Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know why you are confused. He's saying that he was the consistent presence in his boys' lives from the beginning because Kathy's job required so much travel, and now that his youngest is having serious issues, he worries that him traveling and being absent is contributing to that. Makes sense to me.

I don't think he's blaming Kathy for Wyatt's issues nor is he blaming himself. He's just accepting that his kid is struggling and he's figuring out how he can give that child what he needs to do better. That's what parents do. It's not about fault. Wyatt needs his dad's consistent presence right now, that means Aiden's focus and physical presence needs to be with Wyatt, not with Carrie. Sometimes as a parent, you have to make sacrifices.

It feels reasonable to me and also somewhat predictable -- every episode since Aiden rejoined the show has included some indication that there is some conflict between his commitment to his kids and his interest in Carrie and in being in NY.

I get all that, but didn't understand why he wouldn't take her up on her offer to come down and visit him in VA instead of him traveling. It seemed like a reasonable compromise, if he was actually interested in trying to make the relationship work. Or if he isn't, that is totally fine too, but then just let her go, vs. doing a five year postponement.

I mean, you can view it as unrealistic or unfair, but these questions were answered in the scene.

When Carrie suggested that she just come visit him, he said that he'd be thinking about her when she wasn't there. His focus would be on her. His point is that right now, with his kid having serious issues that need to be addressed with his full attention, he can't have this relationship with Carrie that will draw his attention. I think what he was really saying was that the distance isn't even the main issue. Even if Carrie lived in Virginia full-time, he might feel that he needs to hold off on getting into a serious relationship with anyone while his kid is going through this. Wyatt is clearly a troubled kid and has always had issues (Kathy referred to him as their "little puzzle" and Aiden has repeatedly referred to him in ways that indicate he's a lot).

Basically they are positing that Wyatt is essentially a special needs kid (though it may not be clear what those needs are right now, which makes it even more critical, because there are few things more exhausting and frustrating than trying to figure that out with a kid who is obviously struggling but it's just not really clear why) and when you have a SN kid, you sometimes don't get to do things that other people might think are reasonable, like starting a new relationship or splitting time in another city. If it seems unfair and miserable, well... in some ways it is. For everyone.

SN present with drinking and hallucigenics? This kid needs constant supervision and is probably a brat, but yeah as a parent you do need to handle this for the best outcome for the kid. Rebelious, attention needing kids are not SN. Maybe future mentally ill through addiction or borderline personality disorder, but not SN.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t Steve at the last supper? I thought he was supposed to be there?

I was sort of confused by this too, because of the conversation between Carrie and Miranda where Carrie tells Miranda she needs to figure out how to talk to Steve and not just cut him out of her life. It seemed implied that both Che and Steve would be at the dinner, and that's why Carrie was telling Miranda to get her $hit together and mend fences.

But in retrospect, I think Carrie was just using the conversation about Miranda not wanting to see Che at the dinner as a jumping off point to tell Miranda that she was being immature with regards to the man she was married to for 15+ years and with whom she had a child. I think the point is that while avoiding Che is kind of dumb, avoiding Steve is downright immature -- he's not just some random ex like Scooter, he's a huge part of her life and they share a child. I don't think Carrie was ever saying Steve would be at the dinner, just that Miranda needed to talk to him.

I do think the show is being weirdly flexible about Carrie's circle of friends. Like it doesn't really feel like she's close to Naya or LTW at all (they are Miranda's and Charlotte's friends, respectively, and she is just friendly with them through her close friends). Whereas she's known Steve for like 20 years and is his kid's godmother. I can accept that Che, Jackie, and Lisette have become inner circle friends over the last couple years of working/living near them. But I don't buy that Naya and LTW are her good friends.

It's stuff like this that really highlights the idea that they are shoehorning in diversity without fleshing out these characters and relationships. Have we ever gotten a 1:1 scene between Carrie and either of those women? What about between either of those women? Have either of them ever been alone with Seema? They assigned each of the returning cast a WOC pal, and then threw in Che and Jackie for further diversity. But now they want us to buy that this is a cohesive social circle and they all attend the same events and hang out together? Nope, don't buy it. [b]These people barely know each other.

Agree to all that was stated 100%!!! It was the first time some characters even set foot in the apartment! Where was Louise?!

