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

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 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.

Yesterday, Sen. Saxby Chambliss from the Great state of Georgia said that alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art” would result if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed.  All I can say is wow.  Saxby, do you not realize that gay men already service in the armed services?

Moreover, are you aware that people in the military also have alcohol problems, body art, and cheat on their wives.  TODAY, a U.S. sargeant stationed in Germany was charged with raping a junior soldier (a female I may add).  Sgt. Garry Tull is also married (so there goes your adultery argument).  Also, let’s not act like HETEROSEXUAL abuse has existed in the armed services for quite some time.

Reversing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would only allow gay men to openly serve in the military (again gay individuals already proudly serve this country). Any notion of gays deterring people from joining the military–>leading to a deficit in recruits–>reintroduction of the draft is simply silly. If anything, it will encourage more people to join the armed services.

Check out the following video for a depiction of debacle.

Source: Stripes

I saw this headline a few days ago and didn’t think about reading it because I didn’t think that there was much of a story here.  I just read the story over lunch (thanks Instapaper!) and I must say that there are some really stupid people in this world.

Basically a Chinese woman decided to undergo plastic surgery to get her man back.  According to the article,

The woman, who works for a web firm, described to the [Shanghai Daily] how her Alba-obsessed 28-year-old ex-boyfriend hung photos of the actress on his walls and stored her image on his mobile phone.

The man demanded Xiaoqing do her make-up as Alba does, even when she slept, and gave her a blonde wig for Christmas, which he asked her to wear all the time.

She told the newspaper they broke up last month when she threw her wig and fake eyelashes to the ground after people laughed at her.

I’m glad that she left that psycho, but of course, there’s more…

But afterwards, she said she reconsidered.

“I love him very much…. that’s why I always followed his opinions. I don’t want to lose him,” the newspaper quoted her as saying.

And that’s why she got plastic surgery to look like Jessica Alba.  I don’t know what this woman looks, like but it doesn’t take much to look like Jessica Alba.  All of these celebrities are just a bunch of smoke and mirrors anyway.

Fortunately, the doctor is performing the surgery for free.  Nevertheless, this woman is pathetic (she claims that she is a psychologically weak person) and this guy is a weirdo. Maybe they really are made for each other.  Smh.

Source: Fox News

The AJC ran an article today about how the lobbyist aren’t sending young, attractive women to the Gold Dome this year in light of Glenn Richardson’s tryst with a lobbyist.  Every is apparently shook over forthcoming ethics reform litigation.

While I am glad that companies are doing something about the problem, I must ask “Is this really supposed to stop men from stepping out on their wives?” Let’s blame it on the women instead of the addressing the real issue: men not knowing to keep their hands to themselves.

If you really want to solve this problem, you have to instill in men that women that aren’t your significant other are off limits.  Law firms shouldn’t have to worry about hiring a young, attractive association for fear that it may disrupt the firm.

This is just a Band-Aid to fix the real problem. The article predicts that “babe alley” (yes, that’s actually what it is called) will return once the heat is off.  And then what? We’re going to end back at square one.

I swear it’s something new everyday: People cheat because it’s a new year or people cheat because they acquire money or status.  Well today I read something about how men are more likely to cheat when they are unemployed?  Does this make any sense? Which is it: Is Tiger Woods or the guy who got laid off from the Ford factory?

The truth of the matter is that men cheat for a variety of reasons: Arrogance, unhappiness at home, opportunity, etc.  You can’t tie it to one thing. Statistics often confuse correlation with causation.

Source