Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 864
February 14, 2016
The science of swooning: We don’t really know why some kisses lead to back kicks, toe curls and weak knees
“When kissed for the first time, a girl should close her eyes. The second time, she should give an ecstatic back kick, clutching her sweetheart by his coat lapels.” These are the instructions from “An Outline of Motion Picture Etiquette,” written up in 1923. I’d always figured the “foot pop” for a romantic trope, a clichéd way to signal female desire with little to no bearing on reality. And then it happened to me. The kiss that made my eyes cross and my foot pop up as if yanked by a marionette’s string. Ten years in, I still get dizzy every time my boyfriend John plants one on me. What is this “foot pop” business, exactly? The twee nonsense of flighty females? An involuntary response to stimulation, akin to the “knee jerk” that happens when the doctor whacks your patella? A corollary expression linked to sex hormones fluctuating in the brain? Turns out that the foot pop isn’t well studied. “I don’t know of any data about why people (women?) raise their leg during a kiss in movies,” Justin Garcia of the Kinsey Institute told me via email. “I suspect it’s socially scripted -- a way to express passion, like a toe curl. But, I don’t think anyone has ever looked at how well that body movement is documented, and if so in what gender, and also, if so, what kissing behaviors elicit it.” I asked the retired director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, Milton Diamond, if he knew of any research related to the neuroendocrinology of the foot pop. He didn’t. “There is one, I think unpublished, study showing kissing increases oxytocin,” Garcia added. “People have suggested it also increases testosterone and epinephrine. That in essence you can give someone else a hormone shock to up-regulate sexual interest. But no good studies.” From the medical standpoint, he explains, “the big problem with those hypotheses is that we don’t know if there are receptors on our tongues/mouths/throats for the hormones in someone else’s saliva.” In short: There’s lots of kissing in the world, and not much science on the subject. Yet we talk about sexual chemistry as if it was both self-explanatory and self-evident. “In one fun study,” Garcia notes, “50 percent of college students have kissed someone and known instantly there was no ‘chemistry.’ So, something is going on. You learn a lot about someone when you kiss them.” What if that chemistry wasn’t just feeling the zsa-zsa-zsu but a literal description of the underlying amoral mechanism driving sexual attraction? I decided to do some unscientific investigating on the foot pop. Turns out that 21st century America is divided into two camps: not Republican or Democrat, but foot poppers and non-foot-poppers. It’s as controversial as seeing ghosts. If your couple has the foot pop, you totally believe it’s neither a mannerism nor a trope. If not, then … “I wouldn’t know a swoon if it smacked me in the face,” architect Scott grumbles. He’s a single gay father. “Perhaps I’m just not the swooning kind?” Courtney posits. She’s happily married with kids. “Foot pop?” I asked my professor friend Tracy. “No,” she replied curtly. She’s engaged, no plans on having children. The majority of my respondents, irrespective of age, race, gender or orientation, have never experienced the foot pop. Overall, they struck me as being kind of irked by the topic. The foot poppers, by contrast, were voluble in their enthusiasm and amazed at being in love, even the grandmas and grandpas. No men reported their own feet popping up, but several talked about seeing stars and feeling their hearts thumping in their chests, and they were aware that something special—beyond friendship, eroticism and lust--was in that first kiss with their beloveds. The women whose feet popped knew in that kiss that they’d found the one--even if, on the surface, that knowing wasn’t logical. “Kevin and I vaguely knew each other in high school in the ‘80s,” Marjorie tells me. “After my major life change (leaving my marriage of 17 years) and moving back to be near my parents in Nebraska, I learned that Kevin had also recently moved to Lincoln in an effort to get out of an unhappy relationship. We commiserated online and decided to meet. Turns out he lived just blocks away. I was a nervous wreck waiting for him to drive over but when he stepped out of his truck, I knew…We were walking towards each other and we just walked right into the first kiss. I truly felt my knees buckle, he had to hold me up in his arms and I was holding onto him, and, yes, my leg popped up. I remember thinking about how cliché that was. Never happened before, has happened since. Best kiss ever!” It was evident to both of them that their lives were meant to be shared, and they got formally engaged a year and a half later. Their wedding takes place soon. A grounded, clear-eyed Midwesterner, Marjorie was in her 40s when she experienced the foot pop for the first time. By contrast, California girl Toni met Dave when they were both children, and they didn’t kiss until high school. That kiss made her weak at the knees, and her foot popped for the rest of their married lives. “He would ask me out,” Toni explains, “but I was always going steady with someone else not at my school. But I did hang out with him at the River Club on weekends. I always accepted the ride, it saved me a dime for the bus ride. Ten rides gave me a dollar and I could buy makeup! We were extremely poor at that time and lost our home. He never gave up! In his senior year and my junior year we both moved to Tracy and went to school together the last couple months of his senior year. He asked me to go steady every day for weeks but I wasn’t ready to be tied down at a new school with too many new guys to meet. I was a real flirt. He used to drive me to town, where I worked as a carhop at Henry’s Drive-in, we lived in the country about 12 miles out of town. One day he announced that if I wouldn’t go steady with him, he was going to move away. So, what’s a girl to do?” She laughs. “I had to get to work.” That was April 14, 1965. They married April 21, 1968, three days after Dave’s 21st birthday, and were happily married until Dave recently and suddenly passed away. Whereas bad relationships lead to Great Literature full of tension and tragedy, foot-pop love tends to come out sounding like a Nicholas Sparks novel. The tug of lasting attraction is surprisingly unlike the “sex-as-glue” that feels like Fate, and is so difficult to write about without resorting to sentimentalism or prurience that the last writer to take this on seriously was Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. His influential novel from the Romantic era, “Elective Affinities,” 1809, riffed on molecular affinities as a literary organizing mechanism for a story about the passions and pair-bonding of human couples struggling to choose whom they love...and whom they marry. Informed by the chemical revolution introduced by Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, Goethe envisioned humans as neither animals nor angels but as intricate parts of a natural world illuminated by science. We’ve since turned “chemistry” into a casual metaphor for sexual compatibility inside a new world awash in technology. Stumbling into hookups from “Sex and the City” to “Girls,” hipsters scoff at happy couples as either being delusional or sickening. But the next time you watch the “The Princess Diaries 2” and laugh smugly at Mia’s girlish ideas, it may be useful to also remember that she knew prince charming was the wrong man because her foot didn't pop--and prince charming knew it too. There is nothing wrong with being single, and in fact there is a lot right with it. Far better to live with pets than cast in your lot with the wrong human. But for seekers of true love, it’s wise to remember Shakespeare’s words: "the course of true love never did run smooth." When one foot has popped up, running smoothly is out of the question. You have to hop. Together.