Writing in today’s WaPo, Jenée Desmond-Harris wonders: “It’s easy to see now that [Barack Obama] was a great catch, but how many of us would have been open to this guy who strayed so far from the black Prince Charming ideal, starting with his very name?” Her exhortation: “[I]f black women are going to defy the statistics, they need to start being more realistic. Holding out for the perfect man, someone who is intellectual but not nerdy—cool but not arrogant—impeccably dressed but not effeminate—not a player but with just the right amount of edge—is useless.” Read the piece, then let us know: just another scolding for the “picky“* among us, or does Desmond-Harris have a point?

* “picky,” as in: about the person with whom you’re going to spend the rest of your life

Greetings, classmates. Can you believe that ten years have passed since we last walked the hallowed halls of our beloved high school? True, we blew up those same halls on Graduation Day and bonded together to battle a giant snake, but who among us doesn’t look back in fondness at those glory days of Sunnydale High?

– Michelle Blake-West, Sunnydale Class of 1999 co-Homecoming Queen

Tonight (and next week) in New York!

Each attendee will be assigned their own Sunnydale student identity kit at the door. Then we’ll party like it’s 1999 with with an evening of dancing to music videos from the end of the century, challenging Buffy trivia contests, our always popular Buffy-oke competition, and other Buffy related party games. Over the course of the evening, our alumni will be going head-to-head in all these activities, with one student selected at the end of the night to win our custom “Class Protector” award (and a ton of Buffy schwag).

Of course, now that snake will totally have two kids, a dumb job, and a paunch.

Science Daily: “New research by psychologists at the University at Buffalo and Miami University, Ohio, indicates that illusionary relationships with the characters and personalities on favorite TV shows can provide people with feelings of belonging, even in the face of low self esteem or after being rejected by friends or family members.”

I could have told you that. (But I told Liz Lemon instead.)

I could tell from the very first TV commercial for Obsessed that it would be a hit, and the weekend’s box office receipts have borne that out. First off, it’s been way too long since the last trashy she-stalker movie! (And Swimfan hardly counts since it was a teen movie.) (Erika Christensen, don’t cut me!) Plus it cleverly exploits the “white women are stealing our men!” meme, AND it features empowerment-you-can-dance-to diva Sasha Fierce herself! Movie magic.

Now then, as a public service for those of you on Team Larter, the LA Times provides a helpful list of Do’s and Don’t for the modern psycho-bitch on the go! A sample:

Do: Befriend a high school classmate. Move in with her family. Put the moves on her dad. Murder her mom and make sure it looks like a suicide.

Don’t: Flip out. Wreck the car. Then blame it on your friend. She’ll figure out you’re evil and push you off a balcony. (Poison Ivy)

So I’m on my second marriage. My third, if you count the eight-year relationship between the two. So I know from divorce, splitups and breakups, and I say basta. So anytime someone has constructive advice about how to make my marriage go the distance, I sit up and take notice. Immediately followed, usually, by slumping back down and putting my head between my legs, because omfg, I just can’t.

The New York Times has trotted out the old “date-night” advice: making time for each other to reconnect sans kids is good for your union. Well, duh. Is the New York Times going to pay Barnard Babysitting? Anyway, the newest research says that even if I manage to find a sitter, find enough energy, and tear myself away from my child — is there an opposite of dayenu? It’s not enough for us. If we do all that and then just sit at our favorite sushi place, staring at each other — we’re still in mortal danger of becoming a statistic. Turns out we have to do more than go on a date — we have to go on an exciting date!

Novelty is the goal — it’s supposed to re-up our supply of dopamine and mimic the headiness of our early love. You know what else would reignite my dopamine? My husband throwing out those heinous maroon sweatpants. But I digress. The studies indicate that we’ll feel more connected and satisfied if we do stuff we don’t usually do, like “attending concerts or plays, skiing, hiking and dancing.” That, my friends, is quite an evening.

Look, I’d love to. I’d love to hike and dance and hang-glide. (That’s not true. I would hate to hang-glide.) But I already feel so much pressure to plan a night out. And at this point, believe me, sitting at a table that someone else is going to clean up counts as a novel experience. I’m going to have to hope that’s enough for now.

Speed dating may seem like a waste of (tiny microcosms of) time, but some researchers at Indiana University recently found a way to put it to good use: By having subjects (male and female) watch tapes of numerous speed-dating interactions (male-female), they measured which gender seems to be more adept at picking up on flirting cues, both come-hither and get-outta-here.

Turns out, it’s a draw.

