Or should I say, "good riddance to the 'sluts in the city.'" I won't miss you! I have never watched the show and find it pathetic that a show with "high-class" bimbos would make it seven or so years on televison. I just find it repulsive that there could be a show about 4 women who sit around (from what I heard) and talking about sex openly. I just think that sexuality on TV has gone too far. I've heard a lot of talk over the debate over "Janet Jackson featuring "The Star Nipple" and that other guy and I found it repulsive. Britney and Christina... For god sakes! Put some clothes on! Why is it so necessary for women to expose themselves on the cover of magazines wearing nothing? Isn't it teaching girls that the only power that they have is their sexuality? I mean, I'm sure guys will agree that it's sexy and hot to have a "hot chick" hangin' her ass out on TV, or showing herself but I think it's terrible for the impression they make on little girls who are just starting to find themselves, and whose insecurities lead them towards being sexual at a young age... And WHY THE HELL are there little girls giving blowjobs to random guys on school busses nowadays? My god! PLEASE, FOR GOODNESS SAKES, SOMEBODY HELP ME! Please argue with me coz I just don't understand!
Goodbye to "Sex in the City"
- Thread starter wesmorrisbabe
- Start date
wesmorrisbabe said:
Fist time I heard of this little tidbit I laughed at the absurdity of it only to find out it is very much true (atleast in my neck of the woods)
wesmorrisbabe said:
Do girls need T.V for this anymore? Don't they find this out on their own now in H.S through the gawking douchebags that follow them around?
wesmorrisbabe said:
Sales? Demand? 18-34 year old male demographic? Public interest? Image is god ideaology? 13-15 year old horny boys? Childern and teenagers being a major influence on family misc spending? Eye candy, because no one pays $5 for a magazine to see the "girl next door" on the cover?
Rogue Consciousness
Registered Member
Unless, of course, that "girl next door" is a 22 year old model with pigtails and catholic schoolgirl uniform to make her look younger. Oh, and that's true only if the magazine promises hardcore pornography.
Girls that give in to sexual demands of horny boys are weak-minded anyway. I pity them because they'll probably never have an orgasm.
Girls that give in to sexual demands of horny boys are weak-minded anyway. I pity them because they'll probably never have an orgasm.
Call me dellusional but I think the rabbit hole goes deeper than that. Pornography is different because many underage girls do get used and tossed daily but when talking about sexual exploitation on much larger scale i.e Britney, Christina and others what have you then they aren't the weak minded ones are they?....It is marketing at its finest. They are role models for aspiring young girls through their charities and they are sex pots for boys and young men at newstands all the while gaining fame, notoriety, and cash while the naysayers are left complaining.
I'd have a orgasm if such was the case with me.
Actually, I think it's all healthy, no matter how much it disgusts me.
Once upon a time, women were held to a certain unfair standard, and while that standard still exists today, women spent part of the 80s and 90s shocked by the realization that being treated "equally" was actually a step down. Sure, the old sexism was condescending, patronizing, suffocating, and downright evil. But the new equality means that women will be treated in an equally shitty manner as men.
The flip-side of that really is a woman's breasts. I don't get what the big deal is.
When I lived in Eugene, Oregon, a clothing-optional town, a question occurred to me that I've been asking ever since. "Why does the policy have to be written to allow a woman to go topless?"
It would seem to me that any policy that would need to be written, should one be so inclined, should be written to force people to wear clothes. Not to allow them to take clothes off.
Women, a simple question: do a man's nipples turn you on?
See, womens' breasts are a huge turn-on to heterosexual men. And even the homosexual Clive Barker has made some firm expressions about female breasts (see The Great and Secret Show). And here I run into a dead-end. I'm not sure how to state it affirmatively, but the flip-side is orgies in the street.
Once upon a time, women were held to a certain unfair standard, and while that standard still exists today, women spent part of the 80s and 90s shocked by the realization that being treated "equally" was actually a step down. Sure, the old sexism was condescending, patronizing, suffocating, and downright evil. But the new equality means that women will be treated in an equally shitty manner as men.
The flip-side of that really is a woman's breasts. I don't get what the big deal is.
When I lived in Eugene, Oregon, a clothing-optional town, a question occurred to me that I've been asking ever since. "Why does the policy have to be written to allow a woman to go topless?"
