If you’re like me, the first thing you do every Sunday morning is check the “Modern Love” column in the New York Times—a collection of first person essays about love of all varieties. Usually, I am wrapped up in the storyline, scrolling down the page, sipping my coffee, eager to find out how the saga ends, but every once in a while, I wonder what the other characters in the piece must be feeling as they read it—mothers, daughters, ex-lovers, and friends. Well, that’s what some writers over at Double X were wondering too. So they decided to start a genius column called “Modern Love Revenge” where they provide the subjects of “Modern Love” essays the chance to post their responses, rebuttals, and reflections—basically, to tell the other side of the story. I was especially interested in this response from Joyce Maynard’s daughter, Audrey Bethel.

Rough day today? You simply must read The New York Times’ profile of twin sisters Kristy and Katie Barry, age 24, who provide a solid eight minutes’ worth of entertainment. Kristy and Katie graduated from Rutgers last year, they’ve applied to 150 jobs, and they still haven’t landed that dream job in journalism— either sports reporting or having their own TV show.

The twins, who work as bartenders and dog walkers, have tried all the usual job search tactics—you know, mailing a package of chocolate-covered peanut butter balls to potential employers, befriending editors on Facebook, taking improv classes and playing softball to hunt for leads. No luck! Are you shocked?

When something is written up in The New York Times’ style section, it means it has hit the mainstream. For example, vampires had been hot for more than a year when the Times gave them an article on the section’s front page. The paper doesn’t jump the gun on anything, so we were surprised by the couple the Times chose to feature in its “Vows” column, even though they’ve recently included a tattooed couple and one that was married in candy wrapper outfits.

Polyvore, an online version of Lucky magazine of sorts, but better, has finally found its way onto the New York Times’ radar, and we couldn’t be happier (even if it took almost a year!). For those not yet in the know, Polyvore was founded by three ex-Yahoo guys—and it’s been wildly successful in this, its first year, especially for fashion-obsessed types like us. The premise behind the site is that it’s a place where anyone can go, create an outfit (they call them “sets”), and click on any one part of the get-up to buy the piece, all the way down to makeup. You can also browse celeb sets and other user sets for inspiration, and again, there’s that whole instant gratification element for when you find a must-have item. Danger! Still, we can’t get enough. [NY Times]

Think of fireflies, and you might recall memories of summer where you looked at the flashing lights hovering over a field, or even ran through them, trying to cusp your hands around one of the insects to catch the glowing lights. Really, you were just stepping into a huge orgy. The New York Times talked with evolutionary ecologist Sara Lewis to find that the flashing lights in fireflies are mating calls. However, what Dr. Lewis found in her research is that they aren’t any old mating calls, and the conditions for firefly seduction are eerily similar to what (human) women go through when finding a guy: “The female fireflies turned out to be remarkably picky. In many cases, a male flash got no response at all. In some species, females preferred faster pulse rates. In others, the females preferred males that made long-lasting pulses.”

How does the op-ed community’s snarkiest scribbler pack so much fiber and fluff into her New York Times column twice a week?

She consults her “How Maureen Dowd Writes A Column” flow chart, duh. Image after the jump. [Huffington Post]

Last weekend’s New York Times Magazine honored this year’s many innovations in its “Year in Ideas 2008” issue. Alongside accolades for upside-down demolition, a vending machine for crows, and air bags for the elderly, there was praise for the spray-on condom. German entrepreneur Jan Vinzenz Krause came up with the idea for this perfect-fit condom while in a car wash. This year, 30 men have tested Krause’s spray-on latex invention, all to positive reviews. The only downsides are that it takes two minutes for the condom to dry and the spray is a bit cold. However, while the spray-on condom is a good idea, in theory—what guy wouldn’t want a condom that fits him just right and makes him more sensitive?—Krause said he doesn’t think his spray-on condoms will be commercially available any time soon. We’re hoping the good press will help change that. [NY Times]

Not long ago, I met a guy that reminded me of that sexy NPR storyteller Ira Glass. Instantly, I fell in nerd-love with this doppelganger. After dating for a while, though, we realized we had only one thing in common: sex. So we decided to be friends with benefits. According to a Michigan State University study, sixty-percent of college co-eds have been involved in an FWB relationship, and plenty of my thirty-something girlfriends were doing it to stay satisfied, so I figured I’d give the laid back, no-romantic-attachments approach to getting laid a whirl. A year later, faux-Ira and I still hang out and hump. After our most recent rendezvous last weekend, I began to wonder what I’m doing. What are the real benefits to friends with benefits? Sure, now I have an in-case-of-sexual-emergency-hit-Glass-lookalike. At the same time, I’ve started to realize my situation is causing me to question the meaning of friendship, challenging my chances at romances, and wobbling my emotional stability.

This weekend, The New York Times “Style” section had a story about guys who have embraced their love of cats. I’ve come to the conclusion that women are either passionately pro- or anti-cat guy—turns out we have one of each on our staff! After the jump, Wendy Atterberry and Catherine state their cases. Here comes the pun I have been dying to use for the last three sentences—the claws come out!

