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”.
Dear Readers,
(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?
Read the full sweep here.
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.]
* Sigh *
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?
Yesterday, I wrote about the witch hunt in Georgia where academic researchers who study human sexuality are threatened with being ousted by the state government.
Even though it’s likely well beyond the lawmaker’s purview, they have not yet backed down from calls for a ‘grassroots campaign’ to rid the hallowed halls of their public learning institutions of such menaces as professors Kirk Elifson and Mindy Stombler, whose work seems to focus mainly on disease prevention and harm reduction.
I write today to let you know that the Atlanta-Journal Constitution is now covering the story, framing it as “a culture war in the General Assembly over Christian values and public policy”.
And, if you have five minutes and feel like being a squeaky wheel, why not fire off an email or call one of these puritans up for a chat?
Well, newlyweds, with Valentines Day approaching, you may be itching to replenish your stock of bedtime manuals and guidebooks.
Two new titles may pique your interest.
First up, Tera Patrick (Google her or ask your husband if you’re not familiar with her, ahem, body of work) has released a workout DVD. It’s just for women, just for the boudoir and just in time for Valentines Day. Fit 4 Sex promises to sleeken your silhouette, tighten your torso and up your stamina with such routines like “The Spidey: Hip flexor stretches to keep you flexible through the night” and “Frisky Kitty” promotes strenuous stretches loosen joints and keep the body limber. That Patrick is capitalizing on bedroom bodybuilding isn’t surprising in and of itself. It seems like this is a natural extension of the strippercizing hoopla of D-listers like Carmen Electra. Patrick keeps the whole thing women-friendly and sex-positive, saying that “sexual well being is about body concept, poise and most importantly connecting with yourself before connecting with your partner.”
The other title is a bit more jarring, however. Frat boy sex guide “How to Treat a Woman: The Art and Science of Sex Whispering” rehashes a 1918 expose called “Married Love” - which delicately explained the differing requirements men and women have for foreplay and intercourse of husbands a wives - into a paternalistic and manipulative playbook. According to the Daily Texan’s reviewer, while it’s clear that the sexuality of men and women is markedly changed over the past 9 decades, “in 2009, a man shouldn’t have to “take care” of his lover while
she sits in ignorant sexual innocence”. If you need that kind of one-sided, jingoistic advice, just go to AskMen.com or The Frisky instead, gentlemen: they’re free. For sensible, holistic and even humorous perspectives, why not check out some of the titles in my Amazon list?
This week was unusual in that a few of the articles posted were notably substantial and for the first time in months, conjecture gave way to conversation. In fact, it sparked a gosh-darned meaningful, intelligent dialogue about women’s sexuality. So much so, in fact, that it warrants a special edition of the Raunchy Research Review.
The source of this debate is a NYT Magazine piece which introduces findings from Queen’s University Meredith Chivers research on female sexuality. What stimulated women above the neck and what got them going below the belt was surprising but could be summed up in a word or two: almost anything. And so, everyone in the feminist blogosphere wanted their say on this matter.
At Jezebel, a few of the lead bloggers penned a paragraph or two. The consensus? Well, no consensus, per se - just that things were thought provoking. Problematic, illuminating, a bit emancipatory at time, but mostly, very very thought provoking. I love reading dialogues between these women, so definitely check this tete-a-tete out or their end-of-Monday wrapup on other blogger-lady lady-boner banter.
At Broadsheet, Tracy Clark-Flory took a bit of umbrage at the findings, calling out the researchers for qualifying statements like ‘rudderless’, ‘receptive’ and ‘narcissistic’, adding that “no reasonable person would expect the secrets of human sexuality to be entirely politically correct; these ideas can’t be dismissed just because they personally offend.”
And at Slate’s The XX Factor, Meghan focussed on what it means to have a sexuality rooted in being desired rather than desiring and the so-deemed schism between what our brains and our groins find sexy.
[Not surprisingly, The Frisky 'writers' ignored the whole thing with a "um, like OMG science is hard, dude! Can't we just all agree that sex is awesome? Kthxbai!".]
And so, we have a nifty little dilemma - just the sort we’ve all been hoping for: dense, complex and significant research on a subject that matters deeply to us. On its own, this NYT mag piece may not be sufficiently powerful to undo the damage from the unending barrage of glib, misleading and unquestioned junk science, but it is powerful enough to cause a ceasefire. That such broad-based (heh) discussion percolated so quickly is a rare victory for progressive thought. Opportunities to shine new lights on old assumptions and to question ourselves thought an internal dialogue don’t come along very often.