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 . . .

Everyman's Library adventure #1

So I printed out my list of the 100 titles I'm determined to get through and dated it. Let's go.

First up is F. Scott Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise.

I forgot everything I learned in college because . . .

I broke the golden rule which is to condense your knowledge of something into one sentence (maybe two). Here are some examples of me doing that based on stuff I looked at this summer:

Kafka's Metamorphosis = Life is absurd.
Flaubert's A Simple Heart = The world will mercilessly hack down those who do not fight back.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind = Go with the flow: accept (even embrace) the good and the bad about life and who you are.

It is surprisingly difficult to sum things up so briefly. The process of doing it really makes you think through the work of art and, best of all, if the work of art is worth remembering, you generally will be able to remember one sentence about it.

That one sentence answers the question I was discussing before, "Why was this work of art made?"

And then answers to the second question, "How does the artist get their point across," sort of come to you if you can remember the answer to the first.

In college, my professors thought they would sharpen all of us up by stuffing our brains with bucketloads of information. It was so painful regurgitating all of it. It's so much better, when you read/see/hear anything, just to take away from it the one thing that really matters . . . the main idea.

I'm feeling overwhelmed, but wait . . .

I know how to do this. How to read literature? How to make sense of any work of art? I think this is the best approach:

Ask yourself, "If I were the artist, why would I have created this?"

If you can answer that question, then I think you "get it," insofar as any work of art can be completely understood.

Answering that question will give you the "meaning" of the work.

As far as technique goes, see if you can answer how the artist communicated their point. If it's a work of literature, then how do the plot, writing style, characterization, and symbols in the piece work together to make the point.

Just two questions.

It's really easy, isn't it? Pass me Ulysses.

The Norton Anthology of English Literature . . .

Is excellent. This can keep you busy for a lifetime. I checked it out from the library along with my Everyman's Library selections. It's got it all . . . definitions, pictures, a vast compilation of essential works, timelines, critical essays, bibliographies, endless "for further exploration" resources. It'll make the nerd in all of us drool!

Can't wait to finally make sense of a vast topic that I've been curious about for a long time.

Join me as I read the Everyman's Library

The Everyman's Library satisfies my passion for two things: reading and lists. They have a "100 Essentials" that fits the bill perfectly. If I can get through this series, I will always be the smartest person in the room . . . of course that's why I (or anyone) reads.

Check it out at:
http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/classics/set_list.php?id=0

The Everyman's Library was originally published in the UK and was designed to be make the classics affordable for the layman, hence the title of the series. A pleasing democratic touch.

Clarissa . . . I want you back . . .

Nickelodeon in the 90s. Now those were the days. Love this song, happy memories . . . and Melissa is still so cool this many years later!