Column Facts are facts.

It’s Groundhog Day, which, if nothing else, means you have a legitimate excuse to watch what is inarguably the last great film Harold Ramis ever directed. It also provides a thin and tired narrative frame for us to hang an assortment of sex facts from, and for that, we can all be grateful. Congratulations! It’s almost spring. (Oh god, spring is still so far away. There are at least five more weeks of nothing but apple pyramids and Brussels sprouts at the farmers’ markets.)

20%: increase in vitamin D and fertility-related hormones for women after prolonged exposure to sunlight

States that recognize same-sex marriage as of February 2nd: 7 (welcome to the party, Washington!)

35: median male age at first marriage in Sweden, the world’s oldest

$140: amount the average Swede spends in a given year in the pursuit of romance

$94: amount spent by the average Dutch citizen, the lowest rate in Europe

$815: going rate among the Irish

1924: Year the term “sexpert” was coined (yet another thing to blame the Jazz Age for. Thanks a lot, Fitzgerald).

Number of days Phil Connors spent trapped inside of the Groundhog Day loop, according to best estimates: 12,403

2 to 4: Factor by which most men over-report their number of lifetime sexual partners

Image: qmnonic

Don’t stay for the wrong reasons.

Sometimes, relationships are like ugly old sweaters: they’re not flattering, they don’t make you feel good, and they’re actually kind of scratchy, now that you think about it. But they’re so familiar, you just can’t bear to get rid of them. Consider giving yourself room for something better – or just have fun being single for a while. Here are signs it may be time to part with the familiar.

You barely spend any time together.

It’s no surprise that, with both partners often working full-time jobs, modern couples may spend less time together than ever. Some couples juggle a lot of responsibilities and strain to see each other on a regular basis – that’s fairly normal. However, a big red flag should pop up when you find that you just aren’t mustering the effort to make it work. If you’d rather stay home and watch movies alone than go out on a romantic date or even just a casual get-together with your boyfriend or girlfriend, something is not right.

Your partner makes you feel bad about yourself.

You should never find yourself believing that you’re not good enough due to your partner’s words or actions. Even if it’s said in a joking way, a jibe about your looks, your job, your intelligence or any matter that relates to self-esteem can really hurt. Don’t just sit back and take it when the “jokes” keep adding up, or your partner doesn’t even bother to cloak his or her constant criticism. There’s a difference between constructive feedback or advice and comments that are meant to tear you down.

You can’t stop fighting.

He doesn’t help out around the house. You nitpick the way he drives. He ate the last cookie that your mom made for you. You made a funny face that could be interpreted as eye rolling. The sky is blue. If you find yourself getting into arguments over nothing and everything, there’s trouble brewing. Constant fighting is a sign of high tension, and while stress can certainly be a big factor in this, there are often underlying relationship issues causing your conflicts. When you can’t work them out – or simply don’t care to – say goodbye.

Your goals in life don’t mesh.

You’re on a quest for self-improvement, or at least a better life, and he’s content to sit in that armchair playing the latest XBox game until the end of his days. You’re growing as a human being, thinking about getting a better job or moving to a new place or having children, and she’s thinking about doing the same old thing she has done virtually every day for the past five years. Don’t sit around waiting for your partner to change. Unless you settle for less than what you truly want in your life, or your partner has some kind of epiphany, things aren’t looking good.

You try to justify repeated wrongs.

Making excuses for your partner’s ill deeds is not doing anyone any favors, least of all yourself. You tell yourself that he’s cold because of his relationship with his mother, that she doesn’t comfort you in your time of need because she’s distracted, that he cheated those three times because he was drunk and you were working late. If even after discussing these issues, they continue to recur, don’t keep justifying them; it just gives your partner permission to continue hurting you indefinitely.

You daydream about leaving.

You used to get lost in visions of cozy domestic life with your love, and now you’re longing to pack your bags and live like a bohemian artist in Paris. Everyone thinks about these things every now and then, but the danger comes when such thoughts become almost like an obsession. When you’re soothing yourself to bed at night with fantasies about starting fresh, you’re looking for a way out.

You’re staying out of self-sacrifice.

When it comes down to it, you realize that you’re no longer in love, but how can you leave? He just wouldn’t be able to get by without you. Maybe you’ve got children, and you worry about how the dissolution of your relationship will affect them. That’s totally understandable, but you’ve got to give yourself more value. Are you really helping your partner by staying with him or her at this point? Is your unhappiness affecting your kids anyway? Don’t waste what little time you have. Give yourself a chance at something real.

You keep secrets.

