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.

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%.

Op-Ed piece I was trying to get published last week:

They say “Boys will be boys.” This statement presupposes that ways of man cannot change. Of course, men can change if we are forced to. Ever watched “Mad Men” and thought “Wow, things have really changed since the 1960s!” Well, you can thank the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and nearly 50 years of accompanying jurisprudence for that.

The problem is, however, government only has limited jurisdiction to control the acts of individuals. There are laws against making sexist comments in the workplace, but there is no law against cat calling on the street.

And there is certainly no law prohibiting married men from sexting via SMS or on social-networking sites (unless it’s a government issued phone like former-Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick). In fact, the law is moving in the opposite direction–states are decriminalizing adultery (which is the proper course of action).

Public opinion does not seem to regulate behavior either. There are countless elected officials who have been reelected notwithstanding a sex scandal. Or if he leaves public office, he can always get a show on CNN like Eliot Spitzer.

So that’s the dilemma society is faced with: we have to find a way to change men in areas where they cannot be forced to change.

Because there is essentially nothing to force men into fidelity, men must independently do our part to fight temptation, especially in the digital age. It was relatively difficult to receive a message from your mistress by “snail mail.” Now we can send and receive private messages from an assortment of devices in real-time.

The biggest externality of instantaneous communication is the lack of forethought that goes into a text or tweet. We process information very quickly and have all sent messages without thinking (After all, Twitter is basically an external hard drive for our brains).

Accordingly, it does not surprise me when smart people do extremely stupid things. Fidelity is not about intellect, it is about discipline. Today’s committed man is one who takes steps to remain committed. It is not possible to be a passive monogamist anymore. Men, even those who are not on social-networking sites, are faced with online perils every day.

I fear that we are just seeing the beginning of Adultery 2.0 because the ways of man are not keeping up with the changes in society. As the world becomes more ripe for trouble, men have to resort to more “drastic” measures to prevent oneself from getting in trouble. I placed drastic in quotations because the methods for fighting temptation are not that drastic at all.

Out of all the ways to stay out of trouble, I believe staying away from private communication is the easiest and most effective. That’s part of the reason why I like Twitter so much; if you send a message to someone, ALL of your followers will see it. Although you can send a private direct messages (like Rep. Weiner tried to do), you are still limited to 140 characters.

I am a firm believer that every message that could be written on someone’s Facebook wall or as a public tweet should be. There’s no reason why a guy in a relationship should send “so how was your day?” as a private message or a DM. Further, context is significantly more important in written language. The reader’s impression (i.e. that of the significant other) and not the senders intention is what matters. Moreover, while men may not necessarily make smart decisions in a public forum, we are more likely to consider the consequences of our actions than when acting clandestinely.

Many people challenge my public-communication solution by invoking “privacy” concerns, but to that I say 1) our notions of “privacy” largely began with the cell phone (remember the days of worrying about mom picking up the phone while you were sweet talking?) and 2) the vast majority of “private” conversations we have are not private at all. If something were truly private, you probably would not send it in a text message because you would not know if the intended recipient received it. I also cannot think of any seriously private message that I have received on a social-networking site.

My approach may be “drastic,” but I cannot think of another practical way to change the ways of man. While I realize that I cannot stop all men from cheating, I can at least help people think before sending lewd Twitpics to all their followers

People often think that power and status causes powerful men to cheat.  However, according to Ronald Levant, a psychologist at the University of Akron, “Power is a facilitator [and] it provides opportunities to men with certain appetites but seldom changes personality in any fundamental way.”

This research is in line with common sense.  As stated by the article:

arrogance generally precedes power, not the other way around. For all their professed suspicion of autocrats, people tend to cede authority precisely to those individuals who want it most. Studies of group behavior suggest that the overconfident, outspoken individuals are the ones who tend to become the leaders. And the experience of being at the top only reinforces the person’s sense of control and self-centeredness

We are shocked when powerful men cheat, but we often forget that men who desire to be at the top are often driven by selfish desires.  This, of course, is not to say that all people at the top are self-centered.  Certainly, there are morally upright people who become politicians and CEOs and retain their sense of ethics.  The key is identifying these individuals before we bestow ge responsibilities upon them.  This is difficult, as everyone put their best foot forward when they seek a promotion.

Related articles

• A Sexist Pig Myth (nytimes.com)

Size 12? Who Cares?

Somewhere down the line, women were told that they shouldn’t tell their people their weight. Listen up women (and listen up good). Men do not care about your how much you weigh.  We don’t care about your dress size.  All we care about is whether you actually look good.

I stumbled across an article today that had the “true” weights of today’s A-List celebrities.  Needless to say, I couldn’t help but laugh at how ridiculous their self-reported weights were.  According the the site, the weights are:

Katy Perry 5’8 and 130 pounds

Kim Kardashian 5’2 and a ½ and 117 pounds

Sofia Vergara 5’7 and 125 pounds

Kourtney Kardashian 5 foot and 95 pounds

Mila Kunis 5’2 and 95 pounds

Oprah Winfrey 5’6 ranging between 160-237 pounds

Of that list, I’m willing to say that only Mila and Oprah are correct.  Given her height and curves, there’s no way Sofia Vergara is only 125.  She very well may not even be 145 pounds.

