Trey Songz: Cutie-Pie Perv or just honest?

MTV Unplugged with Trey Songz looks pretty cute, Trey has a sweet face. I was expecting music that was equally sweet and, well, let's just say I was caught off my guard: that adorable little son-of-a-gun knows a thing or two about yep, mmmhmmm.

Isn't it funny how they have no shame in Contemporary RnB? And how they equate romance with sexual "performance"? The tracks start off with cheezy synths and chimes and cooing vocables and the next thing you know you gotta skip to the next track because someone walks in the room or you start blushing or you just feel flat out uncomfortable . . . whichever comes first ;) Contemporary RnB always makes me feel like I'm eavesdropping, like I'm some voyeur peeping at a couple on their honeymoon, like I snuck in when the happy two weren't looking and made myself nice and comfy under the marriage bed.

Okay, cheesiness and explicit content aside . . . it did occur to me that perhaps I'm being just a little too hard on Trey Songz and the whole genre and that society is perhaps too hard on men in general when it comes to sexuality. I've personally never been one to stereotype men as sex-crazed beasts, but the stereotype does exist and it comes up in conversation between women all the time when they discuss relationship woes. The thing that women never like to admit, though, is that they *expect* guys to initiate and want them that way.

I don't think there's a women alive who isn't disappointed if a guy doesn't make a move of some kind on a first date, definitely by the second. And this is true even for "wait until marriage" types like myself. If I went out with someone and they didn't do something I wouldn't be sure if they liked me as more than friends; I'd want to sense, almost from day one, that they wanted to sleep with me :) And it really wouldn't be cool to me if a guy was too shy to touch me, kiss me, etc. And I would much, much prefer it if he initiated. Don't get me wrong . . . if I thought a guy was the right one and he was super shy, I would never let that get in the way of my dating him . . . I'm just speaking of what is ideal in my imagination. And, interestingly, I think the more reserved a girl is, the more she expects a guy to get the ball rolling . . . and she is exactly the kind of girl who is also the most prudish and critical of men being too "sexual." I know of straight-laced women like this. They complain of "morals these days" but I'm quite sure that if their significant other didn't get the job done nothing would happen in the birds and bees department.

So . . . that's a lot to expect from guys, I think. I have three younger brothers and I feel compassion for guys since I spend so much time with my bros and inevitably talk about girls and relationship stuff with them. It's nice to be the girl in certain respects, to be on the receiving end of everything. Not that girls can't take matters into their own hands, but, you know, traditionally speaking it's the other way around.

And now back to Trey Songz. Maybe when he sings his long list of things he's going to do to this or that girl, he's really just targeting exactly what women expect or want from guys whether they like to admit it or not . . .

Best and worst sex scenes in a movie . . .

So, based on my previous posts, we all know what the worst sex scene in movie history is (based on what I've seen so far.) I repeat: Beth and Harold getting it on . . . no love involved, just Sarah sharing her husband with Beth, who wants to get pregnant. Truly beyond weird. I swear, I'm scarred for life. There are certain images I will never get of my head: damn you Harold and Beth! (Who's named Harold, anyway?! . . . Oops! Almost forgot. My grandpa is.)

Best sex scene?

Lucy and George in A Room With a View. It happens at the very end on their honeymoon and it just worked. It was sweet. I'm not one who typically advocates for showing these things on film, but I thought it was tasteful.

I'm watching so many movies now and most do have the characters taking a roll in the hay or two. I used to always look away but I don't anymore (I'm taking notes, if you know what I mean, lol). It's been interesting to compare them and I've discovered that not all sex scenes are made equal. In the English Patient, the lovers were practically mauling each other. It wasn't too good for Brittney Murphy in 8 Mile, either. She was slammed against a wall both times and had some guy's hand's all over her in both cases, no romance, just a good, violent up-and-down tossing. As if she were some worthless rag doll.

I think it all goes to show that sex has a spiritual dimension to it we sometimes overlook. People invest their emotions and personality into it and, when the chemistry is right, it comes out the way it did for Lucy and George. And when it's bad, it comes out like it did for Beth and Harold, or maybe Eminem and Brittany Murphy. Funny how sex can be the best or worst thing in the world, depending on the people involved and the context.

The Big Chill Reconsidered: why it may now be a favorite

The Big Chill has been stuck in my head, for better or for worse. It is a strange, somewhat unsettling film. Here are a few points about it that make it quite excellent in spite of all that.

In a previous post, I criticized the screenplay and thought that the dialogue did not do enough to explain why the characters mattered to each other so much. And then I realized . . . that is the beauty of it. Sometimes you really can't put into words why you love someone, why you have to have certain people in your life. You just do. It's spiritual. You feel comfortable around them. And that's what I noticed about these characters. They felt very comfortable just talking, shooting the crap with each other, being themselves around each other. On a certain level the connection was mundane, but at the same time it was profound.

Second, and I can't take credit for this observation, that last disturbing sex scene between Harold and Beth showed how perverted sex becomes when it's used exclusively for procreation. My family's church is always harping on them about sexuality and this church, along with most others, laments how sex is abused for pleasure and how it's ultimate purpose is procreation. But Harold and Beth's tryst shows how, without passion and love, sex is just a bodily function again. In my mind, there's no difference between a prostitute and her client and Harold and Beth. Know what I mean? Next time I see a steamy sex scene between two characters who are really crazy about each other, I'm gonna holler for joy. That's how it should be.

Madonna, Tori Amos, and feminism: Like a Prayer, the missing link

Yep, that's right. I was listening to "Like a Prayer," and Madonna's fervent cooing on the verses sound a whole bunch like Tori Amos. And since Madonna came first, it would be more appropriate to say that Tori has been copying Madonna's style. Honestly, the similarity is striking.