Once, there was nothing you kept from each other. You confessed all of your deepest secrets and told each other about virtually every aspect of your day, from the antics of an annoying co-worker to worries about your health. But now, things have changed. You conveniently forgot to mention that you’re back in touch with your college sweetheart, or that you’ve been putting money into a secret savings account that’s just for you. Being in a healthy relationship doesn’t have to mean giving over every little detail of yourself, but there definitely shouldn’t be any deception involved.

You’re not having sex.

Libidos change, and sometimes medical issues can cause serious shifts in sexual desire. If your sex life has gone off a cliff, eliminate any physical causes first. Then examine the state of your relationship. If either you or your partner just aren’t interested anymore, it may be a sign that your relationship changed from romantic to platonic when you weren’t looking. It’s not the end-all be-all issue for every relationship, but for most of us, sex is an integral part of a healthy union. When the spark fizzles out despite all efforts to revive it, you may be better off as friends.

The thrill is gone.

A big part of graduating to the real world of adult relationships is realizing that the early butterflies-in-your-stomach phase is supposed to blossom into something more stable and, perhaps, less exciting. Chances are, even if you’re with your “soul mate,” you don’t feel quite the same way about him as you did when you first met. But what if seeing your partner after an extended absence stirs no strong emotions whatsoever? Stop accepting mediocrity and meting it out in return. It’s time to move on.

ALSO CHECK OUT:

10 Signs It’s Time To Leave Your Town

10 Signs It’s Time To Leave Your Friends

10 Signs It’s Time To Leave Your Job

Photo: illusive photography

Column Facts are facts.

If there’s a theme to this week’s Sex by Numbers, it’s that none of you seem to be able to make up your minds. In general, you’re having more sex than in years past, but you’re not sure yet if you approve. Also, you should probably be using condoms more often.

Factor by which the number of therapists specializing in treating sex addicts has grown in the last decade: 15

Percentage of Americans who believe it is “morally wrong” for unmarried men and women to sleep together: 30%

Percentage of Americans who described themselves as “sexually adventurous” in an ABC News poll: 42%

Number of Britons who believe having sex while standing up cannot result in pregnancy: 1 in 10

Odds that any given heterosexual couple will use a condom during vaginal penetration: 1 in 4

Maximum benefit granted by Veteran Benefits Administration due to anatomical or permanent loss of “external sex organs”: $50,000

Percentage of Americans who believe it is “morally wrong” for married people to have affairs: 92%

Married women who said they married their best-ever sexual partners: 47%

Image: a tai

ColumnA look at the institution of marriage and what some will go through to make it happen.

Whether you consider it an anachronism or not is little matter:  A wedding is a fête, marriage is an institution, and because summer is culturally enshrined as the season for matrimony, there’s no better occasion for exploring the anthropology of marriage than now. The current incarnation of marriage (one governed by romance and not pre-arrangement), is unique in human history, but its contemporary expression is no more exceptional than any other across history and geography.

While its interpretations shift and morph over time, at its universal core is marriage’s “holy trinity:” 1) reproductive management, 2) property management, and 3) kinship management.

In the lawless days of pre-history and, more recently, the warring tribes of Europe or violently-maintained dynasties of Asia, marriage functioned (and, in many places, continues to function) as a means of staving off early death: When groups of people are genetically similar and have a communal interest in an area’s natural resources, they are less likely to kill one another. And, in turn, much likelier to kill those who do not belong, dare to trespass, and threaten an existing social order.

Reductionist, romance-devoid analysis of marriage? Absolutely. And still, despite its singular evolutionary value, the institution’s cross-cultural manifestations are as vast as they are fascinating. In such a vein, this week’s Sex by Numbers surveys six striking (biased and  arbitrary) installments in the global annals of marriage and meaning.

1) Afghani government official Mabubullah Sayedi said, “It is against all human rights.” Amnesty International called it a “heinous crime.” Kunduz-based Sadiqa, 20 years old, and her lover Qayum, 28 years old, attempted to run away and elope after being prevented from marrying. A Taliban led group discovered the couple hiding at a friend’s house in preparation for their elopement. The pair was dragged into the open and in front of a group of 150 men they were stoned to death. Their murders occurred exactly one year ago, in August 2010.

2) In ancient Babylon, what is now modern day Iraq, both Jews and Shiite Muslims could be granted temporary marriages, called Mutt’a, in which a man was allowed to take a ‘wife for the day.’ The short lasting contract stipulated no further obligation to one another, with a single exception: If she became pregnant, her child was considered legitimate progeny and due a share of the father’s inheritance.

