Yes, it’s hard to believe, but the leading romance novel publisher is 60 years old this month.
The purveyor of pulp fiction has weathered storms of social upheaval, grown alongside women through empowerment movements, and continually found ways to balance realism, escapism, relevance and desire.
Says a thorough and compelling article on CBC, “Harlequin was an early master of brand identification, and the Harlequin romance is undeniably a commodity. At one point, some series were standardized at 192 pages per title, so they could be efficiently printed, packed, shipped and shelved. The company’s website, which courts writers as well as readers, spells out punishingly exact writers’ guidelines for each sub-genre. These rules specify not just manuscript length but also seemingly subjective matters like the qualities of the hero (”while he may be harsh and direct, he is never physically cruel”) and the heroine (”realistic, capable and as committed to love as she is to her career”). Some even give percentage breakdowns for the novel’s point of view (”60% heroine and 40% hero,” suggests one).
It’s a formula, but then, romantic love is formulaic. After 60 years, Harlequin knows that a kiss is still a kiss; a sigh is just a sigh. The novels have changed in their details, factoring in real-life issues like working mothers, single parents and even condom use. But they’ve kept the fundamental arc of relationships, from attraction to misunderstanding to the requisite happily-ever-after ending. And readers wouldn’t want it any other way”.
The explanation: This story from Ghana News online, describes how a Nigerian couple that migrated to America in search of a better life and a green card.
“First, the man introduces his betrothed wife to his American darling as his sister to pave way for his marriage to the American lady. When the marriage crashed, his wife marries an American to secure the life ticket. So how did it fail? Attempt by a friend to sleep with his pseudo sister (Nigerian wife) foiled the deal. His ‘oyibo wife realized she was a guinea pig and quit the affair.”
The stuff of urban legend, right? Perhaps, although the news article details many more cases which prove the enduring popularity of the green card scam myth.
What is more telling (and more reliable) however, are the official sources who verify these rumors as fact.
ILW.com - a web newsletter for immigration lawyers - recently published its own research on the phenomenon, stating that more than 2.3 million foreign nationals gained lawful permanent resident status by marrying an American between 1998 and 2007. Two notable bullet points:
An overwhelming percentage of all petitions to bring foreign spouses or fiancés to the United States illegally (or to help them adjust visa status if they are already in the United States on non-immigrant visas) are approved — even in cases where the couple may only have met over the Internet, and may not even share a common language.
Marriage to an American is the clearest pathway to citizenship for an illegal alien. A substantial number of illegal aliens ordered removed (many of whom have criminal records) later resurface as marriage-based green card applicants.
And the analysis beyond the anecdotes shows that marriage fraud isn’t new, nor is it going away:
“Although the idea of importing foreign “catalog” spouses dates back to the 18th century, the concept of “mail-order brides” didn’t really take off until after the end of the Cold War and then exploded in popularity after the advent of the Internet, which has done more to facilitate cross-cultural relationships than any other event in human history.”
Cherry Blossoms alone claims to have match-made over 100,000 international couples since its inception in 1974; thousands of other services have got in the game since.
There are cultural biases at play, too, namely that foreign femmes are more likely to feel comfortable in traditional homemaker roles. Enter, GoodWife.com to point out that radical feminazis (their words, not mine) have polluted the potential spouse pool which requires men to look abroad. But there’s more to it, argues the ILW: marriage for money, arranged marriages and harbouring terrorists, also factor prominently in these international relationships.
The authors freely admit “there is no way of knowing what percentage of the 300,000-plus spouses who gain green cards each year through marriage to American citizens or LPRs do so based on a fraudulent relationship, but consular officers interviewed for this Backgrounder offered estimates ranging from 5 to 30 percent.”
While a list of action items for immigration officials concludes the piece, ultimately, opines the writer, ““if the American believes the relationship is real, then it is.”
By now, you’ve probably heard of the flap over the Vermont Country Store: the vaunted, olde-tymey retailer who markets under the “Purveyors of the Practical and Hard-to-Find” is now hawking sex aides in its latest catalog.
But here’s the thing: the dust-up over the Intimate Solutions section is less about bucking the brand’s traditionalist image and more about the fact that they’re reaching out to the blue-rinse crowd:
Explains Orton in a statement to the Associate Press, “we never got any letters saying we want this. This was a sense, because our customers are a certain age and sex is below the surface in the world we deal in. I said ‘Look, let’s see if our customers respond to this.’”
