0

0

0

0

I love it!

0

Even if I’m wrong, I think my translation was funnier.

0

Afternoon break rolls around so I pull out my new Harlequin American Romance book and find this passage. The hero is thinking about the heroine here:

“After the company Christmas party almost three years ago he hadn’t wasted the opportunity to claim her. He’d pursued her, seduced her and found nirvana when he’d made love to her. Sex wasn’t necessarily a spiritual experience, but with Tori it was different. He’d never quite put his finger on why, only that she was somehow a part of him, one he hadn’t planned to let go.”

The GHH strikes again! Page 68 and she’s already got him hooked!

0

In fact, as the hero of my MIP says to the nun, that sort of rake has no trouble getting sex. He doesn’t have to work that hard for it.

Jo

0

0

GHH. the wonders of it, the absolute wonders.

0

(-: The glitter panties as merchandising is priceless.

0

0

Jenny mentioned this thread elsewhere, I contributed something, and she asked me to repeat it here. It actually comes from a talk I gave a few years ago on the science of love and it explains pretty well the reformed rake, in my opinion.

So I dug out that talk so I could be a bit more coherent, and here’s the relevant bit.

This is largely based on research reported in Dr. Helen Fisher’s Why We Love (highly recommended) and is based on studies of voles, but supported on brain scans of humans.

The voles in question are two similar types with different mating behaviour. One is monogamous and the other lacks bonding behaviour, which turns out to be entirely because of the “wiring” of their brains. the non-bonding voles lack receptors in the recognition part of their brain, which means they don’t attach sexual pleasure to a particular person. Let me explain.

The prairie vole is monogamous and behaves much like most humans. They bond into couples, and couples groom each other, sleep together, and avoid other potential mates. The male guards the female from danger. They are affectionate, caring parents.

Their cousins the montane voles are not monogamous. They — both genders — are all for sex,but only as one-night-stands. We can call these the rakish voles.

Both voles court, going through similar patterns of behaviour in order to choose and win a partner, impelled by a complex pattern of triggers and hormones, mainly seratonin, dopamine and oxytocin. You may recognize oxytocin as an important part of human breastfeeding and the mother/baby bonding after birth. It’s the bonding hormone.

Humans do the same mating dance, almost as predictably as voles, and with almost the same triggers and hormones.

The hormones also create a lot of bliss, more and more of it as the voles become more and more intimate, and then an explosion at orgasm. Sound familiar?

So our voles have picked the one, and gone through the mating dance getting higher and higher on hormones, then have orgasms, which give a powerful new burst of hormones making them, in effect, crazy high.

Rakish Jane thinks something like, “Sex good! Males provide sex. Need more males!”

Bonding Jane, however, thinks, “Sex good! Sex with John good! Need more John!” If the system’s working, John things exactly the same about Jane.

This hormonal bonding has been explored and proved in labs. If scientists give the romantic voles drugs to block the action of these hormones in the recognition center of their brains, what happens? They turn into rakes. They are keen on sex, but they do it without commitment. They no longer attach to one one partner.

So what happens if the rakes are given a shot of those love hormones? Do they become bonded, devoted, monogamous lovers? No. The chemicals have no effect on them because they lack the receptors in the recognition part of the brain. Having no receptors is like not having a lock for a
key to go into. More keys, bigger keys, it doesn’t make any difference.

I think this explains perfectly the reformed rake so beloved of romances. It’s reasonable to assume that nearly all humans have the receptors, but that some have more, some less. Those with lots of receptors will likely
fall in love very quickly, perhaps even indiscriminately.
Those with none are fated never to bond, and not to understand what bonding is. Lovers make no sense to them.

But the romantic rake, the rake who can become the great devoted lover, I see him or her as a person with few receptors.

Look at it from their point of view. In laboratories, the brains of people crazy in love are almost identical to those of people taking cocaine. Doesn’t matter if they’re cops, queens, farmers with muddy boots, or prim governesses. They’re high, and they’re addicted to the source of their fix — the beloved. That’s how it’s supposed to be, because nature demands that they turn every faculty to reproduction.

Now here’s the rake. They meet people, they court after a fashion, they have sex, but they don’t attach. If they get bored they move on. If the partner attaches to them, they probably move on because that behaviour is freakish to them. No one thus far has the key that fits the very few locks in their brain.

Then one day they meet a person who does. Click into the lock, hormones in the brain, cocaine, high. Zap! They’ve just experienced an ecstatic sexual/relationship high for the first time in their life. They’ve been around, they’ve had sex with a lot of people and this has never happened before. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this person might be their only source of delirious delight in the universe.

They’re not just bonded. They’re obsessed. At best, this leads to the totally devoted mate who will do anything to keep and treasure the beloved. At worst, it leads to the stalker, imprisoner, and abuser who will never let this person escape and would rather see them dead and die afterward.

Make sense of the GHH? No mystery. Just chemicals.

Jo

0

0

0

Anyway, I seem to remember getting them in New Look (a cheap and cheerful UK chain) a couple of years back, but I’ll see if I can dig them out and find out who makes them. They’re definitely good for a giggle, if not entirely practical. And I can’t vouch for the spell, either.

0

For full effect I think the panties should be boy cut gold glitter cloth with a big sequined cherry on the front and ‘da bomb’ written on the back. But not crotchless. That would be tacky.

0

As I read and laughed, my subconscious kept booting up the concept of resonance, like in RLC circuits. I really thought I’d managed to flush all that electronic theory years ago, but there it was, and making so much sense. I mean, most of our communication is based on resonance (TV, cellphones, radio). And resonance only happens when circuits are perfectly balanced.

So, it follows that no matter how many GHH’s an MHH has been dipping into, or vice versa, the magic only happens when they find one (or THE one) that’s their equal but opposite. Sure, there’s still electricity without the balance, but there’s no resonance. No magic. Dull glitter. Which explains how Sam can be such a big dipper (yes, thank you, I did have to say it), yet do a behavioral 180 when he finally achieves resonance.

And, now I think of it, the whole chemistry of fluorescence works, too. How or who can make the glitter really glow. I need coffee for that one, though.

Also, Jenny and Lani should pick their favorite charity (or is that Cherrity?) so someone can sell panties with “GLITTERY” written in sparkle fabric paint across the front. Maybe add an embroidered cherry for the in crowd, although that might be in questionable taste, especially if the Cherry greeting turned from the secret handshake to panty flashing. Which could get RWA conferences raided. I can see the headlines now: ‘ROMANCE WRITERS IN PANTY RAID’.

Maybe I should substitute sleep for coffee.

0

0

0