3) A University of Virginia neuroscientist recently conducted a study for which he recruited American women who rated their overall marital happiness as high. His study included a stress-response component, for which a woman’s brain waves were monitored using an f.M.R.I. while receiving a controlled electric shock. For the first round of electrical administration, the woman was alone. For the second round, she held the hand of a stranger. For the third, she held her husband’s hand. The effect of his touch stimulated the same areas of the brain that would be activated when taking a pain relieving drug.

4) Swedish researchers in 2000 conducted a study of women who had been hospitalized for heart attacks or debilitating chest pain, gathering information about various stressors in their lives and following their health for the following three years. Women who reported significant on-the-job stress had no higher risk for recurring heart problems than those who indicated they were happy at their jobs. However, women who reported high levels of marital stress were three times as likely to experience a second heart attack or require a bypass or other procedure.

5) In China in the 1800s, young women had the option of selecting out of a traditional marriage by wedding a dead man through an arrangement called ‘ghost marriage.’ The benefits to this unique union were two-fold: Women were freed to pursue their freedom and ambitions without having to take care of children or a husband. At the same time, the marriage contract allowed her family to consolidate wealth through her husband’s financial legacy. Apparently, these husbands were a coveted stock. As one such ‘ghost’ bride is quoted, “It was not so easy to find an unmarried dead man to marry.”

6) July 24th of this year marked the first time ever that lesbian and gay couples could receive marriage licenses in the state of New York, flooding clerk’s offices with same sex couples seeking to exchange vows. In New York City alone, 484 couples married at city bureaus and another 659 collected licenses, totaling 2,286 happy newlyweds.

Sex By Numbers is an ongoing look into the emotional and sexual lives of the modern day woman. Follow Abigail Wick weekly here for insight and inspiration as she explores the “sex” of women and the terrain they must travel.

Image: m5, DVIDSHUB, Telyinex, Nikoretro, SammyDavisDog, RalphRepo, Maxintosh

ColumnHe’s smart and strong, beautiful and brave, kind-hearted and…carnivorous.

At the dawn of a relationship, any faux pas is sufficient grounds for termination – far better to wield a blunt axe than be blinded by short-lived charms. Certain obvious criteria warrant immediate demotion from maybe-boyfriend to totally-not-lustable such as: ignorant homophobic, racist, or sexist slip-ups; failure to exhibit kindness and humanity to baristas, waiters, and people otherwise employed in the service industry; too-liberal use of ‘emoticons’ in emails, gratuitous text messages, or other similar demands on your time and patience all come to mind. Not to be too specific.

But what if the fellow is smart and strong, beautiful and brave, and an all-around incredible, kind-hearted individual? It’s this juncture of clear, mutual attraction where questions of ethics and their long-term implications make dating a stickier, less cut-and-dried issue altogether. Namely, can a principled vegan woman find it within herself to fall for a meat-eating man? Marinate on that a minute.

Let’s say you unequivocally believe that meat is murder. Now, imagine somehow reconciling that firm, clear conviction with a well-mannered, scintillating conversationalist with whom you’re on a date with at a new French restaurant who, along with a tastefully-selected bottle of Bordeaux, just ordered the foie gras starter and veal main.

As a no-turning-back vegetarian since my teenage years, I’ve never taken a long-term lover whose moral and philosophical compass regarding animal rights and welfare didn’t approximate my own. Were any of these shy and smiling boys so inclined from the outset of our relationship? No, absolutely not. But they were uniformly intelligent, curious creatures with the good sense to reexamine their ethical presuppositions and accordingly recalibrate their practical, day-to-day affairs to reflect an evolving value system.

My mission to change the hearts and minds of carnivores one-guy-at-a-time? Accomplished. Well, perhaps not quite. After breaking up, all but one, lone ex-boyfriend shortly, summarily abandoned his conscientious ways in favor of fried chicken. Gross. Hey, what better way to work out some breakup angst than to stick a fork in it? Revenge, for some, may be a dish best served medium-rare.

Older-and-wiser is perhaps the surest and truest of clichés. Age endows us (or should endow us) with the willingness to hold a magnifying glass to our  own shortcomings, frankly examining how we all can be selfish and small, prideful and petty.

This is easier said than done. In the lofty words of essayist Brillat Savarin: “There can be no warm, rich home-life anywhere else if it does not exist at the table; and in the same way there can be no enduring family happiness, no real marriage, if  a man and woman cannot open themselves generously and without suspicion one to the other over a shared bowl of soup as well as a shared caress.”

