"Whenever I'm caught between two evils, I take the one I've never tried"

Mae West’s sharp wit shines through in her remark about choosing between two evils, suggesting a playful subversion of conventional morality. Rather than agonizing over which “evil” might be the lesser, she proposes an adventurous, almost mischievous approach to decision-making: opt for novelty, even in scenarios framed as undesirable. The statement challenges the standard view that when faced with only negative choices, one should minimize risk or harm. Instead, West implies that there’s a form of agency available in the audacious embrace of what is unfamiliar or untested.

Her words reveal a philosophy rooted in curiosity and nonconformity. By choosing the evil she hasn’t experienced, she sidesteps resignation and passive acceptance—refusing to let circumstances dictate her path. West’s viewpoint injects an element of empowerment, reframing situations where individual choice might seem constrained. This attitude resonates with anyone who’s ever faced a difficult crossroads, offering the reminder that even narrow options can be navigated with personal flair and initiative.

There’s an underlying humor in her approach. West was famous for her provocative, larger-than-life persona, often defying societal taboos and expectations with a wink and a quip. Here, she pokes fun at the seriousness with which people often treat moral dilemmas, as if suggesting that a life without taking new risks—even “bad” ones—would be less colorful or complete. Her perspective celebrates the virtue of experience itself. Trying something new, even under less-than-ideal circumstances, can lead to personal growth or at least an interesting story to tell.

Ultimately, West’s outlook encourages both boldness and an embrace of life’s unpredictability. It’s a way to claim ownership of choices, rejecting victimhood or inertia, and perhaps finding liberation, even in difficult situations, by choosing to remain open to new experiences.