But who cares? Whether she’s 125 or 145 or 200 pounds, millions of men still think she’s hot.  And that’s all that matters.  Guys don’t get caught up with all those figures like women.  If you want to lose weight because you want to be smaller, then, by all means, knock yourself out.  However, if you want to lose weight to achieve some magic number, then you’re being dumb.

There is no magic number.  Christina Hendricks is a size 12, but millions of men worldwide don’t seem to care because it works for her.  This doesn’t mean that a guy would date any woman that’s a size 12 because he’d date Hendricks.

In the end, guys just care about your figure, not your figures (bra size, dress size, weight, etc.).  If you look hot at 140 pounds (ahem Sofia), a guy is not going to find you more attractive if you represent that you’re only 125 pounds.

So the moral of the story is, focus on actually looking good (exercising, maintaining a healthy diet) and not looking good on paper (bragging to your friends that you “squeezed” into an old dress).

Now if men could only get women to stop asking if you look fat…

I am typing this post on my 32 gig iPhone 3GS. I have over 5,000 songs on my phone. If that’s not enough, I can listen to music apps like Pandora.

With that being said, it should be east to find something to listen to, right? Wrong. I usually jump from one song to another after a few seconds. I have so much selection that I can’t seem to make up my mind.

Don’t get me wrong, I like being able to easily find a song by artist name or album with a voice command. But as a huge music fan, I’ve realized that I’ve increasingly been dissatisfied with my recent album selections.

Maybe it’s because the quality of music has deteriorated, but I only purchase albums from artists that I especially like. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the only CD I’ve really liked this year was the one I have a physical copy of.

I usually buy albums on iTunes, but because my computer died months ago an Amazon had the new Kanye West album for $4, I bought it on my girlfriend’s computer and burned it to a disc.

I found myself actually listening to the album because if I wanted to hear something else I’d have to plug up my phone.

And even before we stored music digitally, we had hard copies of music. Sifting through a CD case is dangerous when you’re driving, so we at least listened to the same CD when the car was in motion.

If you think about it, the problem with too much music selection is also a problem with dating. There are too many ways to meet people and too many people to meet. The result? We don’t create meaningful relationships because we lack focus.

Facebook is great if you’re looking for a hookup, but not if you want more. You see, if you want to fall in love with something – be it an album or a person – you’ve got to give it your attention and not worry about what you’re missing out on.

I, for one, would rather have one person that makes me happy for life than thousands of women that I enjoy for a very brief time and then shuffle to the next one.

There are plenty of songs (and women) out there, but very few classics.

A “honey trap” is when a government uses a woman to lure someone with top secret information. It’s basically like all the James Bond movies. Assange turned himself in after Swedish authorities said he was wanted after two alleged incidents of rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion. Slate has a good article on historical instances of men and women falling victim to a honey trap dating all the way back to Samson and Delilah.

A Your Tango article poses this question and I think it’s a good one. One of the reasons I am for monogamy is because it reflects equality in a relationship. Infidelity is a remnant of a society where men were superior and treated women as second-class citizens. Like domestic abuse, men that cheat often intentionally hurt their significant other and do not care about the pain they inflict.

I just read the State of our Unions Report by the National Marriage Project.  It’s 108 pages, but there’s not much text; it’s mostly charts.  I strongly recommend that you read it.  The following are things I found the most interesting.

1. The percentage of children born out of wedlock to college educated White women stayed at 2% from 1982 to 2008.  The number rose from 5% to 26% for Black women during this time period.  (C’mon educated Black people!)

2. Across the entire population, the marriage rate went from 73.5% in the early-1960s to 36% in the late-2000s.  The marriage rate decreased for both Blacks and Whites (they only races they reported).

3. Although people are getting married at lower rates, men are more likely to marry than women.

4. If you make more than $50,000, you have a 30% decrease in risk of divorce; college graduate 25%; wait at least seven months after marriage to have a child 24%; marry after 25 24%; come from an intact family (parents still married) 14%; and have a religious affiliation 14%

5. Where there has been a decline of Black men without college degrees living with their daughter’s mother, there has been an increase in Black men with college degrees living as a family.

The overall takeaway from the study is that GRADUATING from college leads to a better life.

I’m glad to see college educated men taking responsibility for their families, but it shouldn’t stop there.

Source: National Marriage Project

As I watched the Heat/Cavs game and the deep-seated hatred Cleveland has for Lebron James, I couldn’t help but think of a bitter ex.

The signs are all the same. Love. Then a breakup that you didn’t want. Then the other person moves on to someone better looking. Then the sophomoric antics by the jilted party (i.e. writing how much they hate you in a blog or on their Facebook blog.

Cleveland would have felt good about themselves if they would have won tonight. But they lost…badly. Now the fans really look crazy because they have nothing to show for it.

In a perfect world, Cleveland and bitter exes would always receive the vindication they seek. But that’s a perfect world. In real life, men leave their wives for younger, more attractive women and live happily ever after.

Finding happiness in someone else’s pain is only a temporary solution, however. If a jilted lover or Cavs fan truly wars to move on, they must first love themselves (or their team).

It was obvious that many people in that crowd were not Cavs fan, but rather Lebron fans. Lebron is not the team though. A true Cavs fan would love the team with or without him. And they’ll have the f*** it attitude and know that they will be fine without him.

Once you learn to love yourself or your team, you can then learn to love someone new. You may not even find someone better than your past love, but you won’t know until you try to let someone else into your heart.

And that’s all you can do.

Source: CBS Sports