The Handy Men's Guide to Sex and the City

So it seems that in my (mostly failed) efforts to live out a slightly less dorky existance, I've accidentally managed to revert back into uber-girly mode. Note to self: marathoning Sex and the City while internet shoe shopping is an excellent (though also rather dangerous) combination. Clearly, I'm not a very impressionable person. No, not at all.

Anyway, It has just occured to me that my male readership probably has heard a great deal about this TV show that seems to speak to almost all women on some level, but likely does not know very much about it. This is unfortunate. You see, it is commonly accepted that many women who watch the show strongly self-identify with one of the four characters, and the second anyone starts talking about the show they will likely mention which one it is in under ten minutes. Some even go as far as to buy glitzy "I'm a [so and so]" T-shirts. Using this information, it could then be very easy for men to identify traits in a woman that might not come out for another several months of dating. So here I present to you, The Handy Men's Guide to Sex and the City:

(You might now be wondering "But why would she betray her gender like this?!" Well, I felt the need to help humanity in a small way, and mainly I just had to find a way to somehow lower the estrogen level in here)

Disclaimer: People can self-identify with other people for a variety of different reasons and nothing is set in stone. Just because she may have a few traits of her favorite character, doesn't mean she has all of them.


Girl Says "I'm such a Carrie"
Translation: Carrie is the central character that brings all of the other girls together. She is the most fun-loving, youthful, real, and very charismatic. She is a stereotypical girly-girl who loves spend a little too much money on designer outfits, and lots of time thinking about and analyzing relationships (ergo, her column). She is rarley forward, and men just seem to frequently approach her. While she has had her fair share of flings and one night stands, Carrie is ultimatley "looking for love" and is the most upfront about talking geniunely about her feelings with her partners than any other girl on the show. While always caring and openminded, the downside to Carrie (in my opinion) is her strong tendency to obsess and overreact.

Girl Says "I'm such a Miranda"
Translation: Miranda is a hardworking, intelligent, sucessful lawyer in a top firm and very proud of it. She enjoys her independance and refuses to give anyone enough power to take it away. Very cynical about all men (even the nice ones, who might be "too nice," and ergo assholes) she dates but rarely expects much, and is not above a one-night-stand just to get laid. She often backs up Samantha when going against Charlotte. While Miranda comes off as non-chalant and almost cold to many of her partners, a certain amount of probing reveals this is only a sturdy wall around a softer interior. Despite a strong and mature exterior, she can be prone to the occassional bout of immaturity; for example, seeing an ex on the street with a new woman and trying to hide. She is the least attractive and seems to get laid/date the least often of any of the four. (Though that's still by no means anything to be ashamed of given the company.)

Girl Says "I'm such a Charlotte"
Translation: Charlotte is the most preppy and traditional of all the characters, with a very wealthy upbringing. While she has had a few passionate, brief encounters, she is the least sexually-open minded and ultimatley looking for the perfect white wedding and large family. She is a firm beliver in "the Rules." She never makes the first move, and often witholds sex until the third date, or even later if she really wants a guy to like her. She is smart, but is not above playing this down so as not to intimidate a possible date. Though Charlotte can be excessively demanding of perfection in any of her relationships, she is the most optimisitc and romantic of any of the four. She is the only character to express a strong belief in the power of love, soulmates, love at first sight, etc.

Girl Says "I'm Such a Samantha"
Translation: Samantha is the most sexually open-minded and promiscuous of all the characters. She rarely enters in relationships, dislikes dealing with "messy" feelings, and is more than happy to simply use men to get whatever she wants (mainly lots and lots of sex). She is very cynical, not even believing in monogamy and only once or twice asking this of a partner. While given the opportunity to be in a longterm relationship, she ultimatley turns it down at the end of the series, as she is just not happy in one. While many might be quick to judge Samantha as a whore, her genuine independence, sucessful career, very high self-esteem, and blunt honesty and wit make her a very respectable character. While men are disposable to her, her friends aren't, and she has gone out on a limb to do right by them and show that she cares. In my opinion, there are only two types of women who will openly self-identify as Samantha: those rare few who are actually that awesome, and girls that are just incredibly easy/horny and looking to flaunt it.

