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 remember the transitive property from your math class know that if A=B and B=C, then A=C.

That’s kinda what we’ve got here. We know that MyMarriageMatters.org equals MyMarriageMatters@gmail.com and AshleyMadison equals MyMarriageMatters@gmail.com. Therefore, we can safely conclude that MyMarriageMatters.org = AshleyMadison.

Oh yeah, here’s a copy of the letter from Ryan Hill threatening to sue me. Ironically, his repetitive denials of affiliation with the e-mail account is what caught him in a lie. Thanks Ryan.

So if Ryan didn’t email me (even though the same address was listed on his site), then who did? How about we take a look at what I like to call the Don’t Mess With Jarrod Post. There’s absolutely no reason why Trashy Madison would post a comment conforming prior email correspondence on my blog as Ryan Hill unless they were somehow involved with him.

What does Trashy Madison stand to gain by running a fake anti-Ashley Madison campaign? A lot actually. It’s called expanded advertising. MMM managed to get ad time during the NBA Playoffs. Trashy Madison probably wouldn’t be so fortunate. And if you look at the commercial, you’ll see a little too much Trashy Madison for an anti site.

Let’s not forget that people (divorce attorneys) don’t spend thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of dollars for you to go to their site and sign a petition. When you go national with your causes, it means that you have a way that people can get actively involved and your organization has been around for more than about two months.

I’ve surfed the web and there’s so many people that called BS upon seeing the MMM commercial. It really didn’t even seem right. I’ve had the privilege of covering this story first hand and there’s other inconsistencies that I will keep to myself since it will be my word v. Ryan.

I honestly believed Ryan when he told me that he didn’t send those emails. However, after it was brought to my attention that Ryan used the same email address on his Facebook badge, I knew he was lying. I knew that he told me he wasn’t connected with the address on the phone, but I had no hard evidence. Then I stumbled back across Ryan’s letter…

I don’t want to hear any crazy theories (well what if a third party hacked into the accounts of both MMM and Trashy Madison?) because I think it’s a relatively simple issue here.

Oh yeah and if you’re still not convinced: tell me who would self fund a national anti-Ashley Madison campaign when your law firm’s site looks like this. By the way according to the letter and his voicemail, he’s the Law Offices of Ryan Hill or Ryan E. Hill, P.L.L.C.

But wait there’s more. Ryan said that he operates a “mid-sized” law firm, but there’s only three people shown on the front page. In fact, there’s not even one attorney named on the site. No attorney profiles or anything. If you search for “Can-Am Legal Services” he seems to be the only one associated with the firm. And if he’s a divorce attorney, then tell me what you see when you click on the areas of practice page.

Let’s not forget that the MyMarriageMatters.org is registered under Domains by Proxy, Inc., a company that specializes in concealing the identity of website registrants.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

And if you’re still not convinced, here’s a cached version of his site with the e-mail address mymarriagematters@gmail.com listed on the Contact Us page. “Someone” later replaced this address with ryan@mymarriagematters.org.

Wow this is huge.  I was actually checking Lamebook when I heard about this page.  In less than 2 months, 1 MILLION people on Facebook have publicly affirmed that they will never cheat in a relationship.  Monogamy is something that you have to speak into existence.  If you go into a relationship thinking that “you don’t hope to cheat” or “you probably won’t cheat,” you’ve already conceded defeat.

Be sure to become a fan of this page (I still say fan because it doesn’t make since to say become a “like” of the page).

Man I love the people in the U.K., they don’t play when it comes to shutting down Illicit Encounters.  They managed to remove billboards with a Facebook group…in less than a week a couple of months ago.  People in the U.S. need to get on the bandwagon.  After seeing that the ad above would be plastered on buses, Ratcliffe Fernley Media decided to pull the plug (and to think, no one gets offended when Ashley Trashy Madison plasters an entire building with a woman about to perform oral sex in the middle of Times Square).

The CEO of the company said that he was shocked that the advertising company backed out of the deal.  For some strange reason, I’m not buying this (or at least I don’t care).

And for those people that want to make a Freedom of Speech argument, let’s not forget that there’s PLENTY of things we ban from advertising in the U.S.: Joe Camel, overtly sexual advertisements, erotic services, etc…

Source: International Business Times

This article is FULL of links to good sources.  I wish I had the time to read them all.  But here’s what’s most important.

Against Porn

• Ruins Relationships
• Deadens Our Erotic Senses
• Akin to Adultery
• Sexist, Exploitative

Against Those Against Porn

• Akin to Adultery? Give me a Break
• Porn May Actually Make Society Better

Source: The Atlantic

Take That

Meet Mark Anthony Patrick Owen, an English songwriter-singer of the pop group Take That.  Owen and his wife Emma got married last October, but has two kids together age 3 and 1.  It seems as though Owen had his fair share of women since he started dating Emma.

Owen has confessed to 10 1-night stands and a five year affair since they’ve been together.  Unlike other professional cheaters, like Tiger Woods, that have tried to blame their shortcomings on their status, Owen has admitted his fault (he said he was drunk and looking for it).

I don’t know how much of this cheating carried on into their marriage, but this is I advocate fidelity from day one in the relationship.  Dating is about preparing yourself for marriage.  If you do anything long enough, you’ll be a master at it, including monogamy.

The article asks whether Emma should stay with him.  You already know my answer to that question.  Moreover, if someone can be completely faithful after they get caught, why couldn’t they do it before?

Source: Mirror (UK)

Sue Johnson, Director of the Ottawa Couple and Family Institute, wrote a piece today in the Psychology Today that makes some great points in defense of monogamy.  Rather than just copy and paste it, I think you should just read it here. (okay I’ll cheat and give you a little taste).

A more basic argument against monogamy is the theory that affairs are, in fact, inevitable precisely because sex is the most powerful instinct of all. Men in particular, as this theory goes, are sex addicts at heart. Given any opportunity at all, they are wired by evolution to pass on as many of theirgenes as possible and so achieve a kind of immortality. Oh please! This is a long way from more mundane motivations whispered in the pick up lines that I can remember. Having worked with and researched distressed couples for 30 years, I am more convinced by the view that most affairs are the result either of unbearable loneliness that happens when we don’t know how to make love work, or of preemptive attempts to grab at a loving monogamous bond when the one we are in seems to be dying and taking us with it.

I’ve always said that you’ve got to be dumb to cheat.  Cheating doesn’t make sense from a cost/benefit analysis standpoint.  Well now, I’ve got science on my side.

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Political Science found that intelligent mere were more likely to place an emphasis on monogamy and sexual exclusivity.  Dr. Kanazawa says that it is a form of higher evolution.  The same pattern was not found amongst women.

Source: Telegraph

Monogamy: The American Way

Noel Biderman of Trashy Madison claims that the increase of his website indicates that adultery is becoming an accepted part of this country like apple pie or baseball.  Well here’s an article about monogamous animals.  While humans can try to pin monogamy on religion or some type or the government, you can’t argue against animals being monogamous.  Moreover, the bald eagle is one of the monogamous animals in the kingdom.  Could anything be more American than that?

Source: Huffington Post