In case you missed it, MTV reps are spamming love and romance blogs, message boards and social networks with a desperate call for participants for a new ‘reality’ show on newlywed life:
Hi, my name is Jennifer and I’m an associate at MTV. Currently we are casting for a new True Life episode, I’m a Newlywed. If you or anyone you know fits the description below let us know!
Now Casting True Life: I’m a Newlywed
Are you and your fiancé about to begin life as a married couple? Going from engagement to the altar is a journey full of challenges that test the strength of your relationship, but it only gets harder once you say your vows.
Do your friends and family think you and your fiancé are moving too fast by getting married? Will you be moving in together for the first time right after the wedding and think that married life is going to be a big change for you and/or your fiancé? Are you feeling nervous about making this lasting commitment?
If you appear to be between the ages of 18-28 and would like to share your story, MTV wants to hear from you! Email us at newlywed@mtvn.com and tell us as much about your situation as possible. Also, please be sure to include your name, location, phone number and photo.
Woot! Who wouldn’t want to be the new Nick & Jessica, amirite?
* The heart-shaped tub. It’s a classically kitschy touch. * The perfect storm of decor disasters: tacky wallpaper, dayglo carpeting and brass chandeliers = never again! * The camera on tripod.
And he has no plans for recovery. In fact, he’ll do anything for a good snuggle - including programming cuddle-only time into his iPhone calendar.
His pro-cuddling attitudes have made him a bit of a cuddle crusader. I wasn’t shocked when, like many 30-year old hetero married men, he mused about a campaign to include cuddling in the Olympics. But his latest idea - forming the International Federation of Cuddling (of which he has unilaterally declared himself the life-long president) - made me wonder: Is cuddling a universal phenomenon, or something culturally bound?
Clearly, the Brits are on board. Check out the cheeky-yet-useful VideoJug instructional below:
Because other newlywed-focused websites focus exclusively on the yuppie-fication of your otherwise joyous union, The Newlybed has had little company in pursuing an agenda of happy, horny married life.
But no longer! Thanks to still-in-love husband and wife team in the White House, everyone is catching the spousal fever.
Last Saturday, Jezebel posted about other media mavens in awe of “married romance” - a concept peculiar enough to warrant an extensive discursive dissection on the Columbia Journalism Review.
Even Fox got into the fray, posting this analysis of the lovebirds:
While it’s great to recalibrate our assumptions about what the goings-on in the Oval Office and Lincoln bedroom and hope for some trickle-down effects of warm and fuzzy feelings, let’s stop short of bump watching, mmmk?
It’s a chick flick convention that a series of hilarious and endearing misunderstandings is usually enough to keep otherwise contented couples apart.
Dig deeper into the world of fiction, however, and you’ll see a long history of war, famine, religious conflicts, border battles, and family feuds working to divide happy unions. If you’re like me, you’ve probably wondered if these stories are flights of fancy or based on real world examples. Two current cases, taken from opposite corners of the globe, seem to indicate the latter.
In Pakistan, a newlywed couple who married without their parents’ consent now live in the Karachi police station to avoid the inevitable honor killing that awaits them should they return to their home village. They’re not alone in their plight either in Karachi, or worldwide. According to UN research cited in the article, about 5,000 people are murdered in honour killings, mostly women from South Asia and the Middle East. [Note: The article does a great job of providing more exposition on honor killings and the rural/urban divide in Pakistan; check it out.]
Closer to home is a peculiar case of cross border guards kiboshing coupledom. Back in 2007, newlyweds Nathaniel Spinney of Oregon and Sarah Rutherford of Nova Scotia accidentally-on-purpose fibbed about their marital status, telling border guards that they were engaged and not yet married. Spinney explains that the impulsive decision was a cover for the fact that he hadn’t applied for a fiance visa for Rutherford and wanted to square away legal filings once the couple arrived back in Oregon. But before they could, authorities uncovered the lie and were less than pleased: Rutherford is now midway through a 5 year re-entry ban into the US. The couple, unable to secure permanent employment for Spinney in Canada, lives on opposite sides of the continent.
