Watched Sex and the City for the first time in a while

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never really liked it. They all seemed so self-absorbed, shallow, and materialistic.

...and sexual degeneracy. The essence of the show was promoting big city female hedonism in your 20s and well into 30s. Glamorous parties, sex with dozens of random men, and wealth. It all works out in the end -- a high-powered career and/or rich spouse for all!

[Anonymous]

I loved Sex and the City, but I don't think the characters were intended to be likable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm now 48 and so was definitely the target demographic for this show in SITC was at its prime.

I didn't watch it in my 20's because I find it kind of depressing -- these women going from one failed relationship and hook-up to another. I had kind of tried that myself at one point, and just didn't like it. So watching the show was not entertaining for me.

I kind of agree -- they never seemed that liberated, in the sense that they had a lot of sex, but it never seemed to make them happy. Their relationships were usually a mess, they seemed to define themselves by their connection to a man, and they had a lot of "stuff" but never really seemed to enjoy it.

Yeah I think this is a lot of it. They act all fancy free about being independent but then all they do is obsess over men. Also agree that watching Samantha is so cringey - she doesn't come off as sexually free but actually super desperate and gross. Charlotte and Miranda are both just caricatures (innocent wannabe Ralph Lauren housewife; bitchy corporate lawyer with a soft side). I may be in the minority but I actually find Carrie less annoying than the others - at least I can relate to some of her sentiments.

Carrie was annoying, but she was also the most realistic and “three dimensional.” The others were pretty flat caricatures.

I also thought it was unrealistic how none of them except Charlotte wanted to get married and/or have kids. I know Miranda and Charlotte both ended up married with kids but, in my experience, when you get to your early 30s women’s desire to settle down is a huge aspect of dating. It seemed very unrealistic that only Charlotte was concerned about it - and even then it was like her whole character so that wasn’t realistic either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acknowledging women could have casual sex and be not only okay with it, but want it, was well ahead of its time. Also talked about and showed things no other tv show did at the time.

Not really. It wasn't exactly a deep and meaningful show. What do you think it showed that was ahead of its time?

NP: Bisexuality, abortion

The ability for the woman to want and ask for sex. Despite people saying we had been working for that since the 60s, we had never seen women unashamedly and unapologetically wanting sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I would absolutely agree it has aged horribly but I would love to hear from others WHY -- why did it age so horribly?

My thoughts include
- Gay male stereotypes, cringe
- Lack of BIPOC, wince
- Obsession with affluence in a very pre-2001 way
- The obsession with men, dating, sexual experiences, etc is just embarrassing.

I can’t put my finger on it but there are a lot of things that make the series really dated. I’m 35 so I watched some of the middle and later of the series on DVD in 2002-ish, and then watched the TBS edit when I was in college. Even in 2004 or 2005 or whenever that was, the early episodes from the late 90s were very dated.

+1
I can't put my finger on it either, but it is dated and, to me, I think it is b/c it use to relatable or at least something I could see myself/my friends doing the same thing or living vicariously through the some of the characters and their traits.

Maybe b/c now I'm older, established, have a family, no longer "looking", content, etc. the series just seems so meh. Almost foolish.

I think it's also showing the city as a playground for the rich that has not aged well. That was presented as desirable in the show, but now -- as people leave cities due to high costs -- it has become a negative. Cities are rich people places became gross and depressing.

I think there's been a backlash to high heels.

Also, as a 20-something, I didn't understand how much the having kids things -- when, with home, how many -- would become, for better and for worse, a great strain and great sorter of my female relationships by 35-40, and this is not realistically demonstrated in the show at all. I think a lot of us who watched the show at 20, and didn't think much about the characters being 40, are now 40 ourselves, and realize the show is about 40 yr olds acting like they're 20. That's yikes for me.

An element you’re not mentioning is that this is very much an NYC phenomenon. Tons of my friends in NYC are married to their career and are childless/single by choice. It happens with a lot more frequency in NYC than any other major metro area in the US. They are all now in their late 30s to late 40s, having spent 20 years in the City.

The one thing that is not realistic is that Miranda and Charlotte remain in the city with their kids. In real life, they would’ve high tailed it to Westchester or Long Island. That is the real strain on relationships, once someone makes their move out of the city.

[Anonymous]

I liked the one where she was forced to take off her Lobitons at the door and they were stolen.
And the SNL skit where they have sex at the bank while the manager explains “online banking” between humps. That described the show perfectly for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
An element you’re not mentioning is that this is very much an NYC phenomenon. Tons of my friends in NYC are married to their career and are childless/single by choice. It happens with a lot more frequency in NYC than any other major metro area in the US. They are all now in their late 30s to late 40s, having spent 20 years in the City.

The one thing that is not realistic is that Miranda and Charlotte remain in the city with their kids. In real life, they would’ve high tailed it to Westchester or Long Island. That is the real strain on relationships, once someone makes their move out of the city.

To be fair, Miranda did move to Brooklyn, and it was part of the show how "far" she was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acknowledging women could have casual sex and be not only okay with it, but want it, was well ahead of its time. Also talked about and showed things no other tv show did at the time.

Not really. It wasn't exactly a deep and meaningful show. What do you think it showed that was ahead of its time?

NP: Bisexuality, abortion

Fetishes and kinks, no more sexual labels.

