Topless rodeo...

...guilty pleasure or marketing ploy? Or both?

The other day I was reading Glamour magazine, and one of the sections was titled, "Guilty pleasures it's okay to indulge." And I thought, where did the idea of the guilty pleasure come from?

The Puritans would say that it doesn't matter what pleases us, spending too much time indulging ourselves with pleasurable things is the sin in and of itself. It's selfish, it takes time away from pursuits that bring us closer to God. (You'll notice there aren't that many old-school Puritans left in the world. Much like Communism, denial of earthly desires is great in theory but not much use on the ground.)

And then there are the hedonists (harking back to the days of gluttonous Roman orgies) who argue that pleasure is a form of worshipping God, and there's no guilt in it any of it. (There aren't too many Romans left either, proving perhaps that utter indulgence of the senses doesn't leave enough time for practical concerns like defense and resource management.)

But then there are Americans, descendants of both cultures, the city on a hill with provinces that stretch out to Gaul and beyond. We're not Puritans, we're not hedonists, we're capitalists. That strange blend of both viewpoints, a compromise that (if the political landscape is to be believed) tries to please all but secretly pleases none. What's my point? That if pleasure is consumption, then Americans are guilty of most indulgences on earth. But then there's this strange justification (maybe not so strange) that since consumption drives the economy, it's really a form of public service. For example, if I eat one of the Lindt truffles sitting on my counter and savor each buttery taste of white chocolate and each drop of creamy filling, I'm being a sensualist. On the other hand, if I eat it but think instead of the Brazilian cocoa farmer who will now be able to send his daughters to college, and the Swiss distributor who, thanks to my small purchase, will haul himself further out of debt, and even the chocolatier whose commissions will finance his aging mother's care, then I'm actually doing a good turn for my international neighbors. I'm taking one for the team, so to speak.

It's the same idea behind "Breast Cancer Month" bracelets and perfumes and scarves. Of course I think curing breast cancer is a worthy cause, but I'm not sure I believe in the good intentions of people who pay $5000 for a dress and rest comfortably in the knowledge that 10% of the proceeds will go towards the Cure. I'm guilty: I believe in the all-or-nothing mentality. A good deed should be its own reward, and a scarf should be a pretty thing to keep you warm in winter. I understand why we mix the two, because you can't live in a black-and-white world (or pink-and-white, in this case), and charity should be fun as well as serious. But having engaged in serious acts of charity before (mainly because I can't afford the fluffier kind) I have this to say: it's only as serious as you make it. I would argue that the people who write a straight donation for $1000 and then go buy whatever the hell scarf they want are probably happier, because they don't feel the oppressive need to justify their pleasures.

It's like children of immigrants (I can use that phrase because I am one) who speak one language at home and another at school. Are they hypocrites? Who says you need to pick one and stick with it? Since when are we so intractable, so inadaptable, that we need to be one philosophy all the time?

I know the argument some people will make. Anika, they'll say, what you don't realize is that there are tons of people out there who would never donate to the Cure unless they were getting something out of it. My response is: they won't anyway. It's not worth relying on that fickle demographic, charity ballers. And my other response is, since when do we have so little faith in people? Seriously. People who complain about human nature have forgotten one key fact: we are moving forward. Each generation progresses toward more open-mindedness, tolerance, responsibility and generosity than the last. Yes, this past century has seen genocide, war and pollution. But so has every century before it. Let's not fall into the trap of bewailing the modern day. And if the world is getting better, then people must be making it better. It's a struggle against our baser nature, but it's not hopeless.

Go ahead and eat the truffle. It's delicious. And then spend an hour teaching a homeless kid to read. The balance - the meld, if you will - will be fantastic, and not compromising on either will make the both infinitely more satisfying than some bullshit cause like "Truffles for literacy: 10% of profits go to putting books in urban classrooms." I mean, in my opinion, the people who come up with causes like the latter are really just trying to sell you something anyway.