The Newlybed

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”.

First, the props:

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!

* 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?

There are two potent arbiters of pop cultural relevancy presently: Wikipedia and reality TV.

So, while it’s troubling that there’s still no wikipedia entry for newlyweds, there’s solace in the renewed attention paid to us by the latter.

As I reported previously, MTV is casting an update on its patented Newlyweds-style docudrama, and the eternally undead The Newlywed Game is getting resuscitated once more by Carnie Wilson.

And though some of these vehicles hold the promise of showing how married couples be committed as well as sexy, fun-loving and well-adjusted, the public eye doesn’t tolerate such normalcy without a trashy counterpoint.

Enter CBS, which has ordered up a new reality series from the Magical Elves (for real) production company titled “Arranged Marriage” according to pitch on the show’s website and a lengthy article by the Hollywood Reporter.

The premise? Four people “between the ages of 25 and 45 who are eager to wed but have previously been unsuccessful in finding a soul mate” will rely on friends and family to do the choosing for them.

Fine so far. But here’s the kicker: According to The Reporter, “the newly-formed couple will then exchange marital vows and the series will follow marriages”, which also noted the series is only tentatively-titled and additional details about the project are not being revealed yet.

Already, comparisons to an earlier, similarly themed show called “Married by America” are cropping up. The Reporter notes, “CBS’ “Marriage” presents itself as a documentary series about finding true love, a show that extends the Eastern tradition of an arranged marriage (where friends and family select the mate) into the West.

Republicans in Georgia are working to oust tenured faculty from their professorial posts. The excuse? Econopocalypse-related budget restraints. The real reason? Their sex-related research matter is too scandalous.

According to a Fort Mill Times article, “State Rep. Charlice Byrd of Woodstock took the House well on Friday to announce a ‘grass-roots’ effort to oust professors with expertise in subjects like male prostitution, oral sex and queer theory. ‘This is not considered higher education,’ she said. ‘If legislators are going to dole out the dollars, we should have a say-so in where they go.’”

“Hill and Byrd were incensed to learn a University of Georgia professor teaches a graduate course on ‘queer theory.’ They also took aim at Georgia State University, where an annual guide to its faculty experts lists a sociology lecturer as an expert in oral sex and faculty member Kirk Elifson as an expert in male prostitution.”

Elifson’s profile on the GSU website, however, indicate that his future research ambitions include working to “assist community based organizations to implement HIV/STD interventions for incarcerated men and women, and to gain insight into the health related consequences of substance abuse.”

Dangerously radical?

Hardly.

A search of the University’s expert guide, however, yielded just 11 other sex-focused professors, hardly sufficient for the widespread conspiracy Byrd suggests, nor would the elimination of their salaries (even a very generous $100,000 a year X 12 is only $1.2 million) be sufficient to reverse the financial fortunes of an organization as large and complex as a University.

So, legislators, let me plead: keep these professors in their posts - these research dollars need to stay where they are. As this blog has demonstrated here, here, here and here, the current state of affairs is rather abysmal. Unvetted surveys of unrepresentative samples, complete indifference of the yawning chasm between causation and correlation, and a continued push for headline-grabbing results have all conspired to produce a farcical, if not dangerously misleading, body of research.

Emphasis, seemingly, is on the creation of a self-sustaining synopsis factory. Little regard is given to the ways that real-world impacts of these research findings: they influence behavior, incite trends and push the social agenda either towards or away from more tolerance, understanding and acceptance.

Find it distasteful or even offensive? Engage in some healthy dialogue through already-established channels of communication. Ultimately, if it’s too much to expect lawmakers to champion free expression, isn’t it too little to expect that they refrain from discrimination and censorship, perhaps especially in its insidious grass-roots form?

Last week saw reporters and researchers let loose their mutual, pent up desire in way that would make any heaving-chested corset-clad heroine smile. Here are some of the salacious, sexy and otherwise sensational headlines their union sprang forth:

Borrowing heavily (but forgetting to cite) from Marty Klein’s 2006 book “America’s War on Sex” Fox’s Sexpert made clear an important pseudo-scientifically difference in sexual attitudes: When it comes to sexy time, you’re either an erotophobe or erotophile. Nope, it’s not a spectrum and sure, your attitudes may be shaped by past experiences, but ultimately, your sex-positivity is your choice. Ladies, I’m looking at you to loosen up your frigid, prudish ways, mmmk?

And now, for boy-specific news: Having a few drinks can help you in the bedroom, as Aussie men who didn’t completely abstain from alcohol reported fewer problems with ED than their teetotalling counterparts.

But then again, perhaps the color red helps as well: Dudes see red and feel amorous towards women, says research.

But the most significant findings were announced early in the week, in a study from Nottingham University that correlated higher sex drive in young men with higher incidence of prostate cancer in later years. Researchers asked questions relating to post-puberty sexual activity of 400 men with prostate cancer and 400 men without. The results? While the study insists that men who masturbated and had more sex in their twenties showed a higher rate of prostate cancer later in life, the raw data is murkier: “Roughly the same proportion of both groups, 59%, said they had engaged in sexual activity 12 times a month or more in their 20s, falling to 48% in their 30s, 28% in their 40s and 13% in their 50s”. Prostate cancer sufferers, however, did report a higher number of sexual partners.

And so, lest we forget, correlation does not equate to causation. What’s more, this research contradicts earlier findings which indicated that more frequent sexual activity was good for prostate health. The newer batch of research also used a less-than-reliable method of having older men recounting their sexual activity from decades ago, which the researchers themselves identify as a weak spot in the findings. Gentlemen, no matter what this research does or doesn’t tell us, please get yourself a prostate exam once a year.

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.