LTW was there because Herbert and Big were close friends and did shady business deals together, which will probably be revealed next season. He has a lot of dirt on Big and, thus, on Carrie - so it pays to keep them close. Herbert is NOT what he seems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t Steve at the last supper? I thought he was supposed to be there?

I was sort of confused by this too, because of the conversation between Carrie and Miranda where Carrie tells Miranda she needs to figure out how to talk to Steve and not just cut him out of her life. It seemed implied that both Che and Steve would be at the dinner, and that's why Carrie was telling Miranda to get her $hit together and mend fences.

But in retrospect, I think Carrie was just using the conversation about Miranda not wanting to see Che at the dinner as a jumping off point to tell Miranda that she was being immature with regards to the man she was married to for 15+ years and with whom she had a child. I think the point is that while avoiding Che is kind of dumb, avoiding Steve is downright immature -- he's not just some random ex like Scooter, he's a huge part of her life and they share a child. I don't think Carrie was ever saying Steve would be at the dinner, just that Miranda needed to talk to him.

I do think the show is being weirdly flexible about Carrie's circle of friends. Like it doesn't really feel like she's close to Naya or LTW at all (they are Miranda's and Charlotte's friends, respectively, and she is just friendly with them through her close friends). Whereas she's known Steve for like 20 years and is his kid's godmother. I can accept that Che, Jackie, and Lisette have become inner circle friends over the last couple years of working/living near them. But I don't buy that Naya and LTW are her good friends.

It's stuff like this that really highlights the idea that they are shoehorning in diversity without fleshing out these characters and relationships. Have we ever gotten a 1:1 scene between Carrie and either of those women? What about between either of those women? Have either of them ever been alone with Seema? They assigned each of the returning cast a WOC pal, and then threw in Che and Jackie for further diversity. But now they want us to buy that this is a cohesive social circle and they all attend the same events and hang out together? Nope, don't buy it. These people barely know each other.

Totally agree. There was no reason for Naya and LTW to be there. I can maybe see inviting Naya as Miranda's "+1" since she knew it would be uncomfortable for Miranda having Che there. But there's no indication she is friends with LTW outside of Charlotte. Why would she be invited to this intimate event?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that they had Anthony giving in and doing a sexual act he was pressured into. There is nothing wrong with wanting to say no to anal sex. It can lead to fissures and other issues, as Anthony said. Thre are many ways to be physically intimate and romanticizing him doing something he didn’t want to do didn’t sit well with me.

I was trying to figure out from his facial expressions if he hated it or hated giving up control (his word from dinner).

I think he didn't like it. I don't know. It made me pretty uncomfortable because I feel lile I have been in his pressured into doing something I don't want to do because of "love"

It looked like he didn’t like it initially then felt the intimacy of it. He was hesitant. I can’t imagine it’s going to be on his top 5 requests, but you could see him softening. This could be a one and done scenario or an occasional menu selection. It seemed valuable for him to try something as growth. That it was anal was a bit simplistic though it also was a great vulnerability.

I also agree the pressure was not cool though.

I think Anthony’s view was problematic because of why he didn’t do anal: he didn’t see himself as “the woman.” So it was more about him being growth minded than the actual anal sex. I think it’s hard when you say “flip the genders” and then we’d be perturbed. You can’t always flip the genders and get the same problem. Women aren’t expected to give anal sex to the man. Here, though, Anthony is expecting from his boyfriend that he’s unwilling to do himself. You could also look at this as, for example, the man willing to get oral sex but being unwilling to give oral sex. Most women would probably think that makes the man kind of a dick.

Why wasn’t Steve at the last supper? I thought he was supposed to be there?

Good question. It doesn't make sense that he wouldn't be invited. The only answer is that the writers didn't need him there (they preferred the scene on Coney Island for the Steve & Miranda denouement) so they excluded him from the dinner scene.

Also, we're supposed to believe that Miranda and Charlotte invited Samantha but didn't bother mentioning that to Carrie? This is a seated dinner with a specific head count. Not a the-more-the-merrier situation. You could argue that Samantha would have taken Aiden's empty seat, but it's such lazy writing.

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t Steve at the last supper? I thought he was supposed to be there?

I was sort of confused by this too, because of the conversation between Carrie and Miranda where Carrie tells Miranda she needs to figure out how to talk to Steve and not just cut him out of her life. It seemed implied that both Che and Steve would be at the dinner, and that's why Carrie was telling Miranda to get her $hit together and mend fences.

