Enchanted World Books

Due to a variety of fun medical issues, I spent a great deal of my formative years in a fog of medication.  Although it is fair to say that this is not a blanket excuse for some markedly interesting social behavior during those years, it certainly goes a fair distance in explaining quite a few things.  My comment to a close family member in regards to the impact of this time period:  "Imagine being on a bad trip (or simply blotto) for ten years.  You remember things, but aren't sure whether some of them actually happened."

Not all of the impact of the fog was "bad." This cloud or fog of medication during my youth provided a unique opportunity to develop a very rich internal life.  Poetry, art, and all things philosophical have been a mainstay of my existence since I was around six years old.

When I'm working on analysis of a new budget, or when I'm cooking a feast for extended family, I will sometimes vacation in my rich Internal Life.  My mother recently laughed after listening to me mutter and sing to myself in the kitchen.  She shared a distant memory of me singing a song about how I would never know all the things in the world (a travesty!).  My husband Romeyn knows that I like to be left to my own devices when I'm "vacationing" like this--he's extremely Introvert Friendly!

With this in mind, my family's acquisition of the Time/Life "Enchanted World" books led to an intense obsession with fairy tales and mythology when I was young.  I loved every minute reading these books--even the ones that were super scary.  I was very, very good at "reliving" or "replaying" things in my mind (stories, experiences, music).  I would imagine myself as a fairy secreted away in a tree.  Blades of grass became huge forests in which little people sang, and danced.  I peered into "Jack in the Pulpit" flowers and imagined hiding away, vouchsafed within the plant with one petal as a tiny roof overhead.  Children today have iPods and toys that interact directly with them.  I had simple toys, my imagination, books, and the great outdoors.

The immensity of what the "Enchanted World" books provided for me during such an interesting time of my life is exactly what prevents me from donating them individually or selling them off to be read by someone else.  I've reached out to our public library and offered to donate them as a unit, to be kept and read as a group until they fall apart.

We'll see whether this is an option.  I sincerely hope so!

To Donna Karan, et al:

Under-dressing does not constitute implied consent.

I don't recommend walking around in your skivvies, ladies.  However, it is curious to me that someone female walking around in their skivvies is seen as "asking for it" whereas someone in a two piece at the beach (sometimes even less fabric than the former) is not.

I like to shop conservative clothing sites (because most of it is darn comfortable), but it should be socially acceptable for me to wear whatever I want.  My clothing should not automatically reflect my preferences, politics, or desires.  It is clothing.  It's simply something to wear.

A few college friends of mine completed their senior choreography concert in the nude as a method of proving the non-sexuality of nakedness for the sake of nakedness.  I thoroughly agree with the concept.  There is some highly personal sharing going on when you walk around in the nude, but to automatically sexualize it seems perverse.

Around 2005, an elderly man was found in downtown Seattle, walking completely in the nude.  I don't believe that it made the news...folks helped him out pretty quickly.  I was there...and worried like the people around me.  The man required assistance, but no one seemed to sexualize his nudity as a matter of course.

The hyper-sexualization of female nudity must be responsible for the ridiculous double-standard regarding nipples. I'm a huge fan of the breast.  They're awesome from stem to stern.  But WHY is it unacceptable for a woman to bare her breast to feed an infant in public?  Odds are, you were breastfed too.  Aside from the biological purpose of the breast, the primary (outwardly) physical difference between male and female breasts is simply a matter of average fat surrounding the mammary gland.  Neither of these factors is objectively sexual.  The determining factor in whether a breast is provocative resides in societal norms.

Now, I am a fan of dressing appropriately for the occasion (for example, I like to leave revealing shirts at home when I'm expected to run a business meeting).  However, consider the double standard in play when it is hot outside.  A man wears what is basically a tank top and short shorts...he's dressing comfortably for a casual jog in the park.  A woman wears what is basically a tank top and short shorts, she's usually considered under-dressed for that same jog.

I repeat:  Under-dressing does not constitute implied consent.

The argument that any woman who is under-dressed is "asking for it" assumes that men cannot control themselves and would likely copulate with anything whatsoever so long as they could get away with it.  That type of mentality takes the double standard of "Boys will be boys" to a point of absurdity.  Further, the concept is universally sexist.

I don't pretend to be the authority on what all *might* constitute consent under different circumstances.  However, to me, it is fairly obvious that we need to take a sharp look at our societal norms and what these norms communicate about self-value.  Violence is not an acceptable response to nudity.