Girl Says "Aww, I love Aiden"
Translation: Aiden was Carrie's second most-serious relationship after Mr. Big. He is truly devoted to Carrie and, after years of "the dating game," she is easily thrown off by how honest, attentive, and available to her he is. He makes his own furniture for a living and has a bit of rustic, country charm in addition to a silly sense of humour. He is a romantic, waiting an unusually long number of dates to have sex with Carrie so that it can "mean something" when they do. He moves in with Carrie, and ultimately asks her to marry him though is turned down once Carrie realizes she simply doesn't feel the same way. Long story short, if nice guys finish last, Aiden is your typical nice guy.

Girl Says "Aww, I love Steve"
Translation: Steve is Miranda's on-and-off partner who ultimatley becomes a good friend, father to her child, and then her husband. Steve is "just a bar tender" whose puppy-dog demeanor and simple, almost childish, ways compliment Miranda's seriousness and professionalism. When they first have sex, Miranda makes it clear that it was just a one night stand, but Steve believes that they have "something special" and pursues the relationship despite Miranda's initial bitchy-ness. Most importantly, Steve makes it clear over time that he really cares for Miranda, and puts up with her work-induced grouchiness and subtle attempts at pushing him away emotionally. He also tends to be more emtional than she is. While assembling the crib for their child, Steve starts to tear up with sentiment while Miranda bluntly says "Don't cry, Steve." Their relationship is very laidback and honest.

Girl Says "Aww, I love Mr. Big"
Translation: Mr. Big is a sucessful, wealthy businessman with classic style and suave who is Carrie's major love-interest and generally accepted to be out of her league. While he turns down Samantha's offer at a one night stand and claims to have never had "sex without feeling" as she does, he is never quite as emotionally available to Carrie as she wishes he was until the very end. While he is always very clear about how involved in a relationship he'd like to be, and demonstrates that he does care for Carrie on some level, she often feels she is being pushed away and breaks up with him when she feels she is more involved than he is. While Carrie claims he is "commitementphobic" they ultimately end up together. (Though not without a trail of wreckage that involves breaking up Mr. Big's marriage to a 26 year-old and Carrie's relationship with Aiden) Arguably, Mr. Big is the typical douchebag who you wish would change...and actually does.

Girl Says "Smith Jared is so hot!"
Translation: Don't be intimidated. It's simply a fact. Basically he's Samantha's sexy, good-natured, twenty-something model/actor boyfriend who stays with her the longest. She realizes how much he really cares after she dumps him to get back together with a former fling at a hotel party and he still waits for her at the bottom of the elevator shaft just to "make sure she got home OK."

Girl Says "Aww, I love Harry"
Translation: Harry is initially the least atttractive of any of the suitors. He is bald, sweats profusely, talks with food in his mouth, and has lots of back hair. However, the second he lays eyes on charlotte (who picks him as her divorce lawyer because his business partner was so attractive that she just couldn't be aggressive enough infront of him to win the case) he decides he has to have her. He comes onto her strongly, and she agrees on the condition that they only have sex and nothing more. She is surprised to have the best sex of her life, and slowly agrees to let him into her life in more significant ways, getting to know the great personality within. But this is not without a serious amount of initial critiquing whenever they go out in public, which he only puts up with out of pure adoration for her. In the end, Charlotte picks a fight that breaks them up, and then after a few weeks she realises the horrible mistake she's made and begs for him back. He then feels the same and marries her.

Girl Says "Aww, I love Skipper"
Translation: Though only briefly in the series, Skipper is a young, naive, romantic who beleives that "love conquors all." He is the most genuine and dorky of any male in the series, working as a website creator and snacking on Captain Crunch. He perpetually dates more assertive, career oriented women (including temporarily, Miranda) who dump him because they "just need some time alone" or "want to focus on their career right now."


Girl Says "Aww, I love Stanford"
Translation: Do not fear. Stanford is the stylish, token gay friend.


Obviously I have only had the time/effort to adress the major characters in the show, though others may pop-up. If you have any questions on other characters that pop-up in your Woman's discussion of the series, do not hesitate to contact me. I am truly an expert.

Oh, and just for those who haven't seen it yet:







One month. Get Ready.

"Though Maybe It's Different in the Sciences" (Education at Home and Abroad)

Ever since I arrived in Geneva, I have had the unique experience of being the only science major in a given group. Though once "humanities girl" (oh so many years ago), and normally a slacker amongst much more talented science students than I, being more-or-less labelled as "science girl" was all very new to me. As if this wasn't a big enough unecessary boost to my ego, being the first student to take science classes abroad on the program, not to mention a lab, made everything a special case for me. Exam registration was at different times, no one else took classes in my building, and many other tidbits of academic advice were always suffixed with "though maybe it's different in the sciences." I cannot deny, they had goood reason to say this.