While the pop culture press may have dispensed with newlyweds in favor crowning the next MILF-to-be with bump watches and fanning hookup/breakup rumors, for the regular news media, ‘newlywed’ is a heart-string tugger of an adjective.
It’s both an intensifier of horrific acts in crime and punishment stories, and a softener of already gooey human interest news stories. Newlyweds, like cute harmless puppies or radiant pregnant women, contain our collective desire for possibility and promise. They’re trotted forth to show how and when that covenant has been shattered, and to beg for a small reprieve - for them to be sheltered from the crueler realities of life.
Take this Israeli story, for example. Aharon Karov, a 22-year-old officer from Karnei Shomron went to war in Gaza a day after his wedding and was critically wounded. While he’s recuperating nicely and due to go for rehabilitation this week, his case has sparked action on the part of Israeli lawmakers, who are toying with a bill that would provide a one-year exemption from mandatory military service to new husbands and wives.
This begs the question: What would happen if that same extension were applied in the US? By no means is Karov’s case unique; just last week a soldier from Rockland, MA was killed in Iraq when a jeep he was riding in rolled over.
Does this matter as much for a volunteer army as a conscripted one? Would such an exemption be as open to abuse for volunteers? Would it apply equally to women as men?
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.
This week, there were even more reasons for evolutionary psychologists to rub their sweaty palms together, cackle maniacally and shouts from the rooftops “I KNEW it!!” Here are two of the best:
Men:Big pile of dough::Women:The Big O. So, um, women are programmed to be gold-diggers cause they have more totally real and not pretend orgasms when they’re bedding rich men. how, exactly, these women achieve said orgasms, or how frequently, is not clear. So my inference is not that rich dudes are better in the sack, or that women are pre-destined to be golddiggers with daddy fetishes, it’s that rich dudes are just better able to buy their female partners good quality vibrators with an ever-fresh supply of batteries.
There is no “we” in happy. Women who IM their partners and talk about themselves - me this, I that - were more satisfied with their relationships than those who talked about “we” and “us.” The findings also held for their male partners. Shocked? You shouldn’t be. Any study that samples nearly 6 dozen - that’s right a solid 70 pairs or 140 individuals - has to be statistically significant and methodlogically sound.
Disclaimer: Obviously, the following vid is NSFW and NSFK. It’s best enjoyed from the cuddly comfort of your newlybed, but is suitable for all types of homebound weekend viewing.
While American headlines focus on the inauguration of Barack, European newspapers are a twitter with other presidential matters. More specifically, the sex life of newlyweds Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni. Of course, as newlyweds, one expects a bit of prying from inquiring and adoring fans. But a spate of articles on the Presidential perineum were not what people were expecting.
The Guardian echoes our shock and awe: “Why are we interested in it? Because according to Nicolas Sarkozy’s personal trainer, Julie Imperiali, the French president has shed 4kg and shrunk two trouser sizes since she got him working the muscles of his pelvic floor 10 months ago”.
The Telegraph allows Imperiali to explain that “the perineum is the floor of our body and if it’s not kept in shape it is as if you had a house with no floor. You can become incontinent, your organs descend and you have bad posture… To get in touch with your perineal muscles, she said, ‘You have to imagine that you have a burning need to urinate and hold it in. That works for men as well as women.’” Sounds like good old-fashioned Kegels, no?
Perhaps.
But, nevertheless, the oddly placed personal details make for a salacious slice of reportage.
Kegels are not only good for post-partum moms but also “apparently strengthen the perineal muscles in Mr Sarkozy’s lower pelvis. ‘Sexual relations are better if the male perineum is in good shape,’ said Mrs Imperiali” who added that “problems of premature ejaculation are often due to the perineum.”
Will the perineum become the new hot sex organ - the g-spot of the next decade - or is this a salacious way to create eye-catching headlines? Comments welcome…
