  Let’s not forget that a few states still recognize common law marriages too.

HOWEVER, the real reason why the definition is flawed is because it only requires marriage; not fidelity  is required.  That doesn’t make sense from a practically.  You mean to tell me that if Tiger and Elin would have remained married until they were both dead, he would have been monogamous?  That’s ridiculous.  It’s also ridiculous to say that you are in a monogamous relationship if you are a swinger couple or have an open relationship.  That’s called polyamory and there’s a reason why it’s given it’s own word.

We all know that MONO means one.  It’s really simple actually; monogamy is a relationship with one other person.  That’s it.  It doesn’t have to be a long-term relationship.  If you only have one mate, you are monogamous.  If that one mate only has you as a mate, then you are in a monogamous relationship.

And that’s why #2 is the correct definition and I’m right.

Source: Psychology Today

If you look around in the media today, you’ll notice a disproportionate amount of women that are … well … Trashy. I am a firm believer that men are really looking for a woman that is wholesome, beautiful, and intelligent. But if you look at the women that are seemingly omnipresent like Kim Kardashian, they only seem to have looks going for them.

Andre 3000 said that one day we’re going to have to go to a museum to see a lady. While this is a slight overstatement, it is not that far from the truth. Society has gotten to the point where we thinks looks and class are mutually exclusive. And they are far from it.

I’ve been around enough professional men to know the importance of marrying a LADY. A lady is a woman that you can take to a black-tie affair event. A lady is a woman that knows that simple never goes out of style. A lady is a woman that is supportive and stands by her man at his lowest points. A lady is a woman that realizes that it’s okay to be a freak, but only BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

I’m fortunate enough to have found a lady that is beautiful, intelligent, and extremely wholesome. I know I’ll never find a woman like her and consequently, we went ring shopping yesterday. As I sat in the shop, I couldn’t help but think about how expensive things were. I then thought back to a speech that my boss gave the former day about how marrying his wife is the greatest investment he ever made.

And he’s completely right. There are plenty of Kim K’s that out there; women that are beautiful and go from one rich man to the next. But there’s something to be said about a woman that has depth to her. I’m talking about a woman with whom you can talk about politics; a woman that doesn’t need to pose in a magazine to know she’s beautiful; a woman who you’d never have to worry about messing with your friends.

There are plenty of benefits to marrying a woman with class: she can help you get a promotion/elected; she can help keep you grounded (women with class expect their man to be a gentleman at all times); she will be show your daughter how to be a lady and teach your sons how to treat a lady.

So while I may complain about having to put out a couple thousand for an engagement/wedding ring, I know that a lifetime of happiness is a great return on my investment.

*I apologize if this is a few days late, but I tried to get it run as an Op-Ed piece first. No one took me up on my offer

Relationship Status: It’s (Not That) Complicated

There’s been a lot of talking in the news lately. On Monday, Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren formally divorced. Just last week, a new study on why men cheat was released and made national headlines.  According to Christin Munsch, a Ph.D. candidate at Cornell University, men are more likely to cheat when their female partner makes more money than them.  This finding seemingly makes sense as many men may feel emasculated and cheat to regain their manhood.

But if men cheat because they feel powerless, what about the men that cheat because they are powerful, like Tiger?  There’s no secret that celebrities, elected officials, and CEOs are prone to stray because they are constantly travelling and surrounded by women looking for a sugar daddy.

But why stop there?  Let’s not forget that some men cheat because they have an opportunity to date a more attractive woman.  Some men cheat because they lack self control.  Many men cheat because they have more options in the age of the Internet.  Some men, like Gov. Mark Sanford, get married without even taking a vow of fidelity.

Men do not need a reason to cheat, so why waste time trying to find the root cause of it.  Relegating fidelity to a science only leads to ridiculous results.  For instance, according to Dr. Phil, some men cheat because they have the “cheating gene” manifested by a ring finger that’s longer than your index finger.  While people may disagree about whether someone can be born gay, the desire to cheat should be universally understood.  Let’s face it, there are a lot of at women out there.  Monogamy requires a man to turn down every woman for the rest of his life.  Many, dare I say most, men are not up to the challenge.

Thus, I believe, the real inquiry should be into why men do not cheat.  If researchers would focus on why men do not cheat, then sociologists would be able to put together more comprehensive data on monogamous men (i.e. age, viewers of pornography, occupation).  I have read countless studies which attempt to create profiles of male cheaters, but never one on men that are faithful.

Another reason why there should not be studies on why individuals cheat is because monogamy is rooted in contractual, not biological, principles.  All relationships are contracts.  When a man enters into a relationship he expressly or impliedly agrees to be faithful in exchange for faithfulness from the other person.  As a contract, relationships are influenced by external social factors.  A recent study found that people are more likely to get divorced when someone close to them divorces.  The same reasoning applies to cheating

Unfortunately, if you look on television or even in your neighborhoods, you will see men that have failed in their responsibility as a husband and/or father.  It has come to the point where many people have given up on monogamy.