In the US, there is the permeating belief (at least officially) that all majors require the same amount of work and intelligence, just in different forms. In Switzerland, however, there is no question among students from all facutlies as to who is working harder. Since I have had the unique opportunity to walk in both pairs of shoes, I'll tell you about it, and perhaps you can decide:

In the History and Litterature school (Lettres), students laze with wine and cigarettes on the lawn that shares greenery with a public park. They don't seem stressed- nor do they need to be. Class always starts 15 minutes later than indicated in the schedule, and while attendance is taken, they are allowed two skips per class per semester. More importantly, Humanities students only have to take a few graded classes at once, the majority of their curriculum is just pass/fail. They can pick which classes they would like to take pass/fail as opposed to graded, and weekly reading assignments (when assigned) rarely ever exceed 10 pages. My history professor, once upset with the class for not doing the reading well enough, singled me out and said that in the US students get 100-200 pages of reading a week, so to me this must be like Club Med. If students take a class pass/fail, their only assignment is a 20 minute oral presentation. If they take it for a grade, then they must also write a single 10-12 page paper on the same topic, or arrange to have an oral or written exam (also on only one subject within the course). Teachers are lax, not wanting to give the students "too much work" and the students can pick all of their own due-dates at the start of the semester. Now I understand that if I were taking six or more classes the workload could add up quickly enough, but you have to admit, what these kids are getting away with is pretty disgusting.


Four tram stops and a short walk down, we find ourselves at the Science buildings. Creatively named "Sciences," "Sciences II," "Sciences III," and "The Isotope Pavillion" the air is entirely different. In a more urban setting than Lettres, students occassionally huddle in groups to smoke cigarettes during class breaks on the steps outisde, but there are no luxurious lawns in sight. Classes start promptly when indicated, sometimes earlier if all the students are assembled anyway. On the bright side though, students are often given a 15 minute break in the middle of class to keep them paying attention better, and attendance is never taken. In the dark buildings with narrow hallways, students on the first floor socialize, play cards, and do work together in the cafeteria, while on the upper levels students flit about in lab coats. While many science majors in the US only take one or two science classes at a time (maybe matching up a notoriously challenging class wth a lighter schedule otherwise) Swiss students have no such luxury. Here, for example, students will take Biochemistry I, Organic Chemistry I, Both Physical chemistry classes, Analytical chemistry I, and intro Inorganic all in just one year. But that's not even the kicker. Lab meets three days a week, starting after lunch and often not ending until after 5 or 6 PM. Each week, each pair of partners is responsible for producing two, single spaced, 8-10 paged, full lab reports, in addition to their weekly problem sets in lecture. All classes have graded exams. Needless to say I have gained a ridiculous amount of respect for these people. When I asked a friend of mine "Ca va la vie autrement que chimie?" [How is life other than chemistry?] she responded "Haha, Quoi de vie autrement que chimie?" [What life other than chemistry?]


Still wondering?

There are also some other interesting differences between academics here and in the US that are worth noting.

• School is mostly sponsored by the state, and it only costs a few hundred dollars per student per semester. Many students go to university in the same town they grew up in and continue to stay at home with parents and the same friends. Only a few foreigners need to pay for independant housing. Since repeating a year is inexpensive, it's not uncommon for students to fail a class and be allowed several retakes (the exact number depending on the faculty).
  
• When students come to the univeristy, they pick a faculty and stick in it- rarely taking classes that are not required for their major. As a result, it's not uncommon (in Sciences, at least) to have the exact same small group of people in almost every class, day-in and day-out. Degrees tend to come more quickly here: a Bachelors, Masters, and PhD each taking roughly three years.

• Classes are also more numerous than in the US: students often take 5 or more at a time depending on how many individual credits each class is worth (there is a much larger variance here than amongst classes in the US). However, classes are easier to do well in, with exam questions pulled directly from the homework. Papers are mere cumuluation and recitation of fact without need for personal analysis. (After all, you've only read a few books in the subject and you don't have a doctorate, why should it matter what you think?)

Dear Wil Wheaton,

Why do you always play insufferable douchebags? Just wondering.

Thanks,

Juicy

Selection: The Enemy of High Fashion?

Bien sûr, je fais du blogging actuellement du café !

