I posted a tweet a few days ago about a new study which found that young couples today don’t agree on whether they are in a monogamous relationship.  The researchers at Oregon State University found that amongst couples 18-25, 40% had one person that claimed to be in a monogamous relationship and the other had no idea what they were talking about.  The researchers also found 30% of couples committed infidelity.

I felt as though this article needed to be discussed at length, so I wrote this post to clarify some things and provide my insight into it.

1. I’m not sure what the researchers meant by “couples.” Are they talking about couples that are just “cut buddies” (i.e. No Strings Attached) or a couple that holds themselves out to be boyfriend and girlfriend.  The perception/reality dichotomy is the oldest problem in relationship.  Guy takes woman on numerous dates.  Guy has physical relationship with said woman.  Woman thinks they are together.  Guy says “I’ve never told you that you were my woman.”

I find it HARD to believe that 40% of people in an established, “Facebook official” relationship are going to look the other person in the face and say “You never told me that we’re in a monogamous relationship.”

2. 18-25 year olds? I didn’t enter into my first (and only) monogamous relationship until age 24. People in college are just learning about their sexuality.  I am a firm believer that it’s a BAD idea to be in a monogamous relationship in college.  I’d have to give considerable thought to come up with a list of guys that I knew to be 100% faithful in college.

3. If the study is talking about a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, it only means that couples should make explicit something that has been presumed when you enter into a relationship: this is a monogamous relationship.

Again, I question the research here because if what the researchers are suggesting is that there is no monogamous presumption, they implicitly imply that there is a nonmonogamous (polyamorous) presumption.  And I don’t know of ANY guy that assumes his girlfriend is permitted to sleep with other men until they have a conversation that they are monogamous.

Source: USA Today

There is a silent killer in relationships.  It’s not Facebook per se.  And infidelity is a natural result of it.  That silent killer is having too many choices.

One of the basic principles of economics is the concept of diminishing marginal utility.  In other words, the more you have of something, the happier it makes you.  However, there comes a point when having more will make you less happy.  The every Econ Prof. loves the example of the chocolate chip cookie.  Give me one cookie and I’m happy.  Give me two cookies and I’m even happier.  However, there comes a point when I will get a stomach ache if I eat another one.

Men today face the largest pool of women in the history of mankind.  We can find eligible women everywhere: in our hometowns, at college, at work, online, etc.  There is such thing as having too large of a dating pool.

1. When men have too many choices, they DELAY decisions.  This explains why people are getting married later and later.  I posted earlier about how there are now more unmarried people between 25-34 than married.  And guess what, that range is only going to expand because the chances of a woman getting married after 35 significantly decrease.

2. When men have too many choices, they DON’T MAKE decisions.  The article from #1 explains reports there is a higher number of unmarried people in larger cities.  It’s hard to settle down if there are an abundance of 10s.  I read a book on the sex ratio a couple of years ago and it explained that when there is a higher percentage of women to men, men are less likely to commit (i.e. UGA).  However, when there is a shortage of women, men are more likely to take women off of the market (i.e. GA Tech).

3. When men have too many choices, they MAKE SHALLOW decisions.  Because it is more difficult to process information when we have too many choices, we make cognitive shortcuts.  In the case of dating, we select women based on physical characteristics because we do not have the time to invest in getting to know the person (just think about how you decide to approach a woman on Facebook).

4. When men have too many choices, they GET to PLAY MORE.  This is closely related to #2.  The same book on the sex ratio stresses how women are more likely to engage in nonexclusive relationships when the sex ratio is not in their favor.  In other words, women at schools like UGA with a ratio in favor of men are more likely to take what they can get (i.e. drunken hookups).  However, when women are in demand, women do not have to work as hard to get the attention of men.  If you want to see this phenomenon in action, look no further to Facebook.  Single women know that they are “competing” with millions (roughly 250) of other women and consequently post sexually provocative pictures of themselves to gain the attention of potential suitors.

5. When men have too many choices, they MORE LIKELY to cheat.  I’m too lazy to find an article on point for this proposition, but I think it’s relatively intuitive.  It goes directly to #4.  If there is a shortage of eligible men, women are more likely to get involved with a man in a relationship.  Also, when there is a larger dating pool, it’s easier to cheat and not get caught.

So what do we do? Cities are only getting bigger. Facebook is here to stay.  Women are continuing to outperform men in the classroom.  It’s clear that men are going to have a plethora of choices from here on out.