Losing faith in monogamy will only make the problem worse. I often hear women talk about how people make mistakes and how they should give men a second chance. If a man suspects that his significant other would take him back, he’s more likely to take that risk. It’s time for women to stop giving men a separate standard for fidelity. When we enter a relationship each party need to have the attitude that they won’t cheat.  There was a time when we used to expect exclusivity and commitment.  I subsequently added ReExpect.com to my domain name because we need to return to these expectations.

So how do we rethink the way we view infidelity? I believe there’s strength in numbers.  Many men that do not cheat feel persecuted by society because we often measure a man’s masculinity by the number of sexual partners he currently has.  In order for men to be able to be more outspoken about fidelity, we must first foster an environment where it’s cool to be monogamous. Men will think twice about cheating if they are surrounded by men that make them feel bad about it.

The first step is to start looking at the influences of society as a whole instead of the individual.  Some of the greatest romantic films of all time – Casablanca to The Notebook – have infidelity at the root of the story.  Also if we truly want to save monogamy, we must get to root of why men defy culture and choose to be faithful rather than devising scientific theories which seemingly justify infidelity.

I just finished watching a special on the Joy Behar Show that discussed issues of the female figure. The discussion was whether men like skinny women or fuller women. They cited Christina Hendricks as an example that men are looking for curvy women.

I made this exact point in my precious post. I do, however, think that a caveat needs to be provided. Women don’t look like Beyonce and Christina Hendricks unless they work out. And if they do, then that won’t last for too long.

Discussions like the one on the Joy Behar Show are misleading because it implies that men don’t care about women being in shape. Just because Hendricks is a size 12 does not mean that she is not in shape. She makes being a size 12 look damn good. Not everyone can pull that off though. It’s Hendricks’ CURVES that make her sexy, not the fact that she is a size 12. Guys aren’t really looking for a size 12 with no figure at all.

You also don’t have to be a size 12 to have curves. My eyes were glued to the screen when I saw Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow in Iron Man 2. While she is relatively petit, she still has dangerous curves. The same goes for every man’s favorite (fictional) example of the ideal woman: Jessica Rabbit.

So what’s the point in all this? I want women to know that guys aren’t looking for anorexic women. By the same token, I don’t want that to be construed as saying that we do not care about the figure. Just because men are into “curvy” women does not mean we are into all non-skinny women.

Update: I added a photo of Sophia Loren because she’s a classic hottie and to illustrate that the infatuation with curves isn’t new.

I talked in my previous post about issues of weight in the Black community. Given the FIGURE I think it’s time we address this issue.

I believe that the Black community is at a HUGE crossroads.  When my dad was growing up, women were put into two categories: sex symbol (Diana Ross/Pam Grier) and mom.

A great deal, however, has changed since my father’s generation. It’s now more socially acceptable to date outside of the race and today’s Black men have grown up with the expectation that their wives should be sexy. When my dad was growing up, women like Esther Rolle were cast as mothers. Now they have women like Essence Atkins playing mom. Naturally, Black men want to marry (and not just admire as a sex symbol) women that look like Beyonce and someone on the cover of King Magazine or the JET Beauty of the Week.

The problem is that most Black women don’t look like Essence Atkins.  80% of Black women are overweight compared with 58% of White women.  The other problem is that Black women are often told (implicitly or explicitly) that there’s nothing wrong with being overweight.  Just look at the most powerful Black women in the media: Oprah, Mo’Nique, Wendy Williams, Sherri Sheppard, and Tyra Banks.  Tyra is the only one amongst them that is not overweight (despite Wendy Williams’ numerous liposuction surgeries). Now try to think about role models for White women that are overweight.  All I can come up with is Susan Boyle. I also know for a fact that Black women expressly tell their daughters that there’s nothing wrong with being overweight (again because they grew up in a different generation).

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with being a healthy average size.  I’ve never heard of a Black woman being anorexic or bulimic and that’s certainly a good thing.   But with all of the discussion on the broken state of Black relationships, I can’t help but notice that this discussion has been intentionally omitted because it is sensitive and hurts feelings.

I’m not out to hurt feelings, but I do know that silent problems don’t go away.  I’m going to speak for professional Black men when I say that we would like to see Black women take control of their health.  When you go to a non-HBCU for undergrad and law school, you can’t help but notice that you see White women running and/or lifting weights, but not Black women.  I’m not talking to the people that don’t need to go to the gym (some people just have good genes).  All I’m saying is that if you’re having trouble finding a man (even if you are in shape), it doesn’t hurt to go to the gym.  Just look at Jennifer Hudson.