Food, from an arugula plant photosynthesizing the sun’s energy, to the farm worker who harvests the leaves, to the intimacy of a couple collaborating in the kitchen to prepare a lavish green salad, is greater than a preference for taste. Its preparation and consumption is a radical, sensual act encompassing everything from environmental sustainability to immigrant labor rights. This is to say nothing of animal welfare.

As much as a man’s virtues and joie de vivre might make my heart sing, I simply cannot conceive of spending my life – much less creating a family – with someone who chooses to overlook the implications of his morning bacon and eggs.

Love isn’t the exclusive domain of romantic partnership. Love is a choice about how you will show up in the world. Love drives my opposition to the death-penalty in America; it governs my decision to ride a bicycle rather than drive a car; and it motivates me to extend equal consideration of interest to animals. I am an animal. I am also an animal who doesn’t eat other animals.

Female animal seeks male animal who doesn’t eat animals. (Must also possess athletic build, international sensibility, and fulfilling career that makes him happy.)

Worst personal ad of all time? Maybe. Or it’s honest and realistic: the foundation of a sustainable relationship based on a commitment to common values.

A man and woman who can companionably, conscientiously dine together – not to mention cook, host festive dinner parties for friends, and indulge in regular postprandial love-making – stay together. As Brillat Savarin said, “Happiness at the table leads to happiness in bed.” And, with that, Guten appetit.

Sex By Numbers is an ongoing look into the emotional and sexual lives of the modern day woman. Follow Abigail Wick weekly here for insight and inspiration as she explores the “sex” of women and the terrain they must travel.

Image: Bolshakov

The question to change or not to change a woman’s last name is a humanist issue more than a feminist one.

If you are an American woman who decides to get married, you will likely change your name. In fact, three million American women do so every year, roughly encompassing the 90 percent of women entering matrimonial bliss. This leaves the 10 percent of women who decided to keep their birth surnames, or the men who decide to change their own, navigating an interesting cultural landscape.

Stephanie Coontz is the author of  Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage and as Coontz informs us, people in medieval times took the name of the higher-status spouse when they married. But this trend reversed itself in America when women took over exclusive rights on the name change, which eventually evolved into a legal obligation. The rise of the feminist movement in the 1970s helped to change the laws, which included “states [requiring] married women to take their husbands’ names in order to engage in basic activities such as voting and driving.”

So what urged women in the 1970s to hold onto their maiden names? In “Making a Name: Women’s Surnames at Marriage and Beyond,” Harvard Professor Claudia Goldin and graduate Maria Shim attribute this trend to age and experience. They write, “The legal, social and economic institutions supporting this custom began to shift in the 1970s: the laws that pressured women to take their husband’s names changed; the appellation ‘Ms.’ became acceptable; the age at first marriage rose; and the number of advanced academic degrees received by women increased.”

And yet, the tendency stalled around the 1990s. As Goldin notes, the number of college-educated women in their 30s keeping their name dropped from 23 percent in 1990 to 17 percent in 2000. Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, believes this is because people are now taking marriage more seriously. He further cites University of Virginia professor Steven Rhoads as declaring “I think it will strengthen marriage. It’s a sign that someone intends it to be a unit, that this is a marriage, and it is for the duration.”

Whether Lowry or Rhoads speak for a woman’s choice certainly depends on the woman making it. Most have a personal anecdote as to why she, and sometimes he, decided to change her or his name. But ask anyone why they didn’t change her name, and you’re likely to invoke a new series of questions, including “What about your children, won’t they be confused?” And many times, “What does your husband think?” And finally, “Do you think women are anti-feminist who keep their name?” For women and men who hyphenate their two names, they might be asked: “What will your children do, hyphenate your already hyphenated names?”

What you will get is a strong opinion. A surname is about identity, and what’s more personal than that? While some might see the act of keeping a maiden name as an indication of a woman’s independence or a play for personal power, the choice is an issue that can cause unwanted criticism for wanting to retain a lifelong identity whether from family, co-workers or the society at large. Plenty of contemporary influential women have changed their name without anyone questioning their feminism. Lady Margaret Thatcher (nee Roberts) is a name changer, as is First Lady Michelle Obama. Hillary Rodham reversed her decision after her husband’s gubernatorial loss in 1980, becoming Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While this decision is personalized on many different levels, there can be some common ground. In the end, what are some of the reasons married women keep their maiden name?

The act defines our society as patriarchal.

Patriarchy is defined as “a form of social organization in which a male is the head of the family and descent, kinship, and title are traced through the male line.” Further, this is “any society governed by such a system.” We are by definition a patriarchal society because women change their names at marriage.

It’s about ethnic identification.

