Steve is not a loser. He owns a bar with Aidan.

Also he is a high quality person, I know not something that is valued on DCUM.

I think I loved the show because it talked about modern romance in way my 80s upbringing wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 show was written by snarky gay Jewish men who wanted to glamorize hedonism. It doesn't age well because we all know women still dating and having casual sex in their 30s isn't anything to aspire to, they're all disgusting and sad trainwrecks who viscerally repel high-status men. The only accurate storyline was the desperate lawyer getting knocked up by the loser bartender. That's the real outcome of careerism and whoring around into your 30s: Clock-ticking desperate women with a lot of mental baggage settling with losers. And in real life "Charlotte" would have had kids and been married to a hot rich WASP who played lacrosse at an Ivy League college long before the show began.

The red pill incel has arrived.

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.

First full frontal male nudity!

But the show was so eyecatching at the time because it was talking about and showing things that other shows were not. I mean, this was the age of Ally McBeal and the practice. And Stargate! I mean, there was Buffy the Vampire Slayer which was breaking new ground in different ways. SATC was a show for adults about adults (sometimes acting like children, but eh?).

The story arc that had the most impact on me was the one about Carrie and the dude who wasn't as successful a writer as she was, who had all sorts of feelings about it and couldn't come through for Carrie because of it. That was stuff that I don't remember other shows dealing with at the time. That's a real issue in relationships with successful women and it was so interesting to see it actually represented on TV without the woman seeming like an absolute nutbag because of course on any other show/movie of the time it would be written so that the guy was the sympathetic character in that relationship and the woman was an overbearing shrew who was trying to control him.

Anyway, wow, lots of weird feelings about SATC, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This! GG was such an awful show. I never understand the love for it. I admit that SATC hasn't aged particularly well though. I agree with some pp's that it broke new ground, but now that women's sexual liberation is more the norm, there's not much left to glean from it and it's no longer fresh. I enjoyed it back in the day though.

That’s your opinion.

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.

The show was called Sex and the City not Career in the City or Hobby in the City.

Hobby in the City sounds like a show that I’d be interested in now, at age 42.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This! GG was such an awful show. I never understand the love for it. I admit that SATC hasn't aged particularly well though. I agree with some pp's that it broke new ground, but now that women's sexual liberation is more the norm, there's not much left to glean from it and it's no longer fresh. I enjoyed it back in the day though.

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.

The show was called Sex and the City not Career in the City or Hobby in the City.

I mean, do you people actually know anything about the show? It was based on a series of essays from a newspaper column about 30- something sex and dating in NYC. It was conceived as a show about sex and dating in NYC. That's why the early episodes explore specific dating tropes-- the 20- something guy, men who only want to date models, secret sex, the f*ck buddy, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a great appreciation 20 yrs later of what a terrible friend Carrie was! She was painted as such a "girls' girl," but now with more life experience under my belt, I can see her as a terrible friend.

THIS! I went back and watched and couldn't believe Carrie was ever considered a good friend of an "it girl" in our society. She was THE WORST friend and a pretty shitty girlfriend, too. Every single conversation she has in the series she always turns back around to talk about herself.

Being an "It Girl" doesn't have anything to do with being likeable.

I always thought Carrie was meant to be an anti-hero. I don't think any of the main characters were meant to be heroes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can we be BFFs? Agree with everything you said (except there was one male character I didn't like, Anthony Marentino; too over the top). And which is your favorite TV episode of all time?!

I would love to be friends!

And I wouldn't say it's my favorite, but definitely ONE of my favorite comedic episodes ever: Take Me Out to the Ballgame.

I think the first few seasons of dating seemed more realistic than where they all ended up.

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.

The show was called Sex and the City not Career in the City or Hobby in the City.

Anonymous wrote:I have a great appreciation 20 yrs later of what a terrible friend Carrie was! She was painted as such a "girls' girl," but now with more life experience under my belt, I can see her as a terrible friend.

THIS! I went back and watched and couldn't believe Carrie was ever considered a good friend of an "it girl" in our society. She was THE WORST friend and a pretty shitty girlfriend, too. Every single conversation she has in the series she always turns back around to talk about herself.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can we be BFFs? Agree with everything you said (except there was one male character I didn't like, Anthony Marentino; too over the top). And which is your favorite TV episode of all time?!