| Blog home > |
Image is a summary of states’ attitudes on gay rights issues from a paper recently published in the American Political Science Review
| About Em and Lo | Comments (0) |
|
| About Em and Lo | Comments (0) |
It’s long been a given in the sex advice biz that dudes who break out the vacuum cleaner every once in a while are more likely to get laid. We typically fight such Men-are-from-Mars-Women-are-from-Venus stereotypes, but we’ve heard too much anecdotal evidence to ignore this one. It’s not that watching a man iron is an actual turn-on — though there are exceptions, of course — but more that many women find it hard to get in the mood for sex if they’re annoyed that their partner isn’t pulling his weight in the domestic chores department. For these women, accessing the libido is a matter of clearing the deck of all potential distractions — clutter in the room, to-do lists, a buzzing Blackberry, body image issues, dirty dishes, petty spousal frustrations, etc.
But it turns out that it’s not just guys who should mop a little more often: A new study has found that, for men and women alike, the more housework you do, the more likely you are to have sex with your partner. In other words, the couple who shares chores together is more likely to swap spit (and more), too. Perhaps this is because sharing chores indicates mutual respect and a commitment to the “team,” or perhaps it’s a feng-shui thing where a clean and tidy house is more conducive to boot-knocking. Whatever it is, it’s good news — almost good enough to make us forget about the other statistic in the study: that the women spent an average of 41.8 hours on household chores each week, while the men spent an average of 23.4 hours. And this despite the fact that “chores” in this study included yard work, paying bills, and maintaining cars. Maybe once these numbers balance out a bit more, we’ll finally achieve coital harmony. Hey, two advice ladies can dream.
|
| About Em and Lo | Comments (0) |
Advertisement
How novel is this? A politician sends out an email to his supporters and doesn’t ask for money…he doesn’t ask you to write letters about policy…or to volunteer your time to some campaign. He simply asks you to “remember a funny story about someone you love, smile, and be thankful.”
We heart Al Franken. Thank goodness he’s one of the Minnesota senators now.
This past Saturday, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the night he met Franni, his wife, he emailed all of his supporters basically an open love letter to her, acknowledging that he wouldn’t be where he is today — the United States Congress — without her. Those with a block of ice for a heart might find this a little too precious, or perhaps even inappropriate for a man in public office, but we think it’s comforting to know that at least one politician in Washington is actually a human being. Even better, a human being with a romantic streak. Here’s the letter:
|
| About Em and Lo | Comments (1) |
photo via venetia_joubert_sarah_oosterveld
If you’ve listened to Howard Stern even once over the past decade (that’d be Em, not Lo), then you know that one of his most loyal advertisers is the Ashley Madison Agency — the online dating site that caters to married people with the tagline “Life is short. Have an affair.” Charming. On and off over the years, we’ve thought about reporting on Ashley Madison, but every time we did, steam would come out of our ears and we’d realize that our entire article would consist of seven words, most likely typed in all caps: “Stop cheating you slimeball pieces of shit.” Just because the site sounds like it was named by Nora Roberts, as Jezebel so brilliantly notes, doesn’t mean it’s any less sleazy, immoral, unethical, or just plain wrong.
|
| About Em and Lo | Comments (2) |
We’ve always heard from our less-than-scrupulous guy friends that a wedding band lures single women in like flies to honey — apparently it works better even than a cute puppy or a baby bjorn. Though, we suppose if we’re going to be really fair, we should save the word “unscrupulous” for the competitive biotches who pursue a man not despite, but because of his wedding band. And let it be said for the record that we have heard not one story about the reverse happening: apparently a woman in a wedding band just isn’t an aphrodisiac to men.
|
| About Em and Lo | Comments (1) |
Advertisement
On this day in 1967, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in Loving v. Virginia that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law was unconstitutional and violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
| About Matthew Rodriguez | Comments (0) |
From the book I’m Glad I’m a Boy! I’m Glad I’m a Girl!
|
| About Em and Lo | Comments (0) |
It’s this kind of thing — a new, totally rad T-shirt logo from Wordboner — that scares the bejeezus out of homophobes like the National Organization for Marriage. So frightened are they of an imaginary army of gay soldiers forcing them into a life of sodomy that they put together this gem of fear-tactic propaganda (our favorite line, with our own italics: “We’ve put together a rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color who are coming together in love to protect marriage”). Naturally, it took about two seconds for a slew of parodies to hit the Internets — one of the best so far is “from” Restoring Integrity to Marriage or “RIM” (see RimsJob.org, tee hee). For a non-parody antidote to this kind of bigotry, check out Iowa State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal’s response to Minority Leader Paul McKinley and his efforts to amend Iowa’s constitution in order to undo the recent unanimous decision by the state’s Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage.
[Via BoingBoing and Geek Bon Chic]
|
| About Em and Lo | Comments (0) |
Advertisement
photo by Maxintosh
Love must really be in the spring air this week: not one, but two states have legalized gay marriage in less than 7 days! Last Friday it was Iowa, and just this past Tuesday it was Vermont. That brings the grand total of cool states dedicated to marriage equality up to four, including Massachusetts (which made it legal in 2004) and Connecticut (in 2008). And as if to put a cherry on top, the D.C. Council just voted, on Tuesday as well, to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, just as New York does.
Fingers crossed there will now be a domino effect on other states, especially during these tough economic times, not only when the financial benefits of marriage (joint credit, health care coverage, inheritance rights) are really important for couples who might be struggling, but when states could really use an influx of cash via the wedding industrial complex. (So perhaps, at least for the cynics among us, it’s less about love and more about money.)
In fact, if things get much worse money-wise, we might see states racing to legalize gay marriage before their neighboring states do, just so they can reap the tourism benefits. Eventually, all states will allow — indeed celebrate — gay marriage (just you wait!), at which point those tourism dollars will dry up. But at least then you’ll probably have a fabulous gay wedding reception to attend wherever you are to help take your mind off any economic downturns.
More Em & Lo:
|
| About Em and Lo | Comments (1) |
photo by greeblie
While the rest of us were battling it out over gay marriage in courts, newspaper editorials, elections, marches, and barrooms across the country, a little company called Merriam-Webster was quietly making their own call. So quietly, in fact, that even though their dictionary updated the definition of marriage back in 2003 to include same-sex couples, it wasn’t until this month that anybody really noticed. That’s because the conservative site WorldNetDaily finally caught on to the fact that in M-W, marriage is no longer “reserved for the institution that has held families together for millennia.” Oh, that’s right: Dictionaries describe things as they actually are — rather than the way the small-minded minority wishes they were. (All the major dictionaries now include same-sex duos in their definition, although only two three four U.S. states do.) All of which confirms to us that anti-gay crusaders don’t read the dictionary nearly as often as they should. Next stop: sodomy.
More Em & Lo:
|
| About Em and Lo | Comments (1) |
