Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think that there were annoying things about the show and the characters.
But if you can get past the fashion nonsense and some of the over-the-top indulgent lifestyle things, I do think that some of the observations about dating, sex, and relationships were a pretty good reflection of the times.
My biggest disappointment is that it ended in a Jane Austen way -- that success was basically all four women being partnered up, two with children.
I would have been more satisfied with a more open-ended kind of resolution -- that being single isn't so horrible, that it's okay to not find a forever mate or to not even *want* to find a forever mate. Not all four, but at least one of the four should have ended the season single and okay with that (maybe even relieved).
For all of its failings, what made the show interesting (at the time) was it did really explore some sex and dating topics that weren't really explored on television. But then it ended with the traditional BS.
I hated Allie McBeal, by the way. I think that character and that show was way worse than Sex in the City.
I liked both, back in the day,
but I was in my super-early 20s when they were airing,[b] and now, looking back with maturity, these women should have been a hell of a lot more mature for their ages.
The odd episodes of SATC that I still catch often crack me up though, they were the first show (that I ever saw at least) that featured a lot of honest sex/dating talk - hello, the BJ tug-of-war! They did break ground, I think. I have seen both movies, found the first depressing, the second, hilarious. I think the movies covered quite a bit of ground in terms of NOT wrapping it all up in a "couple hood/family is the only path" way that was truer to real life. I'm not sure how I'd feel seeing an episode of Ally McBeal today, it seems to be less syndicated.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}