Here's why that similarity is noteworthy.

Madonna is often criticized for being sleazy and sensational in the worst kind of show-biz way. In fact, to my father she is the devil incarnate. No joke. To discover a link between her and the more "principled" 90s feminist singer-songwriters that followed her proves a point about her music that I have always felt: it has a philosophy and it's about self-expression. Don't get me wrong, I'll admit Madonna has pushed buttons in her day just to get attention. But I think there's a lot more to it than that underlying her art.

What Madonna is being sexual, it's not in the Britney Spears-ish "I'm a slave 4 u" way. It's in the feminist-ish "I'm gonna be sexual if I wanna be sexual; sex is a choice I'm making and it's not about me pleasing some guy, it's about me getting some because I want some." Photo shoots like that of her infamous bridal dress pose prove that Madonna has been passionate about turning conventions on their heels and breaking down the cultural assumptions that women should behave and feel a certain way, be sexual in a certain way . . . i.e. in a sweet, chaste, naive sort of way. Now, I have no problem with women and being sweet and naive but where I part ways with those who can't stand Madonna is that I don't believe women should have to be sweet, chaste, and naive. Sleazy is never cool, but I don't necessarily equate sexuality with sleaze and I believe, as a matter of principle, that our concept of "woman" should be a wide umbrella encompassing a variety of personalities and lifestyles. I think that's what Madonna was getting after.

Does Madonna go to extremes that may be distasteful at times? Yes, she does. But that's what artists do. They can't be subtle. If they're subtle, they'll bore you and likely fail to communicate their point. The job of an artist is to shake things up, to take risks that are not allowed in any other forum. Go Madonna!

Now, back to the 90's singer-songwriter Tori Amos connection. Tori put out an autobiography a few years ago and talked about her conflicted relationship with sexuality. Apparently, she was raised Catholic or Southern Baptist or something and, basically, felt guilty about her sexual instincts. She describes herself being torn between the two biblical figures of the Virgin Mary and the prostitute Mary Magdalene. She came up with some new-ageish sounding solution to reconciling the two in her mind which I have since forgotten: I think it was just her fancy way of admitting that she ultimately sided with Mary Magdalene (without admitting it). Anyway, doesn't Madonna's music sound like something that would speak to Tori at, dare I say it, a deep level?

I always felt and liked the feminist agenda in Madonna's music and so does Tori, I know it.

I never wanna hear one more comment equating the mindless pop stars of the '00s with Madonna. I'm warning you, don't push me over the edge this time. Or it will start raining bloody tampons.

To be or not to be sexy?

Just had an interesting conversation with my mom. No, not that conversation. We had the kind of conversation you are never too old to have: how should women approach sexuality, how can they get respect from men?

My answer: find the right man.

At the risk of sounding simplistic, I believe there are two types of people in this world: selfish people and unselfish people. Selfish people go through life seeing everything as a transaction and seek to use everything in their environment to their own benefit. In contrast, unselfish people live life with a desire to share, contribute, and connect; unselfish people desire to think and feel at a higher, spiritual (as apposed to materialistic, advantageous) level. So the men out there who objectify women (and the women out there who objectify men) are just selfish people who do not care about love and do not want more than a physical relationship. Give those men a wide berth.

My mom's view of things is more that men are inherently sexual and they need to be trained to not see women as mere pawns in satisfying their sexual needs. Women need to dress modestly so that men do not look at them in the wrong way and get "tempted." T'hey need to not be sexual so that men will respect them for more than their bodies.

While there is some merit to her case, I would say this: if a guy likes women exclusively for that, the hole is in the guy . . . he's just a selfish, shallow person. No amount of foregoing makeup and miniskirts will turn him around. Surrounding him with respectable, intelligent women will not change what he wants out of a relationship. He's just a lemon. And look at the other aspects of his life. Chances are he's greedy in the way he approaches his career and other dealings.

In defense of my mom . . . when women dress or conduct themselves in a "sleazy" way, the chances that they will attract a lemon go way up. Because bad men love sleaze. Also, in the process, they will likely alienate good men who want more from a relationship. That's why makeup and miniskirts should be kept under lock and key around young, teenage girls. Youngsters may not have the wisdom to sort out the apples from the lemons. And young girls may fail to realize that being physically beautiful is only half of the equation . . .

. . . the other half of being drop-dead gorgeous is having wits and a strong personality. No man in my acquaintance worth winning has ever been attracted to an airhead. A vacant expression, irritating giggle, and fawning mannerisms are turnoffs to men . . . except the selfish ones I talked about earlier who love flattery and seek to dominate. Most men want it all ways . . . physical beauty, mental agility, and character. Makes sense, no?

So, the good news is that I do not believe women need to hide their beauty or "reform" men. Sexuality is all about the spirit it's done in. A woman in a tight, low-cut sweater can come off as ditzy or divine depending on how she sports it. Does she have the brains to match her boobs? Does she show off her figure to say "come get me, I'm easy" or to flaunt a beautiful body she is proud of? In other words, is she doing it all to "trap and bait" or to celebrate?

My religious beliefs put me in the "wait until marriage" camp, but I will be the first to say that there are unmarried couples out there who are having better, more meaningful sex than some married couples. Loving at a spiritual level transcends wedding vows and it transcends whether or not the woman flaunts it in her little black dress . . . instead it has everything to do with the people involved and the extent to which they are spiritually capable of loving (the extent of their unselfishness).

As in all things in life, love is the opposite of greed; love is always the solution and greed is always the downfall. If women want good relationships with men and vice versa, they must take care to not match up with greedy people. Attracting unselfish people involves fighting the greed in yourself, and then trusting your gut . . .