Let's get real: Charlotte York would never have been single

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a TV show I don't think Charlotte is the most unrealistic aspect.... No way could a newspaper columnist afford Carrie's wardrobe

She had a trust fund/ inheritance/ family money. And wasn't she a curator?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a TV show I don't think Charlotte is the most unrealistic aspect.... No way could a newspaper columnist afford Carrie's wardrobe

She had a trust fund/ inheritance/ family money. And wasn't she a curator?

Sorry, read "Charlotte" twice!

[Anonymous]

OP, do you really think looks is the determinant of marriage age? That highly attractive women marry at 18? Somewhat attractive, 25? So-so, mid-thirties?

You really have no clue as to the socio-economic, educational, and personal factors that go into when women and men get married?

It may even stun you to know that many women marrying very young are not particularly attractive, wealthy, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you really think looks is the determinant of marriage age? That highly attractive women marry at 18? Somewhat attractive, 25? So-so, mid-thirties?

You really have no clue as to the socio-economic, educational, and personal factors that go into when women and men get married?

It may even stun you to know that many women marrying very young are not particularly attractive, wealthy, etc.

I think if you re-read OP's post post, she listed more than her looks as the determinant. And you also might want to dial back the tone. It's just a silly musing about a tv show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you really think looks is the determinant of marriage age? That highly attractive women marry at 18? Somewhat attractive, 25? So-so, mid-thirties?

You really have no clue as to the socio-economic, educational, and personal factors that go into when women and men get married?

It may even stun you to know that many women marrying very young are not particularly attractive, wealthy, etc.

I think if you re-read OP's post post, she listed more than her looks as the determinant. And you also might want to dial back the tone. It's just a silly musing about a tv show.

"Conservative" and "family-oriented" are pretty much meaningless. Liberals are family oriented too...

[Anonymous]

Irony of this thread: actress who played Charlotte is still single in her forties, beautiful, talented and famous as she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Irony of this thread: actress who played Charlotte is still single in her forties, beautiful, talented and famous as she is.

Correction: she is 50, and a single, never-married mom. And still very beautiful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you really think looks is the determinant of marriage age? That highly attractive women marry at 18? Somewhat attractive, 25? So-so, mid-thirties?

You really have no clue as to the socio-economic, educational, and personal factors that go into when women and men get married?

It may even stun you to know that many women marrying very young are not particularly attractive, wealthy, etc.

I think if you re-read OP's post post, she listed more than her looks as the determinant. And you also might want to dial back the tone. It's just a silly musing about a tv show.

"Conservative" and "family-oriented" are pretty much meaningless. Liberals are family oriented too...

Liberals have far fewer children, so I think the point has merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you really think looks is the determinant of marriage age? That highly attractive women marry at 18? Somewhat attractive, 25? So-so, mid-thirties?

You really have no clue as to the socio-economic, educational, and personal factors that go into when women and men get married?

It may even stun you to know that many women marrying very young are not particularly attractive, wealthy, etc.

I think if you re-read OP's post post, she listed more than her looks as the determinant. And you also might want to dial back the tone. It's just a silly musing about a tv show.

"Conservative" and "family-oriented" are pretty much meaningless. Liberals are family oriented too...

Liberals have far fewer children, so I think the point has merit.

Statistics? Conservatives or evangelicals?

[Anonymous]

Family oriented is conservative code word for hate LGBQ.

[Anonymous]

I loved that show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It never made sense to me that someone like Charlotte would be single into her mid thirties. She's beautiful, conservative, family oriented and the only date able person on the show.

Most women in NY get married in their early to mid 30s.

Do you read the NYT wedding announcements? Many, many brides under 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you really think looks is the determinant of marriage age? That highly attractive women marry at 18? Somewhat attractive, 25? So-so, mid-thirties?

You really have no clue as to the socio-economic, educational, and personal factors that go into when women and men get married?

It may even stun you to know that many women marrying very young are not particularly attractive, wealthy, etc.

Considering Charlotte's personality and ambitions to be a stay at home mom, you'd think she'd have started husband hunting very early and given her eligibility she would've been scooped up very fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Family oriented is conservative code word for hate LGBQ.

Then Charlotte was not family oriented nor conservative.

[Anonymous]

She was super picky and had a check list of expectations that mere mortal men could never satisfy. She was also a cold fish in bed so there was that to...

I always thought Amanda was hilarious. Carrie was annoying because she always had to make herself out to be the good girl who was constantly getting her heart tromped on (No, Carrie. We know why you were sleeping with them and it wasn't love.) Miranda was...nice.