Recreational pot smoking, fertility issues, biracial couple, and let’s not forget anal!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acknowledging women could have casual sex and be not only okay with it, but want it, was well ahead of its time. Also talked about and showed things no other tv show did at the time.

Not really. It wasn't exactly a deep and meaningful show. What do you think it showed that was ahead of its time?

NP: Bisexuality, abortion

The ability for the woman to want and ask for sex. Despite people saying we had been working for that since the 60s, we had never seen women unashamedly and unapologetically wanting sex.

I’d say Golden Girls (especially Blanche) took it there 15 years earlier

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still enjoy it. Is it brilliant? Nah. Is it good for turning my mind of and watching something unrealistic and fluffy? Sure.

+1000

It’s my go to when my husband travels and I’m alone with my TV.

yep, I still like it and one episode is one of my favorite TV episode of all time.

But I never "liked" any of the main characters, in terms of actually thinking I would like them if I knew them. (Maybe Miranda.) But TBH, I'm not sure they were written to be that likable. They were meant to be caricatures.

OTOH, I *loved* the male characters (and still do). Steve, Harry, Stanford, Smith, Aidan, even Big. (Chris Noth can do no wrong IMO.)

The notion that anyone criticizes the unlikable characters of SATC while touting Gilmore Girls is LOL hilarious to me. The most annoying character in television history is Lorelai Gilmore. Unwatchable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I would absolutely agree it has aged horribly but I would love to hear from others WHY -- why did it age so horribly?

My thoughts include
- Gay male stereotypes, cringe
- Lack of BIPOC, wince
- Obsession with affluence in a very pre-2001 way
- The obsession with men, dating, sexual experiences, etc is just embarrassing.

I can’t put my finger on it but there are a lot of things that make the series really dated. I’m 35 so I watched some of the middle and later of the series on DVD in 2002-ish, and then watched the TBS edit when I was in college. Even in 2004 or 2005 or whenever that was, the early episodes from the late 90s were very dated.

+1
I can't put my finger on it either, but it is dated and, to me, I think it is b/c it use to relatable or at least something I could see myself/my friends doing the same thing or living vicariously through the some of the characters and their traits.

Maybe b/c now I'm older, established, have a family, no longer "looking", content, etc. the series just seems so meh. Almost foolish.

I think it's also showing the city as a playground for the rich that has not aged well. That was presented as desirable in the show, but now -- as people leave cities due to high costs -- it has become a negative. Cities are rich people places became gross and depressing.

I think there's been a backlash to high heels.

Also, as a 20-something, I didn't understand how much the having kids things -- when, with home, how many -- would become, for better and for worse, a great strain and great sorter of my female relationships by 35-40, and this is not realistically demonstrated in the show at all. I think a lot of us who watched the show at 20, and didn't think much about the characters being 40, are now 40 ourselves, and realize the show is about 40 yr olds acting like they're 20. That's yikes for me.

But there was more than one episode about this. The one where they go to the baby shower, the one where Carrie? or maybe Charlotte? has dinner with a friend who has kids and an unhappy marriage. Samantha's treatment of Miranda after Brady is born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also, as a 20-something, I didn't understand how much the having kids things -- when, with home, how many -- would become, for better and for worse, a great strain and great sorter of my female relationships by 35-40, and this is not realistically demonstrated in the show at all. I think a lot of us who watched the show at 20, and didn't think much about the characters being 40, are now 40 ourselves, and realize the show is about 40 yr olds acting like they're 20. That's yikes for me.

But there was more than one episode about this. The one where they go to the baby shower, the one where Carrie? or maybe Charlotte? has dinner with a friend who has kids and an unhappy marriage. Samantha's treatment of Miranda after Brady is born.

The one where Carrie's shoes were stolen at the baby's...birthday?

The one where they go to a wedding and are seated at the weird/random singles tables.

The one where Charlotte went to meet up with her sorority sisters and realized they had nothing in common anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have found that both 'Sex in the City' and 'Gilmore Girls' have not aged well.

Really? What is it about Gilmore Girls? I was only an occasional viewer back in the day, but I remember enjoying it when I did see it. Then again, I loved Sex and the City, so . . .

Loralie and her daughter are annoying. I have a new found appreciation for Emily and Paris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, as a 20-something, I didn't understand how much the having kids things -- when, with home, how many -- would become, for better and for worse, a great strain and great sorter of my female relationships by 35-40, and this is not realistically demonstrated in the show at all. I think a lot of us who watched the show at 20, and didn't think much about the characters being 40, are now 40 ourselves, and realize the show is about 40 yr olds acting like they're 20. That's yikes for me.

But there was more than one episode about this. The one where they go to the baby shower, the one where Carrie? or maybe Charlotte? has dinner with a friend who has kids and an unhappy marriage. Samantha's treatment of Miranda after Brady is born.

The one where Carrie's shoes were stolen at the baby's...birthday?

The one where they go to a wedding and are seated at the weird/random singles tables.

The one where Charlotte went to meet up with her sorority sisters and realized they had nothing in common anymore.

+1

Also, defining what one should be doing at certain age...yikes to you, pp.

[Anonymous]

I found this show annoying and highly unrealistic when it was on. Especially the character of Carrie. Was just not interested then or now. Assume it has aged even less well.