As Lisa Cupido writes for the Columbia News Service, Cara August was a bride who chose not to take her husband’s full name, Buikema. As Cupido writes of August, “If I kept his last name, I just know it would bring with it ideas about me that are not true. There are cultural and religious implications for example, I don’t want it to be assumed I’m Christian Reform because I have a Dutch last name. Their personal belief system differs from mine. I just really want to be me.”

The bonds of family are stronger than just a name.

When a woman changes her name after marriage, does that mean she is less of a daughter to her own mother and father? Of course not. And yet, if she doesn’t share the same name as her children and husband, is she somehow “less” of a member of that family?

A name can be a career well-earned.

A recent study from the Netherlands reveals that women who choose to adopt their husbands’ surnames may be penalized in the job market. As The New York Times reports, “Using Dutch population data, researchers at the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research found that there were demographic differences between women who chose to take their partners’ names and those who did not.” Participants were asked to judge hypothetical women who had changed their names and those who had not. The study showed that people thought that a woman who changed her name to her husband’s was “more caring, more dependent, less intelligent, more emotional, less competent, and less ambitious in comparison with a woman who kept her own name.” Conversely, women who did not change their name were “judged as less caring, more independent, more ambitious, more intelligent, and more competent, which was similar to an unmarried woman living [with her partner] or a man.” Ultimately, many women feel that their names, often steeped in a hard-won reputation in the workforce, are not tags they are willing to give up at marriage.

The bureaucratic pressures to change your name aren’t as strong as one might think.

In “The Maiden Name Debate,” Katie Roiphe writes that many women change their names not out of “a nostalgic affection for tradition” but “because giving in to bureaucratic pressures is easier than clinging to their old identity. In a mundane way, having the same name as your children is easier.” But many children do not share their mother’s names for other reasons, especially if their mothers have divorced or remarried. Schools, doctor’s offices, and other institutions are more equipped to handle this than one might assume.

There are other options.

Some women choose to hyphenate their last name with their husbands. Others keep their maiden name as their middle name. And some combine their surname with their husband’s to create a whole new name.

The choice is not gender equal.

Finally, some men take their wives’ surnames. Lucy Stone, an antislavery and suffrage activist, is thought to have been the first U.S. woman to keep her name when she married in 1855. Later, 1920s feminists formed the Lucy Stone League which, after some lulls, still exists today. The Lucy Stone League supports equal rights for women AND men to retain, modify, and create their own names, as well as equality in patrilineal and matrilineal distribution of names for children.

Why, might you ask, does an organization exist today when name changing is such a common practice among women? As FOX News reports, male equality does not exist in this choice. According to FOX, “when signing a marriage certificate, a woman has a choice to write in what her new last name will be. However, only six states — Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, and Delaware — have the same option for men to change their name. “ They cite a recent court case in California where a man who wished to take his wife’s name faced much higher court fees and bureaucratic hassles. Further, “A man in California must advertise his plan to change his name change for four weeks in a newspaper, as well as get approval from a judge.”

So, yes, there is yet to be equality for this choice under the law. And it seems that the question to change or not to change is humanist issue more than a feminist one.

Image: JEDM, Peacemaker Voices, Discover Magazine Blog, o5Com

ColumnA weekly exploration into the sexually fascinating and provocative.

This is Abigail Wick’s first column in her new expedition of Sex By Numbers, an ongoing look into the emotional and sexual  lives of the modern day woman. Follow her weekly here for insight and inspiration as she explores the “sex” of women and the terrain they must travel.

Breaking up is a bitch. During the aftermath of a relationship, it’s critical to regard the upheaval as opportunity for empowerment and a chance to positively reshape the future.  I too try to walk the talk and at the encouragement of friends inspired by my recent courage and convictions post break-up, I’ve created a list of indispensable post-breakup musts that just might work for you too.

Write It Down: Perhaps your single-most important course of action is to write yourself a letter: Why am I no longer with this person? What can this severance teach me about myself and others? How can I leverage this breakup to emerge as a more compassionate and powerful woman? If you write it down, you prohibit yourself from forgetting, and when you’re hit with pangs of loneliness or desperation, it can be very, very easy to forget. Don’t let this happen. Consult the letter you addressed to yourself and remember.

Get Out of Town: When my long-term sweetheart and I separated, I decided to make the most of my mobility as a freelance writer. I booked it to Berlin, where I’m currently taking a three-month live/work sabbatical. Out-of-sight by no means signals out-of-mind, however, the geographic distance is a welcome salve. If journeying abroad isn’t available to you, then treat yourself to as many weekend road-trips as possible to a rejuvenating hot springs getaway or a relaxing bed-and-breakfast. And don’t make the mistake of going to visit your worried parents or blissfully betrothed little sister, it will just bum you out.