“When kissed for the first time, a girl should close her eyes. The second time, she should give an ecstatic back kick, clutching her sweetheart by his coat lapels.” These are the instructions from “An Outline of Motion Picture Etiquette,” written up in 1923. I’d always figured the “foot pop” for a romantic trope, a clichéd way to signal female desire with little to no bearing on reality. And then it happened to me. The kiss that made my eyes cross and my foot pop up as if yanked by a marionette’s string. Ten years in, I still get dizzy every time my boyfriend John plants one on me. What is this “foot pop” business, exactly? The twee nonsense of flighty females? An involuntary response to stimulation, akin to the “knee jerk” that happens when the doctor whacks your patella? A corollary expression linked to sex hormones fluctuating in the brain? Turns out that the foot pop isn’t well studied. “I don’t know of any data about why people (women?) raise their leg during a kiss in movies,” Justin Garcia of the Kinsey Institute told me via email. “I suspect it’s socially scripted -- a way to express passion, like a toe curl. But, I don’t think anyone has ever looked at how well that body movement is documented, and if so in what gender, and also, if so, what kissing behaviors elicit it.” I asked the retired director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, Milton Diamond, if he knew of any research related to the neuroendocrinology of the foot pop. He didn’t. “There is one, I think unpublished, study showing kissing increases oxytocin,” Garcia added. “People have suggested it also increases testosterone and epinephrine. That in essence you can give someone else a hormone shock to up-regulate sexual interest. But no good studies.” From the medical standpoint, he explains, “the big problem with those hypotheses is that we don’t know if there are receptors on our tongues/mouths/throats for the hormones in someone else’s saliva.” In short: There’s lots of kissing in the world, and not much science on the subject. Yet we talk about sexual chemistry as if it was both self-explanatory and self-evident. “In one fun study,” Garcia notes, “50 percent of college students have kissed someone and known instantly there was no ‘chemistry.’ So, something is going on. You learn a lot about someone when you kiss them.” What if that chemistry wasn’t just feeling the zsa-zsa-zsu but a literal description of the underlying amoral mechanism driving sexual attraction? I decided to do some unscientific investigating on the foot pop. Turns out that 21st century America is divided into two camps: not Republican or Democrat, but foot poppers and non-foot-poppers. It’s as controversial as seeing ghosts. If your couple has the foot pop, you totally believe it’s neither a mannerism nor a trope. If not, then … “I wouldn’t know a swoon if it smacked me in the face,” architect Scott grumbles. He’s a single gay father. “Perhaps I’m just not the swooning kind?” Courtney posits. She’s happily married with kids. “Foot pop?” I asked my professor friend Tracy. “No,” she replied curtly. She’s engaged, no plans on having children. The majority of my respondents, irrespective of age, race, gender or orientation, have never experienced the foot pop. Overall, they struck me as being kind of irked by the topic. The foot poppers, by contrast, were voluble in their enthusiasm and amazed at being in love, even the grandmas and grandpas. No men reported their own feet popping up, but several talked about seeing stars and feeling their hearts thumping in their chests, and they were aware that something special—beyond friendship, eroticism and lust--was in that first kiss with their beloveds. The women whose feet popped knew in that kiss that they’d found the one--even if, on the surface, that knowing wasn’t logical. “Kevin and I vaguely knew each other in high school in the ‘80s,” Marjorie tells me. “After my major life change (leaving my marriage of 17 years) and moving back to be near my parents in Nebraska, I learned that Kevin had also recently moved to Lincoln in an effort to get out of an unhappy relationship. We commiserated online and decided to meet. Turns out he lived just blocks away. I was a nervous wreck waiting for him to drive over but when he stepped out of his truck, I knew…We were walking towards each other and we just walked right into the first kiss. I truly felt my knees buckle, he had to hold me up in his arms and I was holding onto him, and, yes, my leg popped up. I remember thinking about how cliché that was. Never happened before, has happened since. Best kiss ever!” It was evident to both of them that their lives were meant to be shared, and they got formally engaged a year and a half later. Their wedding takes place soon. A grounded, clear-eyed Midwesterner, Marjorie was in her 40s when she experienced the foot pop for the first time. By contrast, California girl Toni met Dave when they were both children, and they didn’t kiss until high school. That kiss made her weak at the knees, and her foot popped for the rest of their married lives. “He would ask me out,” Toni explains, “but I was always going steady with someone else not at my school. But I did hang out with him at the River Club on weekends. I always accepted the ride, it saved me a dime for the bus ride. Ten rides gave me a dollar and I could buy makeup! We were extremely poor at that time and lost our home. He never gave up! In his senior year and my junior year we both moved to Tracy and went to school together the last couple months of his senior year. He asked me to go steady every day for weeks but I wasn’t ready to be tied down at a new school with too many new guys to meet. I was a real flirt. He used to drive me to town, where I worked as a carhop at Henry’s Drive-in, we lived in the country about 12 miles out of town. One day he announced that if I wouldn’t go steady with him, he was going to move away. So, what’s a girl to do?” She laughs. “I had to get to work.” That was April 14, 1965. They married April 21, 1968, three days after Dave’s 21st birthday, and were happily married until Dave recently and suddenly passed