Having found myself alone with time to kill in the world's fashion capital, I decided to do one of the few activities that is actually fun alone: go shopping. As I gazed up in awe at the stained glass ceiling of the infamous Galleries Lafayette, and then proceeded to wander through an unending seven floors of pure decadence, an epiphany occurred to me: Selection is the enemy of high fashion.

Allow me to elaborate: Let's say you are a wealthy consumer looking to wear only the best in fashion. You enter an expensive store that sells all jeans, but only one pair is embroidered and the rest are plain. If you prefer a touch of creative flair to your jeans, or even just anything colorful, you will likely try on and consider buying the embroidered pair. The nature of the embroidery itself is not important. It could be any design, but the important thing is that the jeans are embroidered and looked unique, at least in the context of that store and the few others comparable to it. Now, if there were several pairs of embroidered jeans available, you would inevitably become a more picky consumer: judging them by the nature of the embroidery to select between pairs. This brings your attention to the embroidery itself, and thus, leads you to possibly turn down hypothetical purchases because of a detail that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.

This may initially sound ridiculous, after all, if the embroidery is not exactly what you want then why not wait until you find another, fully perfect pair? Unlikely. After all, you've constrained yourself to just the nicest of stores, which isn't a lot, so the likelihood of finding embroidered jeans to begin with may not be so high, let alone another pair that you prefer. By providing you with just one pair of embroidered jeans instead of several, the designer is actually manipulating you into making a less informed decision, and buying that one pair.
Louis Vuitton is a perfect example. Would you like a large bag? OK, we offer a selection of styles, but almost all in the exact same print. When Louis Vuitton does offer things in different colors, the product immediately looks more appealing to a consumer simply because it's more unique and creative, while in reality the designers only had to change a simple detail to generate extra interest, and ergo, an excuse for extra profits.

This fact becomes obvious when looking at the bigger picture: expensive boutiques and top designer stores are small- selling just a few items that rarely come in more than one or two colors. Larger and less expensive stores however, often have entire racks of the exact same sweater in 20 different colors, hoping to draw in and please as many consumers as possible. One might even refer to it as democratized fashion.

This discovery also fits perfectly into the classical irony of high fashion. Every good designer knows that fashion is never simply a question of what outfit is the most form fitting and appealing; it's always about personal identity and expression. The classic irony of high fashion then, (in my opinion) is that top designers often draw their inspiration from sub cultures and less glamorous lifestyles. Where would fashion be without beat, hippie, army/navy, agricultural (think ripped jeans), or punk inspirations? Ultimately, you have people shelling out $200or more for a plain, subtly floral shirt that says "look at me, I'm just a simple farm girl." Clients who wish to express their personality in a certain way while sticking only within designer circles are immediately cheated of the selection they would have if they dropped their airs and headed down to Marshalls, which many are unlikely to do, insisting on nothing but the "best" quality. To return to the first example, If you want to dress well but also look like a hippie, and there is only one pair of embroidered jeans available, you are almost definitely buying those jeans.

But what about the embroidered design itself? Does that mean anything? Allow me another anecdote. A few years ago, I became a fan of the color brown. Not only was it my top choice school at the time (har har) but it was warm and neutral without being as impersonal as black or grey. Since Pink had been a favorite color of mine for awhile, I went shopping for bed sheets hoping to find a combination of the two colors. Low and behold, it seemed that Target’s entire bedding collection had gone brown and pink that year. No joke. As great as this was for me, the brown-and-pink-desiring consumer, I couldn’t help but be a little freaked out. Was this just a coincidence? Or were there other forces at work that had somehow subconsciously driven me to desire specifically brown and pink bedding?

While Target arguably falls on the more "democratized" side of the fashion spectrum, this is still very much related to the question of the nature of the embroidery on the jeans. By being ambivalent as to the specific type of embroidery on the jeans but buying them anyway, the consumer is, in fact, propagating the style chosen by the designer even though they have had little say in what it is. (Imagine voting for a party but only understanding half of the platform, who knows what could fill the other half?) Shall sparrows be big this year? Ok, the embroidery will be sparrows then. Flowers? Hearts? Brown and Pink? It's subtle, but it's very possible.

And this of course brings us to the ancient paradox: are the designer chickens controlling our eggy taste in fashion? Or are the tastes of the people hatching designers that better "suit" our needs? Are such decisions best left up to us, the average consumer, or the "talented" fashion designer? I'm not quite sure, but one thing is: if you've actually bothered to read this entire blog post (making you awesome, by the way) shopping may never be the same again...