While women on all of those dating shows (The Bachelor, Flavor of Love, Frank the Entertainer, Chad Ochocinco) may have different complexions, they all have one thing in common: the women are all in shape.

Men nowadays want to marry a sex symbol. Looks and the ability to cook, clean, raise kids, etc. are not mutually exclusive, but if a guy has to choose, he’s going to go with looks nearly every time.  Just look at that idiot that married Kendra. Speaking of Family Matters, what about Darius McCrary who married Karrine Steffans aka Superhead?

I love curvy women and in that respect, Black women have one up on the competition.  In fact, seeing a curvy woman has the same impact on a man as doing drugs. BUT in order to look like Beyonce, you’ve got to hit the gym.  Beyonce works out at least 5 times a week.  And I promise you that if she stopped one day, she’d go from a 20 ounce to a 2 liter bottle.  Your curves are a gift, and like all gifts, you either use it or lose it.

*Just check out this timeline of mothers on Black sitcoms and look at the correlation between size and time.

Good Times (1974)

The Jeffersons (1975)

What's Happening!! (1976)

The Cosby Show (1984)

Family Matters (1989)

Fresh Prince (1990)

Fresh Prince (1990)

My Wife and Kids (2001)

Everybody Hates Chris (2005)

Are We There Yet (2010)

It’s not secret that the Boondocks is one of my favorite shows. I think that the show’s satire does a wonderful job of tackling issues in the Black community. If you watch the Boondocks and all you see is coonery, then you obviously aren’t paying attention and don’t understand the show.

In a nutshell: The Boondocks is the story of America told from the perspective of Black men. Every character in the show represents an archetype of Black men in society. Also, the fact that we don’t know anything about Huey and Riley’s father and they are raised by their grandfather is done on purpose.

This episode addresses the dating attitudes in the Black community. Granddad finally meets a woman that is independent, beautiful, and intelligent and still manages to mess things up with her.

Highlights of the Show
1. Illustrates how Black men talk about Black women behind closed doors (i.e. often complain that they don’t work out, but White women do).
2. Illustrates why you shouldn’t stereotype (i.e. not all Black women have kids)
3. Illustrates problems with dating a “dime” (i.e. you need to accept the fact that guys will constantly check her out wherever you are).
4. Illustrates that no man (Black or otherwise) has a preference so strong that they would not date a Black woman (i.e. addresses the conception that there are Black men out there that would never date a Black woman).
5. Illustrates that even though men want the perfect woman, many would still try to find something wrong with her or not be secure enough if he found her.

Moral of the story for Black men: There are plenty of beautiful, independent, loving Black women with no kids out there, but it will not work out until you are emotionally secure first. Truth is many Black men are intimidated by an accomplished woman.

Moral of the story for Black women: We live in a global society. Men (Black or otherwise) don’t really care about race when we make dating decisions. Black men, especially ones with status, want to date women that are slender, irrespective of race. Given the statistics, it’s important to adopt healthy and exercise habits.

Enjoy!

You’ve all heard the story of Debrahlee Lorenzana, the sexy Citibank employee that was allegedly fired for being too hot.  When I first heard about the story, I knew something was sketchy because she was giving herself way too much exposure (i.e. numerous photoshoots).  It comes out that my gut instinct was right.  Just check out this video and this piercing piece from Above the Law exposing her for the attention-seeker she is:

Despite the truth coming out, people have still been posting on her Facebook groups to show support. Let’s give it a rest people.

She’s a prime example of why people need to do research before they form opinions.

I can finally say that I’m done studying for the Bar.  I pray that I never have to do this again.  A LOT has happened since I started studying for the Bar: I’ve exposed Ashley Madison for being behind the MyMarriageMatters.org site, my computer died, I started my first legal job, and Damon Evans of my Alma Mater UGA lost his $600,000 job as Athletic Director for getting caught driving while intoxicated with red panties in his lap.  I’ve still got hundreds of articles that I need to catch up on.

The Manogamy Movement won’t stop; it may change form a little bit.  Until now, I’ve focused more on using my blog to reach people.  I believe that I can do a better job reaching people through interactive media, such as Twitter and Facebook.  As such, I will reserve my blog for MAJOR articles, relationship advice, and other news on the Manogamy Movement.  I’m just going to post everyday articles to Facebook and Twitter.  Remember you can go to facebook.com/manogamy and twitter.com/manogamy.

Also, I’m still looking for someone to assist me with the blog.  I have a few people in mind, so hopefully I’ll have some help soon.  I also have a “top secret” job that restricts what I can stay on this blog, so I’ve got to be more careful with what I say.

It certainly feels good to be back and I thank everyone for their support during the 2.5 roughest months of my life.

Regards,

A. Jarrod Jenkins