away. Whereas bad relationships lead to Great Literature full of tension and tragedy, foot-pop love tends to come out sounding like a Nicholas Sparks novel. The tug of lasting attraction is surprisingly unlike the “sex-as-glue” that feels like Fate, and is so difficult to write about without resorting to sentimentalism or prurience that the last writer to take this on seriously was Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. His influential novel from the Romantic era, “Elective Affinities,” 1809, riffed on molecular affinities as a literary organizing mechanism for a story about the passions and pair-bonding of human couples struggling to choose whom they love...and whom they marry. Informed by the chemical revolution introduced by Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, Goethe envisioned humans as neither animals nor angels but as intricate parts of a natural world illuminated by science. We’ve since turned “chemistry” into a casual metaphor for sexual compatibility inside a new world awash in technology. Stumbling into hookups from “Sex and the City” to “Girls,” hipsters scoff at happy couples as either being delusional or sickening. But the next time you watch the “The Princess Diaries 2” and laugh smugly at Mia’s girlish ideas, it may be useful to also remember that she knew prince charming was the wrong man because her foot didn't pop--and prince charming knew it too. There is nothing wrong with being single, and in fact there is a lot right with it. Far better to live with pets than cast in your lot with the wrong human. But for seekers of true love, it’s wise to remember Shakespeare’s words: "the course of true love never did run smooth." When one foot has popped up, running smoothly is out of the question. You have to hop. Together.
Antonin Scalia was the forefather of modern Republican nihilism
It's ironic, to say the least, that the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, a man known for the legal doctrine of "originalism," would immediately lead the majority leader of the Senate to declare that no nominee to replace him would be confirmed until a new president is inaugurated in a year's time. The founders would very likely scratch their heads in wonder at Mitch McConnell's odd statement that “the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice, therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." They would likely point out that the American people did have a voice in that decision in 2012, when they voted for Barack Obama for a four year term. There's nothing in the Constitution that says after three years the president is no longer authorized to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Be that as it may, the reality is the Republican Senate is not going to confirm anyone President Obama sends up, and I don't think anyone would imagine otherwise. What's startling about McConnell's statement is the fact that he said it so openly. It's another example of the reckless disregard of political norms, traditions and the rule of law by the modern GOP. In the old days, they would have at least paid lip service to the idea that a president is obligated to nominate Supreme Court justices and the Senate is obligated to fulfill its advise-and-consent role. Sure, they would delay the nomination, but to just announce upfront that they have no intention of following the usual procedure is a new thing. They don't even pretend to care about preserving the integrity of the institution. Last night in the GOP debate, all the candidates backed up McConnell. It would seem they too believe that even the pretense of normal constitutional processes is no longer necessary. This will be good to keep in mind as they bray incessantly about President Obama's use of executive orders as if they were acts of treason. (By the way, his use of Executive Orders is right in line with all modern presidents, including Republicans.) But then, if there's one Supreme Court justice who exemplifies this propensity of modern American conservatives to bend the system for partisan ends when needed, it was Justice Antonin Scalia. His legacy as a hardcore legal conservative is second to none, but it will always be over-shadowed by one decision: Bush v. Gore. The Republicans had already begun the process of destroying the integrity of Congress with its partisan witch hunts and the impeachment circus of the 1990s; but if there's one Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for the total abandonment of any pretense of dignified non-partisan adherence to traditions for the sake of preserving the integrity of our institutions in the eyes of the public, it is that one. Indeed, Justice Scalia may have written the single most fatuous line in Supreme Court history with his brief concurrence in that case:
“The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm [George W. Bush] and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."Scalia was a very smart man, and he had to know that this would be one of the main decisions for which he was remembered. His willingness to risk his reputation by writing that ridiculous rationale for a nakedly partisan outcome served as an example to conservatives everywhere: Win by any means necessary. He did not like being reminded of it. When college audiences would ask him about the decision he would usually bellow, "Get over it," which was the standard line the media employed in the wake of the decision in 2000. But in recent years he led the way with another modern Republican tactic, simply denying reality. In 2008 he appeared on "60 Minutes":
"People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics," Stahl asks. "I say nonsense," Scalia says. Was it political? "Gee, I really don't wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two."In 2012, he said the same thing at Wesleyan University:
At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election. “Get over it,” Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience.“ Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anyway—either the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. It was a long time ago, people forget…It was a 7-2 decision. It wasn’t even close,” he said.The problem is that he was not telling the truth. As Ian Millhiser at Think Progress explained:
Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 decision — and indeed, Scalia could tell this is true by counting all four of the dissenting opinions in that case. Although it is true that the four dissenters divided on how the Florida recount should proceed — two believed there should be a statewide recount of all Florida voters while two others believed a narrower recount would be acceptable — not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States.Justice Scalia had a long illustrious judicial career. He was a giant among the modern conservative legal theorists on the right. But he was also one of the fathers of the modern conservative movement's "you can believe me or you can believe your lying eyes" school of politics. If the 2016 Republican presidential primary is any example, his political legacy is secure.