Dance-Dance Revolution: No human activity gets the blues to beat it more than dancing. With limbs flying free and your pelvis syncing with good grooves, you tap into the deepest, most-elemental parts of your body. Not to mention, moving in time with folks on the dance floor submerges your individuality, you become and belong to something greater than yourself. This combination of abandon, connection, and sweat (lots and lots of it, because of course you’re dancing to the point of happy exhaustion), reminds you that life is a miracle. Most importantly, the physical freedom you access on the dance floor mirrors your personal liberation from a romantic partnership that no longer serves you.

Forget About Flings: Don’t look for new men, but rather stick close to your girlfriends. They will ply you with champagne, reassure you you’re beautiful, and generally dispense all manner of conflicting advice. Don’t fret about your ladies’ contradictory ministrations, just let their sweet words fall over you like spring cherry blossoms dropping from their branches.

Get a Haircut: You’ve had that same style for long enough, and no matter how glossy and voluminous your locks, it will do you good to lop them off. Snipping off the end bits is a powerful symbol for eliminating emotional roadblocks and dead ends. As you negotiate your separation, do it resplendent and shorn.

Nobody Will Complain: You have 100-percent permission to go on a post-breakup bender. Don’t feel guilty, not one lick. But right after, pick yourself up and get your ass into yoga class. Nurturing health, well-being, and inner-peace is much sexier than downing too much wine. And whatever your future holds, nobody is going to complain about your hot, new yoga bod.

Pretty, Soiled Things: Tending to Plants: Even if it’s just watering the potted fern on your kitchen windowsill, plants offer roundly satisfying pleasure. Fill your living room with ivies and succulents or start a window box to grow fresh basil and mint. Better yet, join a community garden where you can sit on your haunches on a nice patch of earth while weeding strawberry plants.

Love Him: Where you focus your attention becomes your reality. If you train your thoughts on how you messed up or how he failed you, embarrassing obsessiveness and self-destruction are around the bend. Rather than creating negative neural pathways, generate useful ones. Think about the time he taught you to change a bicycle tire and be grateful for his generosity as a teacher and your finesse at fixing a flat. Remember his tenderness and protectiveness when you lost a loved one, and be glad you received his much-needed comfort. Focus on positive experiences you shared and lessons you learned from one another. Be thankful for him. Forgive him. Love him. Accept that things are different now. And move on.

Post-Modern Endings: At every moment, you are writing the story of you. Breakups are a reminder that our personal narratives are unfixed, unbound, and undefined. There are no happy endings, no packages tied-up with string, and no truth other than this: Life will throw shit at you, you will fall in the muck, and you get to choose whether or not you will pick yourself back up with dignity.

Every Morning: Every morning, tell yourself you are enlightened and then, to the best of your ability, behave like you are.

This is the latest installment in Abigail Wick’s column, Sex By Numbers, a weekly exploration into the sexually fascinating and provocative.

Image: Gandalf’s Gallery

Virginia Wolf said a good man is hard to find – but a good valentine is even harder, at least when it comes to expressing pain, disappointment and heartbreak.

I’ve been on the hunt for several years now, perusing shelf after shelf of red-foiled, sappy cards starring personified rodents bearing heart shaped boxes of treats. They’re addressed to “my one and only,” or “better half,” but never “to the dysfunctional loafer who refuses to change the motion detector light bulbs or clean out the garage so I can park my hybrid.”

You might ask, why bother giving a card if the relationship is so strained? Guess it amounts to playing nice.

In my case, it also pleases the kids. I’m still married until “the change” and our family celebrates V-Day each year at Lovejoy’s Tea Room in  San Francisco. The high tea involves exchanging adorable cards and gifts, while getting high on cocoa and petit fours. The girls, sweet and sentimental drama teens and tweens, keep a watchful eye on what is presented.

I do my best to remain cordial and express what is authentic – the real love and gratitude I feel for a devoted father and the nostalgia I feel towards someone I had selected as a life partner, as exemplified by an unforgettable, $100,000 blowout wedding at the Fairmont. Yes, I still and always will have appreciation for the guy who does trash night every Monday, sorting through a daunting jungle of recycling, composting and landfill-bound waste.

Aimed at showing that appreciation, I found myself again standing before the vast and troubling array of roses and cupids strumming lutes, combing through the horrible selection of overwrought poetry which no longer resonates. It’s hard enough to find a sophisticated greeting for Nana or a best friend. Try something apt for the one who ruined everything.

