Vicki Larson's OMG Chronicles

A few things went through my head while watching the Super Bowl (beside being thankful that my son gave up football — the injuries! the physical abuse! — and thinking that it would be a bit unfair to be married to Gisele Bundchen and win the Super Bowl). In no particular order, Madonna, aging, Valentine’s Day, men, women, sex and David Beckham.

OK, since I started with the Material Girl, let’s go with it.

Madonna’s halftime show was darn-near perfect (made even more over-the-top by the fact that the amazing slackliner, Andy Lewis, who performed in her show is from Marin; honestly, there’s always a Marin angle), and she looked great. Well, for her age — 53, as so many people want to remind us. A woman … in her 50s … doing that? Wow!

Is 50 the new dead?     

Are women in their 50s past being sexual beings?

Evidently, except for those of us who actually are in our 50s and the men (or women) who love us and who would beg to differ. We may not be able to have babies any more (and why is this a bad thing?), but we are so much more comfortable with our sexuality (and sex in general) that only good things — really good things — can come from that.

Two weeks ago my dearest friend, who lives on the East Coast, and I met in Florida as we each dealt with family stuff. We took two days off so we could have a “Thelma and Louise”-like road trip (without the dying part) and I could show her my old stomping grounds. As we strolled the art deco district of Miami Beach (she loved it; me, no comment) when a man eyed her up and down (there’s a lot to take in; she’s 6-foot-1) said to her, “You still got it.”

My friend is younger than I am; hell, she’s younger than Madonna, and gorgeous (and smart and kind and talented and …) to boot.

“Was that a compliment?” we wondered.

I don’t know. Maybe, but what was up with the “still”?

Yes, she’s got it, Madonna’s got it and perhaps against better judgment, I think I’ve got it (and my BF agrees) — no “still” necessary. If you keep yourself fit and healthy, are interested and interesting, and know how to strut your erotic capital, you got it. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Which brings me to the Teleflora ad. It upset me and — not that I needed it — I felt somewhat justified when I realized I’m not the only one who found it offensive. But just not for the same reasons.

I have nothing against the blatant sexuality of the Teleflora ad because I totally loved the David Beckham H&M underwear ad and I will fight to the death to be able to see Beckham in as few clothes as possible. Hey people, sex sells. We all know this — it’s 2012, so get over it already!

No, what upset me about Teleflora’s ad, which featured supermodel Adriana Lima getting all dolled up for what was obviously a hot date with some lucky guy who sent her a nice bouquet of flowers, was her advice to guys for Valentine’s Day: Give and you shall receive.

*Sigh*

Sex sells, but a woman’s love, sex, attention and affection shouldn’t be for sale.

And a man shouldn’t have to buy it.

The Teleflora ad played up women at our worst. Basically the message was, I won’t give you anything (sex, love, attention — you can read into it what you want) unless you give me something first. We’re right back in high school and being a c*ck teaser. Am I the only one who has a problem with this?

Please compare that with Beckham’s commercial. What was his message? He may have been teasing the heck out of us and being just as suggestive as Lima was — he’s selling sex, too — but he wasn’t demanding that we gals do something first to get some of his action (well, except to buy his new line of undies, but I think most of us gals know that even if we bought his H&M undies, our sweetie still wouldn’t look — or bend it — like Beckham). With his playful smile, he was saying, here I am; come and get me.

So Valentine’s Day is upon us and I am not a big fan — it’s a silly Hallmark holiday that holds lovers hostage and makes coupled women anxious and single women feel bad; they have to “cope” or “survive” it if they don’t happen to have a significant other on that one day of the year. As if being single is an illness.

I feel particularly bad for guys, not only because they bear the financial brunt of the day — the typical guy will shell out about $168.74 on Valentine’s Day this year — nearly twice as much as we gals will — on clothing, jewelry, greeting cards, stuffed teddy bears holding puffy satin hearts with “I Love You” embroidered on them, lacy Victoria’s Secret teddies, etc., but because they’ll be doing it to either appease their sweetheart — do guys really love V.D. like so many women do? — or hoping they’ll get whatever Lima is promising they’ll get.

Sex. Love. Attention. Affection.

I think most would be happy with the sex part.

But at a price.

Sorry, but that’s just not OK.

Thoughts on Madonna?

Aging?

Sex and love (but only for a price)?

Valentine’s Day?

Beckham? Actually, I’ll handle the thoughts about Beckham on my own!!!