Virgins and heroes: It took a while, but romance novels finally learned that no means no
Forty-four years ago, in the winter and spring of 1972, two publications debuted just months apart that might seem at first glance to have nothing in common. In January 1972 -- a time when the Equal Rights Amendment was big news -- the first issue of Gloria Steinem’s Ms. magazine appeared, and sold out in eight days. Then in April 1972, “The Flame and the Flower” by Kathleen Woodiwiss caused an immediate sensation by opening the bedroom door. It also opened a new era of highly popular romance narratives where sex could be part of the story. For me this spring also marks my own personal publishing milestone: My 25th romance novel, “Love After All,” will be out in April. With that anniversary coming up, and with Valentine’s Day upon us, the moment seems right to reflect on how romance novels picture love, and how they picture women. When Ms. and “The Flame and the Flower” hit the stands in 1972, their depictions of women were worlds apart. That would soon change. Forty years ago public discussion was just beginning about equality in the workplace, domestic violence, sexual harassment, reproductive rights and other issues affecting women. Romance novelists quickly joined the discussion, grappling with these same issues through the lens of love. In Woodiwiss’ “The Flame and the Flower” the orphan heroine, Heather, is out and about one evening in 19th-century London when a man attempts to rape her. She kills him and runs away, getting lost near the London docks. There the captain of a ship, the hero Brandon, mistakes her for a prostitute, captures her and sails off with her to South Carolina. On board ship Brandon rapes her, whereupon he realizes she’s a virgin. Long story short: Heather gets pregnant, she and Brandon are forced into marriage, trials and tribulations ensue and they eventually get their Happily Ever After. Heather has no understanding of her sexuality and no power of consent. She has two bad choices: First, she can either be raped or kill her sexual aggressor; later, when Brandon rapes her, she can resist or learn to love her rapist. From this unpromising beginning, romance narratives quickly shifted in their exploration of women’s sexuality and the nature of consent. In early 1970s romance novels “no” sometimes meant “yes” and a rapist could figure as a hero. By the end of the 1970s “no” meant “no” and a rapist could no longer fill the hero slot. In those early romances heroines were virgins and heroes had a lot of sexual experience. Those dynamics, too, changed quickly. Well before “Sex and the City,” romances validated women’s sexuality and curiosity. I remember loving Beatrice Small’s “Skye O’Malley” (1980), whose title heroine was luscious and lusty. Today heroines are allowed to have sexual desire and are informed about consent. If they make bad choices, they learn from their mistakes. It’s even possible to have a virgin hero, such as James in Diana Gabaldon’s “Outlander” (1991). Over the years, and long before Barbie got her new body, romance novels also changed the portrayal of women’s bodies. Early on heroines tended to be normatively slim with perky breasts. Soon enough that changed when the full-figured Amelia Peabody in Elizabeth Peters’ “Crocodile on the Sandbank” (1975) strode onto the stage. Today heroines come in all shapes and sizes. Romance novels haven’t just reflected changing ideas about women. They’ve also long been gay friendly and featured characters from all ethnic backgrounds. Harlequin published Sandra Kitt’s African-American romance “Rites of Spring” in 1984. In today’s romances, characters of various ethnicities have become commonplace. When I put “The Flame and the Flower” next to a romance from 2016, the most striking difference is in the heroines themselves. Forty years ago a heroine was either an orphan nobody like Woodiwiss’ Heather or maybe a secretary. Today heroines are firefighters, travel agents, lawyers and doctors; deep-sea divers, police officers and captains of industry. Again, Skye O’Malley comes to mind here, leading her own fleet of ships in that 1980 book. Romance writers have long dreamed big. Question: Who also benefits from women discovering their sexuality, liking their bodies, and becoming worthy breadwinners with satisfying careers? Answer: Their lucky partners. For many people, Valentine’s Day is a one-day event. For readers and writers of romance novels, it’s Valentine’s Day every day. Romance novels don’t ask the old question: “Can women have it all?” The premise of the narrative is an obvious “yes.” Julie Tetel Andresen is a professor in the English department and chair of the interdepartmental program in linguistics at Duke University. Her most recent romance is “Knocked Out” (2015). Her most recent academic book is “Languages in the World. How History, Culture and Politics Shape Language” with Phillip M. Carter (January, 2016). Follow her on Twitter @JTAbooks.Forty-four years ago, in the winter and spring of 1972, two publications debuted just months apart that might seem at first glance to have nothing in common. In January 1972 -- a time when the Equal Rights Amendment was big news -- the first issue of Gloria Steinem’s Ms. magazine appeared, and sold out in eight days. Then in April 1972, “The Flame and the Flower” by Kathleen Woodiwiss caused an immediate sensation by opening the bedroom door. It also opened a new era of highly popular romance narratives where sex could be part of the story. For me this spring also marks my own personal publishing milestone: My 25th romance novel, “Love After All,” will be out in April. With that anniversary coming up, and with Valentine’s Day upon us, the moment seems right to reflect on how romance novels picture love, and how they picture women. When Ms. and “The Flame and the Flower” hit the stands in 1972, their depictions of women were worlds apart. That would soon change. Forty years ago public discussion was just beginning about equality in the workplace, domestic violence, sexual harassment, reproductive rights and other issues affecting women. Romance novelists quickly joined the discussion, grappling with these same issues through the lens of love. In Woodiwiss’ “The Flame and the Flower” the orphan heroine, Heather, is out and about one evening in 19th-century London when a man attempts to rape her. She kills him and runs away, getting lost near the London docks. There the captain of a ship, the hero Brandon, mistakes her for a prostitute, captures her and sails off with her to South Carolina. On board ship Brandon rapes her, whereupon he realizes she’s a virgin. Long story short: Heather gets pregnant, she and Brandon are forced into marriage, trials and tribulations ensue and they eventually get their Happily Ever After. Heather has no understanding of her sexuality and no power of consent. She has two bad choices: First, she can either be raped or kill her sexual aggressor; later, when