Why didn’t he call?  What did I do wrong? Do you think he likes me? If I had a nickel for every time I asked my BFF these questions, I’d be rich. While I may pointlessly fritter away my imaginary nickels on high-heels, it turns out that I’ve definitely been wasting my energy and time, not just the money I’ve spent, on the wrong lovers. According to an article in The New York Times by Sarah Kershaw, “Girl Talk Has Its Limits,” constantly looking for a sympathetic ear may be sabotaging your relationships. While getting validation for your vagina troubles can be comforting, stewing in your confusion with your girly support group may do more harm than good. Apparently, psychologists have concluded that over-analyzing situations can be a recipe for cyclical negative thinking and even increase anxiety, especially in teen girls. Rather than formulating plans of action or simply living in the moment, chewing on every morsel of your relationship with your girlfriends cooks all the little bits into juicy gossip. While your bitches may give you the emotional band-aid you’re looking for, placing that much social significance on each twist and turn in a tawdry affair can suck the fun right out of all that sucking face. Not to mention, technology has made “co-rumination” as instantaneously easy as an email, phone call, or text message. Nowadays, you can chitchat mid-rendezvous like a sports announcer calling the shots at a match. Granted, love is a game we’re all playing, so clearly labeling relationship reflection as merely “girl talk” definitely has its sexist problems. After all, you know, men smack-talk it up, too!  Alas, the researchers claim that when guys open up to each other, albeit less frequently, it actually helps their romance. So, somehow, our need to constantly communicate with our gal pals has created a glass ceiling for love. Ugh! Well, ceilings need vents, dammit.  [Scarleteen]

One of the things you learn very quickly in a relationship is that people have really annoying habits. This becomes especially apparent when you move in with someone and suddenly their little eccentricities become part of your everyday life, from the way they leave empty paper coffee cups on the table for weeks on end, to their belief that the perfect place for that wet towel is bunched up on the bed and not on the hook in the bathroom. You also realize that changing these aspects of their personality is a task that is much easier said than done. Before anyone jumps all over me with the whole “you don’t want to change someone you love”, let me call B.S. When confronted with a bathroom sink filled with your love’s tiny black beard hairs, yes you do. You don’t love them any less because of those annoying habits, but you might love ‘em a tiny bit more without them. It was with that in mind that I sat down to read Amy Sutherland’s What Shamu Taught Me About Life, Love, and Marriage: Lessons for People from Animals and Their Trainers. And as most Hallmark story endings go, in the end, I ended up training myself. The three tricks that worked the best, after the jump.

The “Modern Love” column in this Sunday’s New York Times was about a woman who dates a musician who has a kid with a woman he briefly dated. The guy turns out to be a bit of a child himsef, but the whole piece got me thinking about whether I would be down for dating a dude with a kid (specifically if I didn’t have any kids of my own). I think I would be fine with it, considering I am such a sucker for the little ones, but what about you? If you were a single woman who didn’t have kids, would you date a guy who had a child of his own? [Modern Love: Was I On A Date Or Babysitting?]

“I don’t think it makes me any less of a feminist because my emotions are affected. I think that I’m very independent and I don’t let guys affect my life. I think in the past I have, and I’ve learned from it. I don’t depend on men. I have my own career.”—Lauren Conrad, in response to The New York Times assertion that Heidi Montag is a feminist hero because she doesn’t pine after guys. [On a personal note, I cannot believe these two twits are who the Times wants us to choose from.] [Celeb Edge via Jezebel]

The New York Times’ Book Review section had an interesting, Modern Love-esque column this weekend about how hard it can be dating someone whose taste in books you hate. Like the writer, Rachel Donadio, when I was single, I seriously considered it a dealbreaker if a guy I was interested in had a thing for Ayn Rand—I think she’s a terrible writer and a total fascist. The guy could be the nicest person in the world, but loving Atlas Shrugged definitely told me he had a secret heartless side. Likewise, it can be a real turn-on to share a love for the same books with another person—I was once convinced that a guy and I were soul mates because we both loved J.D. Salinger’s Franny and Zooey. But judgment of ones’ literary taste can go both ways—I certainly would be pissed off if a dude wrote me off just because I like reading V.C. Andrews and Sweet Valley High “novels” while I get a tan on my roof deck. So how important is it to you that you share the same interest in books with the person you’re dating? [NY Times]

Our favorite craptastic TV show is back tonight and we’re so excited. However, just in case you haven’t been keeping as close of tabs as we have on Lauren, Heidi, Spencer, Brody, Audrina, and Whitney, here are some things you’ve might have missed:

The New York Times had an interesting op-ed piece entitled “Sex and the Teenage Girl” in yesterday’s paper. Basically, it brings up the fact that the effects of a pregnancy—whether it is terminated or the baby is given up for adoption—are lasting. The writer says that Juno is a fairy tale, albeit a very entertaining one. In the movie, Juno is able to go on with her adolescent life after she gives up her baby. In the world outside of the movie theater, she would have lived with physical and psychological burdens, whatever her decision had been. And even though it takes two to tango, or whatever people say, the only worry guys have is getting infected with an STI. Since they aren’t bulging in the belly, they can escape association (or claim they’re not the father). Do you think things would be a lot more equal if guys could have babies, like in that movie Junior? [NY Times]