That’s why I created this site.  Gone are the days when men when men got married because they only had a few women to choose from.  Men must now actively desire to commit/be faithful notwithstanding the social factors making it harder to do so.

Picture Source (I have Flava Flav & VH1, but it’s the best picture I could find)

Not to toot my own horn, but like I said earlier, men are into intelligent women.  I still don’t understand the position that men clearly would prefer a receptionist on her fourth job in three years to an attorney at a “BigLaw” firm espoused by The Legal Tease.

According to the Pew Research Center, the marriages rates for female college grads will soon surpass women that did not attend college.  More specifically, “Among 35-to-39 year-olds, four-fifths of college-educated adults have married but only three-quarters of less educated adults have married.”

You can read the full article at Psychology Today.

One of my law school friends wrote a blog post today challenging the notion that men aren’t into intelligent women.  In fact, she argued that men are into intelligent women.  I agree wholeheartly with her.

The woman pictured above is Chantal Raymond.  She is Miss Jamaica World 2010.  Oh yeah, she’s a Harvard Law graduate. 

For some strange reason, I don’t think that last piece of information tarnished your perception of her.  If anything, it only makes her more appealing.

You see, first and foremost men are looking for a hot wife/girlfriend.  When we look at a woman walking down the street, we don’t know anything about her.  All we see is her appearance – that’s the floor from which a woman can’t fall below.  Anything else that she has to offer is a plus.

People mistakenly think that women can have a negative strike against them.  That’s a load of crap.  I am a firm believer that every man wants to marry a woman that is a supermodel (a.k.a. hot) with a Ph.D. (intelligent) that’s a virgin (wholesome) (in that order).

You wonder why men marry hot women that are bimbos or golddiggers?  Because they are still hot women at a minimum.  No one seems to care what Kobe’s wife did before she met him.  You can say what you want her, but I’m willing to bet that 95% of men would be fine dating a golddigger that looks like Vanessa.  And you can talk all the trash you want about Karrine Stefans, a.k.a. Superhead, but again, most guys could only dream of dating someone like her (although I don’t think she’s all that).

But in the end, what men, especially intelligent men, want is powerful, intelligent woman.  According to Dr. Chris Blazina, author of The Secret Lives of Men:

This generation of men has grown up seeing women in positions of power — female doctors, lawyers, even presidential candidates — so they’re not put off by a driven, confident woman. In fact, they’re turned on by those qualities

Why you may ask? According to Dr. David Wexler, it keeps men on their toes because they have someone to disagree with.  Wexler believes that men get bored when they’re with a woman that doesn’t challenge them. 

Intelligent women are here to stay.  Last year marked the first time that more women received Ph.Ds than men.  To this day, hot women tend to gravitate toward modeling and the media.  However, as woman continue to make strides in education and professionalism, there’ll be a larger selection of hot women in a wider array of graduate programs.

I’ve been in law school and I saw how guys fought over the few hot girls there.  If a guy decided to date an undergrad, as I did, it was because she was hot, not because we wanted to date someone that wasn’t pursuing an advanced degree.

There will come a day, when you’ll run into a hot woman that happens to be a doctor or a lawyer.  If you turn her down, it only indicates that you’re not that attracted to her in the first place because if you were, you’d get over it…and quickly.

Source: Cosmo, Above the Law. Washington Post

We’ve all heard the story before: Woman is discriminated against for being too hot. What starts out as a case of compassion, ends up as a license to eye hump some formerly unknown Latina. That’s the story behind Debrahlee Lorenzana and Inés Sainz.

The story of Sainz was supposed to be about a NY Jets reporter that had some footballs thrown at her during practice. If she wasn’t attractive, the article would not have gained national attention. The real story soon became her butt. Similarly, the chase was on after Lorenzana alleges that she was fired from Citibank for being too hot (although she got breast implants to look like a Playmate).

In the case of Lorenzana, looking up pics were at least related to her claim that she’s hot, but how do you explain Sainz?  When I first heard about Sainz on ESPN, all they showed was a side headshot of her.  It never crossed my mind to search for more pictures of her because that wasn’t what the story was about.

We normalize eye humping (and otherwise sketchy behavior), but should we? I don’t want my girlfriend looking at pics of guys all day and she wouldn’t want me checking out other women. And yet that’s precisely what we do on Facebook or when a story like Sainz comes along.

I know most guys won’t agree with me, but I felt like a pervert when I looked at the Buzzfeed article with 10 different shots of Sainz’ butt.