“… [M]en and women were shown to be equally good at gauging men’s interest,” says the study, “and equally bad at judging women’s interest.”

So apparently it’s hard to get when women are playing hard-to-get. Score one for feminine mystique!

“‘The hardest-to-read women were being misperceived at a much higher rate than the hardest-to-read men. Those women were being flirtatious, but it turned out they weren’t interested at all,’ said lead author Skyler Place, a doctoral student in IU’s Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences working with cognitive science Professor Peter Todd. ‘Nobody could really read what these deceptive females were doing, including other women.’ ” (“These deceptive females?” Sounds either coldly anthro-scientific, or the opposite, like he’s gonna go on to say, “YOU made me do this study, Linda, YOU did!”)

Here’s something else I’m having a hard time getting. Behold this little nugget:

“Researchers expected women to have a leg up in judging romantic interest, because theoretically they have more to lose from a bad relationship [ital mine], but no such edge was found.”

An icky amount of such cavalier sexism has been coursing through the “scientific” studies I’ve read of late. This one’s so broad I’m not even sure which presumptions are being referred to: That women don’t have time on their side? That they often wind up financially lesser-off post-divorce? That they’re all just, y’know, thisclose to tripping over the line into full-blown nutso?

If you’re as worked up as me, unwind by playing your own Meta Match Game.

Now coming to a close is Psychology Today’s three-part Q&A between author/interviewer Bella DePaulo and author/interviewee Jaclyn Geller about the singles stigma. And here’s our final rundown of this quite illuminating discussion.

— I swear I did not know that DePaulo was gonna name-check that same baby-shower “SATC” ep as I linked to in my most recent post. All the same, I will take this opportunity to remind you what great minds do.

— In other tried-but-true cliches (including the use of “tried and true,” shame on me), Geller eloquently discusses how those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. (Translation: She recommends all those entering marriage to read up on its history.)

— If a Mormon can decide to take the Sarandon-Robbins alternate route to happiness, then change is inevitable.

Last we left our whatevs-to-marriage heroines — authors Bella DePaulo and Jaclyn Geller; the former is running a three-part Q&A with the latter on the Psychology Today blogs — the discussion dwelled on the inequities of wedding registries, “single” v.”married” vocab and the notion that spouses trump friends any day of the week (and, I’m guessing, twice on your anniversary).

And now, our teasers for part deux:

— Singles supplementing couples’ life choices via endless streams of showers should basically just start registering for stuff the day they turn 25.

— Earning one’s M.R.S. degree is, sadly, still a popular college-major choice among coeds.

— Something I’ve never said/written before (not even when I actually was, speaking of, in college): ZOMG I have *GOT* to read me some Plato!

— Double ZOMG: They had road trips in the first century?!?

Forget the Al Bundy-esque battle over the remote control. According to the New York Times, the latest pop-culture conflict heating up among couples is: The Netflix Wars.

For many couples, the queue — the computer list of which films will arrive next in the mail, after those at home are returned — is as important as everything else that spouses and other varieties of significant others share, from pet names to closet space to the bathroom. For some, this is fine. For others, the queue is the new toilet seat that somebody left up.

Yikes! Looks like someone just rented “Awkward Metaphor.” Anyway: from changing the account password to sneakily bumping up one’s own selections, “policing the queue” has apparently become “a delicate matter” that can cause turmoil under a shared roof.

True? What about you? Have you ever had a Bridget Jones v. James Bond scuffle over movie choices with your partner?

This is only the first installment of up-with-singles author* Bella DePaulo’s Q&A trifecta with author Jaclyn Geller, author of Here Comes the Bride: Women, Weddings, and the Marriage Mystique, and already I’ve got releases of hundreds of white doves mini-explosions of consciousness-raising going off in my head. To wit:

1. What’s up with all the wedding presents when — now that folks are marrying later — most spouses-to-be already have two of everything anyway? (Shouldn’t all-Freecycle weddings already be the wave of…right now?)

2. “Matrimaniacs” is the new “bridezillas.” Pass it on.

3. If we are going to reclaim the word “spinster” — Geller notes that it wasn’t always an insult — I vote for “noun: a female DJ.”

There’s much more: linguistics (“I don’t like the “single”/ “married” binary. It implies that any unmarried person is a fragmentary half-self awaiting completion in a spouse”), history (prehistoric prenups!), homosocial poetry!

Cliffhanger: In one of the next installments, Geller tells us what she writes on those medical forms that ask whether we’re single or married. (Perhaps she’ll also tell us how not to feel lame when it asks for “emergency contact” and we have to write in our parents?)

* See: Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After