But in retrospect, I think Carrie was just using the conversation about Miranda not wanting to see Che at the dinner as a jumping off point to tell Miranda that she was being immature with regards to the man she was married to for 15+ years and with whom she had a child. I think the point is that while avoiding Che is kind of dumb, avoiding Steve is downright immature -- he's not just some random ex like Scooter, he's a huge part of her life and they share a child. I don't think Carrie was ever saying Steve would be at the dinner, just that Miranda needed to talk to him.

I do think the show is being weirdly flexible about Carrie's circle of friends. Like it doesn't really feel like she's close to Naya or LTW at all (they are Miranda's and Charlotte's friends, respectively, and she is just friendly with them through her close friends). Whereas she's known Steve for like 20 years and is his kid's godmother. I can accept that Che, Jackie, and Lisette have become inner circle friends over the last couple years of working/living near them. But I don't buy that Naya and LTW are her good friends.

It's stuff like this that really highlights the idea that they are shoehorning in diversity without fleshing out these characters and relationships. Have we ever gotten a 1:1 scene between Carrie and either of those women? What about between either of those women? Have either of them ever been alone with Seema? They assigned each of the returning cast a WOC pal, and then threw in Che and Jackie for further diversity. But now they want us to buy that this is a cohesive social circle and they all attend the same events and hang out together? Nope, don't buy it. These people barely know each other.

Why wasn’t Steve at the last supper? I thought he was supposed to be there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did it rub anyone else the wrong way… Aidan’s tirade about his ex-wife? She’s always working, Traveling, with her boyfriend, And yet here he is trying to end up with a woman who chose not to have kids so she could work, travel, have boyfriends.

It really seemed very against the grain of the show to throw his ex under the bus like that. He seems to want a woman to give him kids… But then ultimately he wants to end up with a child free woman… I guess it’s good that he’s realizing he can’t have his cake and eat it too. That speech really just rubbed me the wrong way, especially after the show introduced us to the ex and she seemed like a good person.

I fell asleep during this ep so I’ll have to rewatch but I thought the ex was supposed to be cool, in previous episodes it seemed like he spoke well about her and didn’t she meet up for lunch with Carrie to discuss the kids etc? It didn’t seem like she was positioned as flakey but, rather, as an involved parent

I’m not sure the writers have thought all this out… They introduced the ex as a nice caring person. She seems to be a good parent and care about Aiden.

But then in Aiden’s tirade, he was blaming his son’s troubles on the fact that his wife is constantly traveling to China and India for work, and always with her boyfriend. That’s the reason he gave for breaking up with carrie for five years, he’s been a constant in their life, and he has to be there for them. It just did not seem to match with the woman that we met before, and, like I said, it just really rubbed me the wrong way that he’s dumping all this on his ex-wife and Mom of his kids, and yet here he is wanting to be with a woman with no responsibilities and a ton of money.

I’m not knocking Carrie, she chose the life that worked for her….but seems disingenuous of Aidan to contrast the two women like that.

It seems realistic to me. He could mean all the good things he said about Kathy, but in the immediate aftermath of Wyatt's accident, be really pissed and blaming her.

I look at things in my past sometimes fondly/generously, and other times critically, depending on what's going on in the present. I don't think people always interpret the past in one single, consistent way. Our reflection sometimes depends on where we are at the moment.

Aidan's ire with Kathy may be a temporary reaction of a still-shocked and overwrought parent, or it may be a permanent shift in how Aidan views Kathy's parenting.

Anonymous wrote:Did it rub anyone else the wrong way… Aidan’s tirade about his ex-wife? She’s always working, Traveling, with her boyfriend, And yet here he is trying to end up with a woman who chose not to have kids so she could work, travel, have boyfriends.

It really seemed very against the grain of the show to throw his ex under the bus like that. He seems to want a woman to give him kids… But then ultimately he wants to end up with a child free woman… I guess it’s good that he’s realizing he can’t have his cake and eat it too. That speech really just rubbed me the wrong way, especially after the show introduced us to the ex and she seemed like a good person.

Describing this as a tirade is not accurate at all. He did position himself in a very favorable (even a bit martyr-y) way during that monologue, but he didn't sound mad at Kathy at all. He said it more matter of factly, like "Kathy was traveling a lot and then starting a new relationship and I was the constant, and it's hard for the boys especially Wyatt for that dynamic to change." Sure, there's some implied judgment there (maybe merited, maybe not, these are fictional characters so it's impossible to say) but it's not like he was telling Carrie that if only Kathy hadn't been flitting off for her job and dating around, his sons would be fine and they could be together. The tone was more explanatory, not an excuse.