I  visited at least five shops, including the trusty resources like Lucky, Walgreen’s, Hallmark stores, as well as little boutiques on my avenue, the vintage oriented GiGi’s and the festive Just Because. In pulling one for my bitter half, I must have gone through a few dozen before settling on two somewhat nebulous expressions of affection tinged with humor.

The first one, a deep blue background with swirls and tiny hearts, features a cupid holding what else – a heart – and smiling. It reads: “Valentine – No words could possibly describe how I feel when we’re together.” On the inside: “…at least, no words clean enough to be printed in a greeting card! Love You. Happy Valentine’s Day.”

The second card I stumbled upon at Just Because made me laugh hard out loud, just because.

This card featured two dogs on the cover in a pink and red background and no words. On the inside, it read: “True love means never having to say ‘who farted?’ Happy Valentines Day!” A bit crude, yes, but it also spoke to our years together more than the other lovey-dovey choices. And I like how it toyed with the original line from the classic romance hit of my day, Love Story.

The original line reads: “Love Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry.”

I think they got it wrong, having been very much in love and very desirous of hearing the words, “I’m sorry.” Why sugarcoat it? Love leads to heartburn much of the time. Love means having to say I’m sorry for the things I said or did quite frequently, along with saying “You’ve changed and it’s time to move out.” Those who don’t say it, often think it.

I suppose if I could compose my own DIY Valentine, as suggested on many frugal sites, I would be remiss not to include the message that I wish he would get up in the morning and help out while I’m running myself ragged packing organic lunches, feeding the dog, making free range eggs for breakfast and doing a myriad of tasks.

But I might also add the words, I’m sorry. I’m sorry things didn’t work out despite couples therapy, ultimatums, terse emails, date nights, pro-con lists and energy wasted begging for change. And I’ll be sorry in the winters to come, when I find myself again shopping cards and finding none addressed “to my sexy ex” articulating how crazy a divorce can get – but that we will always have candy.

A new line of greeting cards for the broken-hearted? Just think of the marketing potential. A card for the heartless boss who dumped you the same week the bank foreclosed on your house; a card for the brother who robbed you of your inheritance, reducing you to a helpless heroine in a Jane Austen tale; a card for the dude who asked out your best friend after your break up. A bad marriage or divorce is only the tip of the iceberg. Hallmark, are you listening?

images: Corinaclaire; vintage halloween collector; Snickerpuss; Impawards

The idea of a mail order bride has a wild reputation. It brings to mind a woman climbing into a crate that the post office handles. On the other side of the world, the woman leaps out and into the arms of her new husband, thrilled to be starting a new life. Happiness abounds! Until new bride gets sick of her unattractive new husband and takes off with her trainer, Fabio, to hit the club scene in Miami. Sadness flourishes. Or does everyone live happily ever after in domestic bliss? Hope rises!

Despite varying perceptions, the mail order bride trade is flourishing. You would think that with a recession in full swing, Americans would be cutting back on all non-essentials. But throw the idea of true romance and love into the mix, and apparently financial concerns can become as soft and hazy as a sunset walk on the beach. What exactly is going in?

The Tahirih Justice Center is a nonprofit organization in Falls Church, Virginia, that protects immigrant women. As Msnbc.com reports, they “estimate that the number of mail order marriages in the U.S. more than doubled between 1999 and 2007, when up to 16,500 such unions were sealed.” Not to mention, it’s quite lucrative. The mail-order bride business, where women and men are matched up with others around the world, made an estimated $2 billion in 2010.

Joseph Weiner is the owners of Hand-In-Hand, an organization that charges men $2000 to be matched with Eastern European women. As Weiner told Msnbc.com, “We’re still opening up franchises, and business is booming. Financial problems are the biggest cause of divorce. There are more financial problems now. There are more people available!” Further, Weiner thinks the reason his business is so successful is simple biology. According to Weiner, “Every guy wants a beautiful younger woman. It’s the nature of us.”

Does Weiner have us pegged? Or is he just a sexist entrepreneur exploiting lonely men and opportunistic young women determined to grab an American visa? One thing is certain: the mail-order bride business, which now prefers to be called “international matchmaking,” makes many people uncomfortable. For some, it is because it often involves an exchange of money. In that respect, it’s hard not to compare these sites to “Sugar Daddy” sites, where men and women seek each other out on a financial basis.