Brandon rapes her, she can resist or learn to love her rapist. From this unpromising beginning, romance narratives quickly shifted in their exploration of women’s sexuality and the nature of consent. In early 1970s romance novels “no” sometimes meant “yes” and a rapist could figure as a hero. By the end of the 1970s “no” meant “no” and a rapist could no longer fill the hero slot. In those early romances heroines were virgins and heroes had a lot of sexual experience. Those dynamics, too, changed quickly. Well before “Sex and the City,” romances validated women’s sexuality and curiosity. I remember loving Beatrice Small’s “Skye O’Malley” (1980), whose title heroine was luscious and lusty. Today heroines are allowed to have sexual desire and are informed about consent. If they make bad choices, they learn from their mistakes. It’s even possible to have a virgin hero, such as James in Diana Gabaldon’s “Outlander” (1991). Over the years, and long before Barbie got her new body, romance novels also changed the portrayal of women’s bodies. Early on heroines tended to be normatively slim with perky breasts. Soon enough that changed when the full-figured Amelia Peabody in Elizabeth Peters’ “Crocodile on the Sandbank” (1975) strode onto the stage. Today heroines come in all shapes and sizes. Romance novels haven’t just reflected changing ideas about women. They’ve also long been gay friendly and featured characters from all ethnic backgrounds. Harlequin published Sandra Kitt’s African-American romance “Rites of Spring” in 1984. In today’s romances, characters of various ethnicities have become commonplace. When I put “The Flame and the Flower” next to a romance from 2016, the most striking difference is in the heroines themselves. Forty years ago a heroine was either an orphan nobody like Woodiwiss’ Heather or maybe a secretary. Today heroines are firefighters, travel agents, lawyers and doctors; deep-sea divers, police officers and captains of industry. Again, Skye O’Malley comes to mind here, leading her own fleet of ships in that 1980 book. Romance writers have long dreamed big. Question: Who also benefits from women discovering their sexuality, liking their bodies, and becoming worthy breadwinners with satisfying careers? Answer: Their lucky partners. For many people, Valentine’s Day is a one-day event. For readers and writers of romance novels, it’s Valentine’s Day every day. Romance novels don’t ask the old question: “Can women have it all?” The premise of the narrative is an obvious “yes.” Julie Tetel Andresen is a professor in the English department and chair of the interdepartmental program in linguistics at Duke University. Her most recent romance is “Knocked Out” (2015). Her most recent academic book is “Languages in the World. How History, Culture and Politics Shape Language” with Phillip M. Carter (January, 2016). Follow her on Twitter @JTAbooks.
February 13, 2016
Clinton slams Republicans’ “outrageous” obstruction on Scalia’s replacement: Obama is President “like it or not”
With Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail
Donald Trump calls Ted Cruz out as the “single biggest liar” in the GOP presidential field
After Ted Cruz attempted to jump into round 3 of Trump v. Bush during Saturday's GOP debate, piling-on The Donald over his ideological flip-flops during a debate on eminent domain, Trump lashed out, calling Cruz the "single biggest liar" in the Republican presidential field. Moderator John Dickerson asked the Republican frontrunner why he describes his past support for liberal politicians and policies as comparable to Ronald Reagan's turn to conservatism after being a liberal, to which Trump argued that his past usage of eminent domain as a private businessman was OK even though he now advocates against government usage of eminent domain is not a sign of hypocrisy, but rather necessary flexibility in life. Jeb Bush fired back, arguing against the use eminent domain for private purposes as Trump has done for his business dealings while defending his own past usage of eminent domain as governor of Florida. Ted Cruz then tried to get in on the action, slamming Trump for being a liberal who lacks any core principles, pointing out that Trump once compared rival Ben Carson to a child molester before later praising the retired neurosurgeon. “You are probably the single biggest liar!” Trump yelled in response to Cruz. “This guy will say anything. Nasty guy, now I know why he doesn’t have one endorsement from his colleagues,” he said, railing against the Texas senator. "Why do you lie?" Trump repeatedly pestered Cruz before Cruz chided him that “adults learn not to interrupt.” "Today we had robo-calls saying ,'Donald Trump is not running in South Carolina, vote for Ted Cruz’ when I’m leading in the polls," Trump claimed. Citing Trump's donations to Democrats like Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Cruz argued that the New York businessman is not only a Republican in Name Only (RINO), but that he would appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, fear mongering that a Trump presidency would result in the loss of the Second Amendment (whatever that means), hours after the passing of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Trump shots back that Cruz wanted John Roberts on the Supreme Court, a knock on the Chief Justice whose vote upheld Obamacare. When Cruz mentioned Trump's past support for Planned Parenthood, the former reality TV star admitted that, aside from abortions, the women's health organization does “wonderful things.” Twitter was left in complete disbelief at the raucous turn and rapid breakdown of the Republican Party on CBS' debate stage: https://twitter.com/marincogan/status... https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/sta... https://twitter.com/ThisIsFusion/stat... https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/... https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/6... Watch Donald Trump call Ted Cruz a big liar [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2016/02/liarcr..