I don’t live vicariously through other people. I have a smoking hot girlfriend; I don’t need to eye hump some female that I’ll never meet or go to a strip club (unless I’m forced to go for a bachelor party)

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with finding other women attractive. There is a problem when you are wishing your significant other looked like her. Absolutely NOTHING good comes out of you comparing your significant other to another woman.

I believe that it all comes down to equality in a relationship. So the next time a viral eye-humping opportunity arises, put yourself in your significant other’s shoes.

Barnes (L) and Thompson (Right)

We all know that prostitution is the world’s oldest profession.  I”m sure that stripping isn’t that far behind it.  We also know that call girls and strippers make really good money.

What’s new, however, is the mass appeal of being a hoe.  Karrine Steffans, also known as Superhead, has written three books, one of which is a New York Times Bestseller.  Some of the biggest celebrities today got their start from ”accidentally” releasing sextapes, such as Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton.  The promise of fame and fortune from being a hoe even led to Laurence Fishbourne’s daughter to pornography (she said she was inspired by Kim K).  Moreover, every VH1 dating show casts women as money hungry bimbos that will do anything for 15 minutes of fame.

I guess this phenomenon really hit me when I read the story behind UK soccer player Wayne Rooney’s affair with Miss Jennifer Thompson.  Thompson and her best friend Amy Leigh Barnes went to Catholic school together, but decided early on that they wanted to be famous by sleeping with professional athletes.  Barnes eventually started dating soccer coach Ricardo Morrison after the two met on Facebook.  Morrison became violent once Barnes tried to leave her and he was eventually convicted of killing her.  Thompson is a 1,200 pound/night call girl.  She began receiving money for sex from professional soccer players while she was in high school.

One often wanders how stories like this happen.  But if you think about it, it’s not that hard to imagine.  There are very few aspiring role models for young women in the media.  There are media personalities (Tyra/Ellen), political figures (Michelle Obamas/Sarah Palin), but that’s about it.  BET gives out shows to rappers’ baby mamas.  VH1 gives out shows to women that are comfortable with three-way kisses.  And if you’ve slept with enough celebrities, you’ll have people knocking down on your door to write a book.  So what do we tell our daughters?  You can make go to school until you’re in your late 20s to be a doctor or you can get a 10-year head start and be a call girl?

Few people realize that the fast lifestyle is just that…fast.  One weeks hot women is the next week’s old news.  Women make much money money as doctors in lawyers in their 30s and beyond than video vixens, strippers, and prostitutes.

Just look at the relative popularity of Kim Kardashian (blue) and Paris Hilton (orange)

Kim v. Paris

This chart displays a couple of things.  First, it shows how short-lived Paris’s reign as heiress really was.  Second, it conveys that even though the Kardashians are seemingly ubiquituous, Kim K doesn’t even come close to where Paris Hilton was a few years ago.  The problem is that despite the fact that Kim K isn’t as big of a deal as she appears to be, she is still way more popular than the First Lady (orange).

Kim v. First Lady

 So if we don’t want our daughters to want to be Kim K, what needs to happen?  I think it’s relatively simple, don’t make being a hoe seem so profitable.  If you’re a man, you can stop employing the services of a hooker.  If you’re a woman, you can stop picking up those supermarket magazines with Kim K on the cover every week.  Everyone can stop watching their show(s).  Most importantly, you can be a living example of how to lady (as a man) or how to be a lady (as a woman).

Source: Daily Mail (UK)

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

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!

Prof. Bradford Wilcox at the University of Virginia has proposed that the federal government spend funds to promote marriage as a social institution.  According to the article

“We need to appreciate that marriage is more than an emotional connection between two people,” Wilcox said. “There are kids; it’s a kind of economic cooperation, a form of social insurance.”

Wilcox says churches, the entertainment industry and other cultural institutions would have to embrace this view of marriage, not just the government. He proposes federal funding for public-service announcements and other social marketing to promote marriage, modeled on anti-smoking campaigns.

And to discourage divorce, he says, states should change marriage laws so spouses who are being divorced against their will and have not engaged in abuse or adultery would be given preferential treatment by family courts in determining alimony, child support and custody of children.

I don’t have a problem with this concept as a whole, but I think the approach needs to change.  Federal campaigns focus on what you don’t need to do: Drink and Drive, Use meth, Harm your spouse, Smoke cigarettes, etc. Rather than a pro-marriage campaign, it should probably be an anti-divorce campaign or an anti-infidelity campaign.  Thoughts?

Source: Washington Post