If you were to ask any of the smiling couples promoting the international matchmaking business, you would be hard pressed to find a dissatisfied customer. “The Today Show” recently featured Tanya Adams, the internationally match-made Russian wife of John Adams. Mr. Adams is the co-founder of Phoenix-based “A Foreign Affair” which charges $4000 to connect international love matches. As Mrs. Adams posed to Matt Lauer, “It’s like Internet dating. If you live in New York and want a girlfriend in California, how is it different?” For Mrs. Adams, life is good.

For other women, the mail-order bride business can be deadly. Two high-profile deaths of mail-order brides, Susanna Blackwell in 1995 and Anatasia King in 2000, caused Congress to pass the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBA). Both women were killed by husbands with a history of violence. Now men or women who wish to marry someone through a matchmaking service must turn over any police records and pass a rigorous background check to qualify for a marriage visa. However, experts point out that agencies often easily avoid this requirement by having participants claim they met elsewhere.

Is there a darker, anti-feminist side to mail order bride operations? As FOX News reports, “Men who seek wives abroad often explicitly state those women here are not worth marrying because they are too independent, ruined by feminism or fill in the pejorative blank.” Feminism is the alleged boogeyman behind these marriages. American women are too empowered, so men must go to countries where women are willing to trade a bit of their power for their own idea of a better life.

Of course, some would argue that men and women who enter into these arrangements are equal opportunity seekers. And as long as no one is harmed, then what’s the problem? If a lonely man who wants a young, pretty wife from another country, and a young, pretty wife wants an American husband, then who are we to judge? They would have a valid point.

But to all the seekers of “international matchmaking” out there criticizing the modern American woman? Ultimately, if you want to enter into a safe, mutually-beneficial romance with a woman from another country – go for it. Just don’t blame feminism. If romantic comedies, Sex and the City and 90 percent of Jennifer Aniston’s movie roles teach us anything, it is that American women apparently want marriage and family in droves.

Images: rbowen, istolethetv

The other night, I accidentally fell on my remote control and Millionaire Matchmaker came on. You know, when one minute you’re reading War and Peace, and the next you’re watching Patti Stanger scream at single people in New York City. And so, I was treated to a date between Robin, a successful “millionaire-ess” and Luke, a plumber. Robin, who seemed drunk since birth, promised Luke a Maserati and a Ducati. Luke promised to act like a complete ass. They didn’t live happily ever after.

Patti Stanger, our millionaire matchmaker, promises true love to rich men and women. And while most of her clients are men, she does feature the occasional woman who is inevitably instructed to feminize her actions and appearance in order to catch a dude. This seems, of course, archaic. But despite seemingly outdated notions, Stanger is a reality hit and an unlikely feminist – simply for being an equal-opportunity offender at the top of her profession. She is, essentially, a CEO of ball-busting – and if her client doesn’t actually have a pair of balls, all the better.

So when a recent headline trumpeted “Women Want Rich Husbands, Not Careers” from the Daily Mail, I thought Ms. Stanger was up to more shenanigans. But this time, it wasn’t a reality TV personality making this claim but Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics. According to Dr. Hakim, in a recent report published by the Centre for Policy Studies Think Tank, “Despite years of equality campaigning, more women are choosing to marry wealthy men than in the 1940s.”

Then Dr. Hakim blames feminists for our gender confusion. Via the Daily Mail, Dr. Hakim claims “Women today have more choices than men, including real choices between a focus on family work and/or paid employment. Despite this, many politicians and feminists appear disappointed with the slow pace of change in women’s attainment of top jobs.” In other words, women aren’t on top in the business world because they don’t want to be.

What kind of harm can a report like this do? It will likely enforce sexist beliefs already in place while making everyone else feel vaguely defensive and angry. But really, it should just be brushed off as another lame attempt to lump people of the same gender into black and white slots. Yes, some women want their husbands to support them financially. Most of the time, it’s because they are doing the unpaid hard work of raising children. And by that same token, some men are equally happy being supported by their wives. Clearly, to some, these people represent stark representations of their gender. So let’s just call it a day on the fight for equality, shall we?

As a recently-married woman, I wish I could sit back and let my husband take care of the bills. But I have what Dr. Hakim would probably deem the unfeminine need to earn my keep. I want to work and I thank my feminist foremothers for creating a society that lets me do so.

The good news? Controversy courts consideration, and women’s roles are always worth discussing. Certainly, there’s a lot to talk about. If you stay at home with your spouse supporting you, you may feel the need to defend it. If you work while someone else watches your kids, you may feel the need to defend it. If you choose not to have kids, you may feel the need to defend it. Now if only there was a study on how sick women are of defending their life’s choices.

Image Courtesy of Bravo