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/12/trump_... Ted Cruz attempted to jump into round 3 of Trump v. Bush during Saturday's GOP debate, piling-on The Donald over his ideological flip-flops during a debate on eminent domain, Trump lashed out, calling Cruz the "single biggest liar" in the Republican presidential field. Moderator John Dickerson asked the Republican frontrunner why he describes his past support for liberal politicians and policies as comparable to Ronald Reagan's turn to conservatism after being a liberal, to which Trump argued that his past usage of eminent domain as a private businessman was OK even though he now advocates against government usage of eminent domain is not a sign of hypocrisy, but rather necessary flexibility in life. Jeb Bush fired back, arguing against the use eminent domain for private purposes as Trump has done for his business dealings while defending his own past usage of eminent domain as governor of Florida. Ted Cruz then tried to get in on the action, slamming Trump for being a liberal who lacks any core principles, pointing out that Trump once compared rival Ben Carson to a child molester before later praising the retired neurosurgeon. “You are probably the single biggest liar!” Trump yelled in response to Cruz. “This guy will say anything. Nasty guy, now I know why he doesn’t have one endorsement from his colleagues,” he said, railing against the Texas senator. "Why do you lie?" Trump repeatedly pestered Cruz before Cruz chided him that “adults learn not to interrupt.” "Today we had robo-calls saying ,'Donald Trump is not running in South Carolina, vote for Ted Cruz’ when I’m leading in the polls," Trump claimed. Citing Trump's donations to Democrats like Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Cruz argued that the New York businessman is not only a Republican in Name Only (RINO), but that he would appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, fear mongering that a Trump presidency would result in the loss of the Second Amendment (whatever that means), hours after the passing of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Trump shots back that Cruz wanted John Roberts on the Supreme Court, a knock on the Chief Justice whose vote upheld Obamacare. When Cruz mentioned Trump's past support for Planned Parenthood, the former reality TV star admitted that, aside from abortions, the women's health organization does “wonderful things.” Twitter was left in complete disbelief at the raucous turn and rapid breakdown of the Republican Party on CBS' debate stage: https://twitter.com/marincogan/status... https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/sta... https://twitter.com/ThisIsFusion/stat... https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/... https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/6... Watch Donald Trump call Ted Cruz a big liar [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2016/02/liarcr..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/12/trump_...]
Jeb! attempts to defend Bush family legacy during GOP debate: “While Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a national security apparatus to keep us safe”
It's almost unreal. It is in the Republican presidential primary, not the Democratic primary, where candidates in 2016 are vigorously debating if former president George W. Bush is to blame for failing to prevent the attacks on 9/11 and whether he should have been impeached for lying about WMDs. Donald Trump has effectively hung the albatross of 9/11 and the Iraq War on rival Jeb Bush's neck throughout this presidential campaign cycle and on Saturday, the billionaire frontrunner attempted to deliver the knock out punch with a blistering assault during the GOP debate. Bush provoked the attack, apparently feeling saucy after receiving widespread praise for his more assertive debate performance last weekend. "While Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a national security apparatus to keep us safe," Bush snarked, critiquing Trump's scorched earth campaign. To loud boos from the South Carolina audience, Trump shot back that “the World Trade Center came down” because W “didn’t listen to the advice of the CIA.” “Jeb is absolutely so wrong,” Trump retorted. “That’s Jeb’s special interests and lobbyists talking.” “How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center came down? That is not safe," Trump continued. Trump has hounded Bush over his brother's legacy for months now. Still, John Kasich, who said he was "sick of the negative campaigning," had to jump into the fray to save Bush from Trump's deluge. "This is just crazy. This is just nuts. Jeez, oh man," Kasich commented, trying to play up his Midwestern moderate image. Marco Rubio also chimed in with an assist for Jeb: “Thank God that it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore.” Clearly scarred by his tussle with The Donald, Bush later alluded to "you know who," refusing to even name Trump explicitly during round two of their battle over what Bush called Trump's "disparaging" comments about Mexican immigrants and women. Watch Jeb Bush defend his brother against Donald Trump: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2016/02/trumpb..." image="http://media.salon.com/2016/02/RTX26T... almost unreal. It is in the Republican presidential primary, not the Democratic primary, where candidates in 2016 are vigorously debating if former president George W. Bush is to blame for failing to prevent the attacks on 9/11 and whether he should have been impeached for lying about WMDs. Donald Trump has effectively hung the albatross of 9/11 and the Iraq War on rival Jeb Bush's neck throughout this presidential campaign cycle and on Saturday, the billionaire frontrunner attempted to deliver the knock out punch with a blistering assault during the GOP debate. Bush provoked the attack, apparently feeling saucy after receiving widespread praise for his more assertive debate performance last weekend. "While Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a national security apparatus to keep us safe," Bush snarked, critiquing Trump's scorched earth campaign. To loud boos from the South Carolina audience, Trump shot back that “the World Trade Center came down” because W “didn’t listen to the advice of the CIA.” “Jeb is absolutely so wrong,” Trump retorted. “That’s Jeb’s special interests and lobbyists talking.” “How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center came down? That is not safe," Trump continued. Trump has hounded Bush over his brother's legacy for months now. Still, John Kasich, who said he was "sick of the negative campaigning," had to jump into the fray to save Bush from Trump's deluge. "This is just crazy. This is just nuts. Jeez, oh man," Kasich commented, trying to play up his Midwestern moderate image. Marco Rubio also chimed in with an assist for Jeb: “Thank God that it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore.” Clearly scarred by his tussle with The Donald, Bush later alluded to "you know who," refusing to even name Trump explicitly during round two of their battle over what Bush called Trump's "disparaging" comments about Mexican immigrants and women. Watch Jeb Bush defend his brother against Donald Trump: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2016/02/trumpb..." image="http://media.salon.com/2016/02/RTX26T... almost unreal. It is in the Republican presidential primary, not the Democratic primary, where candidates in 2016 are vigorously debating if former president George W. Bush is to blame for failing to prevent the attacks on 9/11 and whether he should have been impeached for lying about WMDs. Donald Trump has effectively hung the albatross of 9/11 and the Iraq War on rival Jeb Bush's neck throughout this presidential campaign cycle and on Saturday, the billionaire frontrunner attempted to deliver the knock out