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?

Currently making the rounds: a thoroughly modern tale of revenge via Netflix. As Helena Popkin reports at MSNBC:

It takes a cuckold of true imagination, and at least a passing knowledge of the Netflix movie-suggesting algorithm to strike out in a subtle and personal way, it wins the (somewhat horrified) admiration of Web community Reddit, the primordial ooze of current Internet creativity.

“My girlfriend cheated on me, so I rated movies in her netflix account until I reached the desired result,” wrote Reddit user Contra3, who posted the…screen grab [at right] as evidence of his handiwork.

As you’ll see, a theme has emerged among the movies Netflix now thinks Girlfriend Non Grata will <3, such as The Scarlet Letter, Unfaithful, and, well, Whore. While BG generally objects to revenge (and, for that matter, to using “whore” and “slut” as insults), I gotta say this one made me crack a smile. So now the bar’s set pretty high. Next time you contemplate revenge, ask yourself: is my scheme as clever/elegant/no-one-(else)-gets-hurt as Contra3’s? (And does it involve Bambi?)

More on revenge here!

From the Charlotte Observer: “A forthcoming study by a Duke University researcher and several colleagues confirms what not-so-thin women and short, broke men have long suspected: They don’t get nearly as much romantic attention as skinny women and tall, financially secure guys.” You need a study for that? Here, I got a study. It’s called pay my rent, food, and Netflix. Fund that, science people.

The study, out of the University of Chicago, is still under peer review before publication. But here’s what we know: analyzing 22,000 online daters, researchers found that “women put a premium on income and height when deciding which men to contact.” They did the math: the study showed that a 5-foot-9-inch man needs to make $30,000 more than a 5-foot-10-inch one to be as successful in the dating pool.

Men in the study demonstrated a strong, and depressing, preference for women with a BMI of 18 or 19, which basically means if you’re 5′ 6″ you’ve gotta weigh 115. So okay, women want men who can afford to take them to dinner, but the men don’t want us to eat. This should work just fine.

Sarcasm aside, I’m still annoyed with this study — or at least, to some degree, this article about it — and the way it only, and unnecessarily, perhaps even misleadingly, perpetuates and underscores that same-old same-old depressing, needlessly divisive message: “The only thing men and women have in common is that they’re shallow.” ‘Cause here’s the thing: the article and the researchers talk about what a fertile field for study these online sites are, because there are just so many people on them. Right: there are just so many people on them. That’s why people go in — or at least online — with those faux-“high” standards. Because they can. There are so many eligible singles there, at least in urban and urbanish areas, that you can afford to impose a minimum height or maximum BMI standard. You know? Then later, at a party, you happen across someone who — for whatever ineffable reason — makes your heart go pitter-pat, maybe someone whose attributes you wouldn’t have click-clicked and checklisted, and boom, you give them a chance. I’m not saying some people aren’t shallow, but still.

As the article, to be fair, does state: “Since the study focuses on first impressions and initial contacts rather than marriage, it doesn’t rule out the chance of true love winning despite appearance or income. ‘If you had to sit down and write what you wanted in your dream guy, most girls would write ‘tall, hot and well-off,'” said Kari Castle, a 27-year-old online dater in Charlotte. ‘But in reality, is that the only thing they’d settle for? Probably not.'” Right.

So, I guess, since the study doesn’t really tell us much, the reporter is forced to fill in with dumb cranky unhelpful — and dare I say self-fulfilling — quotes like, “It’s got nothing to do with anything but green,” [said one bachelor]. “If you’ve got enough money, you’ll have women swarming all over you.” Attitude, people! Actually, it might be a guy in the comments who said it best: “If you think women will only like you if you have a sizable bank account, you are the one who makes that happen.”

Last month I remarked in my post about status-starved Japanese girls that I’d love to be “New York-married” (my friend Kristyn’s phrase for having a live-in boy/girlfriend) so that I could go halfsies on the rent for my one-bedroom flat.

But I’d better never find myself New York-divorced, lest I wind up having to reconfigure that 1br into a “cozy 2br share!” like some no-longer-couples are being forced to do, says this AP story from last week. It’s the economy, snookums!

“With the recession and the collapse of the housing market, more and more couples who have broken up are continuing to live under the same roof, according to judges and divorce lawyers. Some are waiting for housing prices to rebound; some are trying to get back on their feet financially.”

And some, I suppose, are Netflixing a movie or two to help find a thread of black humor in the whole sucky sitch. And watching them from their half of the couch.