If we assume that seniors, like every other above-consent age group, have a right to good, wholesome, safe and enjoyable sex, wouldn’t the Vermont Country Store be the right brand to help them out? If not, are we comfortable leaving books like the laughable - intentionally or incidentally - “Grandpa Does Grandma” to the task?
Seems to me that satisfying sex for seniors fits perfectly with the “practical & hard-to-find” brand promise.
(Well, specifically Mr. Abraxas, but also to all you other readers of the Newlybed.)
Have a lovely, snuggly, vasopressin-and-oxytocin-induced hazy day out there.
And in case you missed it, Examiner.com published a comprehensive exploration of Valentine traditions around the globe.
Who knew that in Scotland the first young man or woman encountered by chance on the street or elsewhere will become that individual’s Valentine or at both Japan and Taiwan celebrate with two Valentine Days or Belarussians(pictured right) were so into the pageantry of it all?
National Mistress Day is February 13. It’s an unofficial holiday - unlike the observance of Valentine’s Day which, as we all know, seems to be rigidly enforced by powerful chocolate and flower cartels - but one that’s.
Where did it come from, you ask?
Well, the Examiner (via Gothamist via Gourmet Magazine) seems to think that it’s a natural outcrop of overbooked love calendars. While February 14 is taken up by dutiful doting on a spouse, the day before is when highrollers in big cities spend time and money on their other other halves.
Noel Biderman, president of a website which helps married partners cheat, says “It might not be a nationally celebrated day, but it’s at least a day to practice your ‘mistress retention’ skills.” The NY Daily News article he’s quoted in breaks the event into its constituent elements.
So what should you do if you’re married and faithful? Take your spouse out twice! And always always always treat your wife like you would a mistress: consider yourself embroiled in an illicit, hot-like-lava affair, where the conversation crackles, the champagne flows, and the sex sizzles.
Jezebel tipped me on to this Daily Mail article, which introduces some fantastic sex instructional vids just released by the BFI (British Film Institue, darlings). [Note: As always, props means do take the time to read both articles and the always-pithy Jezzie commentators.]
Second, the goods:
Here’s the 1932 flick we’ve been dying to see, “The Mystery of Marriage.” Enjoy!
The University of Washington has undertaken a nice, safe, interfaith project to explore how different religious systems stack up on particular topics.
This week, writers representing Baha’i, Christianity, Judaism, Islam tackled sex.
Common threads? Unity, spiritual growth and sexual chastity until marriage.
The differences? Yours to glean.
Take look at the whole thing here - but be warned: religious profs these writers are not. But while their analysis may flag in places, their insights are borne of personal experience and make for a revealing read. [And prep yourself for a lot of vertical scrolling.]
In case you missed it, the New York Times featured a doubly-lovely lovey-dovey photo spread called “In the Bedrooms” - an art book produced by creative & romantic partners James Frank Tribble and Tracey Mancenido. The book features New York couples in - guess where - their bedrooms canoodling and teasing out ‘awwwwwwwwws!’ from onlookers (like me, duh).
Really, I’m not sure what to make of this just-in-time-for-Valentines’ day book, which seems to make the case that senior’s sex lives have dramatically improved over the last few decades.
“Great!” you think. But “How and why?” you ask. And “Isn’t that just too much information?” you wonder, silently.
Well yes, says the press release, “some may say this is TMI (too much information), but for [author] Phil and his peers, seniors are still “doing it” and his book illustrates why and how.
Grandpa Does Grandma: The ABCs of Senior Sex is just in time for Valentine’s Day lovers (old and young) to continue expressing their love for the remaining days this year! Parker uses 26 tastefully done illustrations that complement each letter for your visual enjoyment.”
I know that this Richard Girling guy’s Times of London piece about the evolution of lust, sex and coupledom is really just about his new book.
I know that everybody wants to have lots and lots of sex. [Bragging about my goal to bang my husband 10, 000 times was one of my first Newlybed blog posts.]
I know that he’s only trying to push buttons when he makes overstatements about what women want from men and what men want from women.
I know his use of statistics is sorta clunky, definitely misleading and applied only to boost the flagging cred of his arguments in order to make the scientifically-sounding headline of “The Evolution of Sex and Marriage” not be a complete lie.
I know, after reading the whole thing more than once, that the assertion below his headline that “We can barely control our sexual appetites, but are hungry for happy, monogamous relationships” is just a big, fucking rouse.
But why does he need 2000 words to accomplish what even middling romcoms do in a single catchphrase?
Yes, it’s hard to believe, but the leading romance novel publisher is 60 years old this month.