punch with a blistering assault during the GOP debate. Bush provoked the attack, apparently feeling saucy after receiving widespread praise for his more assertive debate performance last weekend. "While Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a national security apparatus to keep us safe," Bush snarked, critiquing Trump's scorched earth campaign. To loud boos from the South Carolina audience, Trump shot back that “the World Trade Center came down” because W “didn’t listen to the advice of the CIA.” “Jeb is absolutely so wrong,” Trump retorted. “That’s Jeb’s special interests and lobbyists talking.” “How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center came down? That is not safe," Trump continued. Trump has hounded Bush over his brother's legacy for months now. Still, John Kasich, who said he was "sick of the negative campaigning," had to jump into the fray to save Bush from Trump's deluge. "This is just crazy. This is just nuts. Jeez, oh man," Kasich commented, trying to play up his Midwestern moderate image. Marco Rubio also chimed in with an assist for Jeb: “Thank God that it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore.” Clearly scarred by his tussle with The Donald, Bush later alluded to "you know who," refusing to even name Trump explicitly during round two of their battle over what Bush called Trump's "disparaging" comments about Mexican immigrants and women. Watch Jeb Bush defend his brother against Donald Trump: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2016/02/trumpb..." image="http://media.salon.com/2016/02/RTX26T...]
Republicans open GOP debate with insistence Obama’s Supreme Court nominee be blocked: “It’s called delay, delay, delay!”
Minutes before Republican presidential candidates gathered for yet another GOP debate, President Obama delivered a statement on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing on Saturday, rebuffing emerging Republican calls to let Scalia's vacancy stand until the next president takes office and vowing to nominate his own successor. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” President Obama said in televised remarks to reporters this evening. Republicans
Republican Senator accidentally tweets picture of a Justice Antonin Scalia impersonator to mourn his passing
Update: Sen. Johnson's campaign spokesman clarified that the tweet was not sent out by the candidate himself. "Staff made an honest mistake while attempting to honor Justice Scalia," Brian Reisinger said in an email to Salon. Yes, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden passing on Saturday was unexpected, but that doesn't excuse Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson's inexplicably tweet mourning the 79-year-old conservative jurist with a picture of what is clearly a Scalia impersonator:
The Republican senator has since deleted the tweet: https://twitter.com/aterkel/status/69... The picture Johnson tweeted was of Edward Gero, an actor who portrayed Scalia in “The Originalist,” a play centered around the Supreme Court Justice. If it's any comfort to Johnson, his tweet confirms he is a man of the people as
The Republican senator has since deleted the tweet: https://twitter.com/aterkel/status/69... The picture Johnson tweeted was of Edward Gero, an actor who portrayed Scalia in “The Originalist,” a play centered around the Supreme Court Justice. If it's any comfort to Johnson, his tweet confirms he is a man of the people as
2016 is now all about the Supreme Court: This is how Justice Scalia’s death deadlocks the Court — and changes presidential race
What are the legal and political implications of Antonin Scalia’s sudden death? First, in regard to the legal status of all cases currently before the Supreme Court, all of Scalia’s votes on those cases no longer count. Justices cast their initial votes on cases in a conference, and the task of writing the majority opinion is assigned to a particular justice. Drafts of this opinion then circulate among those justices who voted in the majority, for comments and potential revisions. But until the decision is formally issued, any justice is free to change the vote he or she cast in the conference. (For example, there is strong evidence that the Affordable Care Act was saved when John Roberts changed his mind after the initial conference vote, thus transforming what was originally the majority opinion in the case into the dissent). This fact has serious practical implications for several important cases the Court is currently considering. For example, it now seems likely that a crucial labor law case that seemed fated to deal a serious and possibly fatal blow to many public sector unions will come out the other way. And Justice Scalia’s death may well have also saved the Obama administration’s most critical climate change regulations. This is because what were poised to be 5-4 decisions will now feature 4-4 votes -- and a tie vote in the Supreme Court leaves the law unchanged. This brings us to the political implications of Justice Scalia’s death. These seemed destined to have a big effect on both the presidential race, and various Senate contests which will determine whether the Republicans retain control of the body that must approve Supreme Court nominations. Every four years we hear that the winner of the presidential election may well play a key role in shaping the composition of the Court for decades to come. This will not be a hypothetical scenario in 2016, as two things seem highly likely: Senate Republicans will not approve anyone President Obama nominates to replace Scalia, and the next president will at the very least end up choosing two Supreme Court justices, if not more (Justice Ginsburg’s departure from the Court prior to 2021 seems practically certain, -- she turns 83 next month and is in precarious health -- and one or two other current justices may well be gone by then as well). Obama will surely take into account that an increasingly radicalized and confrontational GOP is not going to allow its senators to approve anyone to the Court that Democrats would consider minimally acceptable. This suggests he will nominate someone whose rejection by the Senate will do maximum damage to the electoral chances of both the Republican presidential nominee, and of the GOP senatorial candidates who will be in competitive races in November. In fact it’s quite possible that the rejection of Obama’s nominee (or nominees) will become the central issue of the presidential campaign, as we are now poised to spend the next year, if not longer, with a fundamentally deadlocked Supreme Court. Indeed, it’s well within the realm of possibility that the politics of this situation will play out in such a way that public disgust over how a radicalized GOP reacts to Obama’s nomination(s) ends up playing a crucial role in handing both the presidency and the Senate to the Democrats. And should that happen, we can then look forward to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders choosing Barack Obama to succeed Antonin Scalia.What are the legal and political implications of Antonin Scalia’s sudden death? First, in regard to the legal status of all cases currently before the Supreme Court, all of Scalia’s votes on those cases no longer count. Justices cast their initial votes on cases in a conference, and the task of writing the majority opinion is assigned to a particular justice. Drafts of this opinion then circulate among those justices who voted in the majority, for comments and potential revisions. But until the decision is formally issued, any justice is free to change the vote he or she cast in the conference. (For example, there is strong evidence that the Affordable Care Act was saved when John Roberts changed his mind after the initial conference vote, thus transforming what was originally the majority opinion in the case into the dissent). This fact has serious practical implications for several important cases the Court is currently considering. For example, it now seems likely that a crucial labor law case that seemed fated to deal a serious and possibly fatal blow to many public sector unions will come out the other way. And Justice Scalia’s death may well have also saved the Obama administration’s most critical climate change regulations. This is because what were poised to be 5-4 decisions will now feature 4-4 votes -- and a tie vote in the Supreme Court leaves the law unchanged. This brings us to the political implications of Justice Scalia’s death. These seemed destined to have a big effect on both the presidential race, and various Senate contests which will determine whether the Republicans retain control of the body that must approve Supreme Court nominations. Every four years we hear that the winner of the presidential election may well play a key role in shaping the composition of the Court for decades to come. This will not be a hypothetical scenario in 2016, as two things seem highly likely: Senate Republicans will not approve anyone President Obama nominates to replace Scalia, and the next president will at the very least end up choosing two Supreme Court justices, if not more (Justice Ginsburg’s departure from the Court prior to 2021 seems practically certain, -- she turns 83 next month and is in precarious health -- and one or two other current justices may well be gone by then as well). Obama will surely take into account that an increasingly radicalized and confrontational GOP is not going to allow its senators to approve anyone to the Court that Democrats would consider minimally acceptable. This suggests he will nominate someone whose rejection by the Senate will do maximum damage to the electoral chances of both the Republican presidential nominee, and of the GOP senatorial candidates who will be in competitive races in November. In fact it’s quite possible that the rejection of Obama’s nominee (or nominees) will become the central issue of the presidential campaign, as we are now poised to spend the next year, if not longer, with a fundamentally deadlocked Supreme Court. Indeed, it’s well within the realm of possibility that the politics of this situation will play out in such a way that public disgust over how a radicalized GOP reacts to Obama’s nomination(s) ends up playing a crucial role in handing both the presidency and the Senate to the Democrats. And should that happen, we can then look forward to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders choosing Barack Obama to succeed Antonin Scalia.What are the legal and political implications of Antonin Scalia’s sudden death? First, in regard to the legal status of all cases currently before the Supreme Court, all of Scalia’s votes on those cases no longer count. Justices cast their initial votes on cases in a conference, and the task of writing the majority opinion is assigned to a particular justice. Drafts of this opinion then circulate among those justices who voted in the majority, for comments and potential revisions. But until the decision is formally issued, any justice is free to change the vote he or she cast in the conference. (For example, there is strong evidence that the Affordable Care Act was saved when John Roberts changed his mind after the initial conference vote, thus transforming what was originally the majority opinion in the case into the dissent). This fact has serious practical implications for several important cases the Court is currently considering. For example, it now seems likely that a crucial labor law case that seemed fated to deal a serious and possibly fatal blow to many public sector unions will come out the other way. And Justice Scalia’s death may well have also saved the Obama administration’s most critical climate change regulations. This is because what were poised to be 5-4 decisions will now feature 4-4 votes -- and a tie vote in the Supreme Court leaves the law unchanged. This brings us to the political implications of Justice Scalia’s death. These seemed destined to have a big effect on both the presidential race, and various Senate contests which will determine whether the Republicans retain control of the body that must approve Supreme Court nominations. Every four years we hear that the winner of the presidential election may well play a key role in shaping the composition of the Court for decades to come. This will not be a hypothetical scenario in 2016, as two things seem highly likely: Senate Republicans will not approve anyone President Obama nominates to replace Scalia, and the next president will at the very least end up choosing two Supreme Court justices, if not more (Justice Ginsburg’s departure from the Court prior to 2021 seems practically certain, -- she turns 83 next month and is in precarious health -- and one or two other current justices may well be gone by then as well). Obama will surely take into account that an increasingly radicalized and confrontational GOP is not going to allow its senators to approve anyone to the Court that Democrats would consider minimally acceptable. This suggests he will nominate someone whose rejection by the Senate will do maximum damage to the electoral chances of both the Republican presidential nominee, and of the GOP senatorial candidates who will be in competitive races in November. In fact it’s quite possible that the rejection of Obama’s nominee (or nominees) will become the central issue of the presidential campaign, as we are now poised to spend the next year, if not longer, with a fundamentally deadlocked Supreme Court. Indeed, it’s well within the realm of possibility that the politics of this situation will play out in such a way that public disgust over how a radicalized GOP reacts to Obama’s nomination(s) ends up playing a crucial role in handing both the presidency and the Senate to the Democrats. And should that happen, we can then look forward to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders choosing Barack Obama to succeed Antonin Scalia.