I also feel the show/story (including the movies) has earned some leeway on the issue of women working and raising kids. Two of the original four characters were mothers. One had a very serious, demanding job and their husband was the primary parent. The other was a SAHM but one with a ton of commitments (volunteer work, social) and ample outsourcing. Neither of these things was ever once treated as wrong or problematic. Both women have strong relationships with friends, travel, and seek out personal fulfillment, and have done so throughout their kids' childhoods.

So I assume the comment about Aiden being the constant for his kids while Kathy traveled for work and dated is mostly an accurate but not judgmental description of their lives. Aiden sold his business and basically doesn't work. Kathy is an artist and not working is probably not truly an option for her. She also went through there pregnancies, childbirths, and postpartum over 6 years -- she earned some independence and Aiden is the kind sensitive, self-aware guy who I think would recognize that.

So no, this did not bother me.

It's funny because it seems like a lot of people are annoyed with Aiden in this last couple episodes and I'm pretty much fine with it, even though I've always found Aiden to be kind of a tedious drip on this show. I feel weird defending him! I never do!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did it rub anyone else the wrong way… Aidan’s tirade about his ex-wife? She’s always working, Traveling, with her boyfriend, And yet here he is trying to end up with a woman who chose not to have kids so she could work, travel, have boyfriends.

It really seemed very against the grain of the show to throw his ex under the bus like that. He seems to want a woman to give him kids… But then ultimately he wants to end up with a child free woman… I guess it’s good that he’s realizing he can’t have his cake and eat it too. That speech really just rubbed me the wrong way, especially after the show introduced us to the ex and she seemed like a good person.

I fell asleep during this ep so I’ll have to rewatch but I thought the ex was supposed to be cool, in previous episodes it seemed like he spoke well about her and didn’t she meet up for lunch with Carrie to discuss the kids etc? It didn’t seem like she was positioned as flakey but, rather, as an involved parent

I’m not sure the writers have thought all this out… They introduced the ex as a nice caring person. She seems to be a good parent and care about Aiden.

But then in Aiden’s tirade, he was blaming his son’s troubles on the fact that his wife is constantly traveling to China and India for work, and always with her boyfriend. That’s the reason he gave for breaking up with carrie for five years, he’s been a constant in their life, and he has to be there for them. It just did not seem to match with the woman that we met before, and, like I said, it just really rubbed me the wrong way that he’s dumping all this on his ex-wife and Mom of his kids, and yet here he is wanting to be with a woman with no responsibilities and a ton of money.

I’m not knocking Carrie, she chose the life that worked for her….but seems disingenuous of Aidan to contrast the two women like that.

Anonymous wrote:Did it rub anyone else the wrong way… Aidan’s tirade about his ex-wife? She’s always working, Traveling, with her boyfriend, And yet here he is trying to end up with a woman who chose not to have kids so she could work, travel, have boyfriends.

It really seemed very against the grain of the show to throw his ex under the bus like that. He seems to want a woman to give him kids… But then ultimately he wants to end up with a child free woman… I guess it’s good that he’s realizing he can’t have his cake and eat it too. That speech really just rubbed me the wrong way, especially after the show introduced us to the ex and she seemed like a good person.

I fell asleep during this ep so I’ll have to rewatch but I thought the ex was supposed to be cool, in previous episodes it seemed like he spoke well about her and didn’t she meet up for lunch with Carrie to discuss the kids etc? It didn’t seem like she was positioned as flakey but, rather, as an involved parent

Did it rub anyone else the wrong way… Aidan’s tirade about his ex-wife? She’s always working, Traveling, with her boyfriend, And yet here he is trying to end up with a woman who chose not to have kids so she could work, travel, have boyfriends.

It really seemed very against the grain of the show to throw his ex under the bus like that. He seems to want a woman to give him kids… But then ultimately he wants to end up with a child free woman… I guess it’s good that he’s realizing he can’t have his cake and eat it too. That speech really just rubbed me the wrong way, especially after the show introduced us to the ex and she seemed like a good person.

My guess is season 3 will fast forward 5ish years and will conclude the show. First part of the season will not have Aidan but by the end he and Carrie will be together.

Carrie will not move to Virginia.