It would seem to me that any policy that would need to be written, should one be so inclined, should be written to force people to wear clothes. Not to allow them to take clothes off.
Women, a simple question: do a man's nipples turn you on?
See, womens' breasts are a huge turn-on to heterosexual men. And even the homosexual Clive Barker has made some firm expressions about female breasts (see The Great and Secret Show). And here I run into a dead-end. I'm not sure how to state it affirmatively, but the flip-side is orgies in the street.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
*wesmorrisbabe*
Geez how can you critique a show you have never seen? Anyway, I have seen a few taped versions and here is the low-down. Sex In The City is written by a woman who lives in NY, her show highlights independent professional women (Lawyer, art dealer, magazine writer and society woman) all 30 +. They have good education, good jobs, great apartments all the external benefits of the post-feminist revolution but what they don't have as they approach 40 is a man or children. The show centers around relationships in a congested urban envrionment ie: NY. Its a critique of our time and although its 'funny' its not funny haha its funny 'horrorific', haha 'sad'. A lot of what they highlight is actualy very true; the dissatisfaction many women feel over a certain age being alone and childless. The lack of interesting, honest, non-neurotic, responsible available men. The search for love when romance is all but dead, etc. Sex In The City covers a lot of ground. The show at its best is a critique on MODERN WOMEN AND THE INANITY OF MODERN THE DATING GAME!!! The characters do speak about sex openly with each other vis-a-vis their current relationships, but its more of the kind of honest outspoken talk that women generally have with their closest friends (something that has never really been done in a straightforward manner before on television; you know the usual sanitized silly sensitive talk that rarely represents the type of conversation a grown woman would have with another grown woman). Some of them are promiscuous and lie to themselves that they don't want anything more (so as not to get hurt), some remain in relationships that are unsatisfying so as not to go through the dating routine one more time, some stay alone waiting for the 'right' one (workaholic, frustrated and uptight) etc.
The basic premise is this: That for all the accomplishments, rights and privileges women have attained they simply aren't enough. Women want love, romance, a husband etc. That many professional women feel they have sacrificed something important on the path of independence. That love in an urban environment is warfare. That its a difficult task to get two people together in a city of 'amoebes'. Modern feminism needs 're-thinking' or 're-formatting'. What feminism supposes women want on a personal level is really a lie (ie: women don't need men).
What you wrote above about women and sexuality is completely lacking in any insight.
I always find it amusing when other women use the same measurements traditionally used by men to 'brand' a woman for being sexual. Charming don't you think? I defy you to give defintion to the term slut or bimbo or even whore outside the sale of sex for money. You make no correlation between this show, half-naked women on magazines, girls giving blow jobs on school buses, and Janet's tit. Make a tight intelligent argument and perhaps you will receive more interesting responses.
Concerning little girls and sex:
"When anything goes, it's women who lose."
Camille Paglia
Geez how can you critique a show you have never seen? Anyway, I have seen a few taped versions and here is the low-down. Sex In The City is written by a woman who lives in NY, her show highlights independent professional women (Lawyer, art dealer, magazine writer and society woman) all 30 +. They have good education, good jobs, great apartments all the external benefits of the post-feminist revolution but what they don't have as they approach 40 is a man or children. The show centers around relationships in a congested urban envrionment ie: NY. Its a critique of our time and although its 'funny' its not funny haha its funny 'horrorific', haha 'sad'. A lot of what they highlight is actualy very true; the dissatisfaction many women feel over a certain age being alone and childless. The lack of interesting, honest, non-neurotic, responsible available men. The search for love when romance is all but dead, etc. Sex In The City covers a lot of ground. The show at its best is a critique on MODERN WOMEN AND THE INANITY OF MODERN THE DATING GAME!!! The characters do speak about sex openly with each other vis-a-vis their current relationships, but its more of the kind of honest outspoken talk that women generally have with their closest friends (something that has never really been done in a straightforward manner before on television; you know the usual sanitized silly sensitive talk that rarely represents the type of conversation a grown woman would have with another grown woman). Some of them are promiscuous and lie to themselves that they don't want anything more (so as not to get hurt), some remain in relationships that are unsatisfying so as not to go through the dating routine one more time, some stay alone waiting for the 'right' one (workaholic, frustrated and uptight) etc.
The basic premise is this: That for all the accomplishments, rights and privileges women have attained they simply aren't enough. Women want love, romance, a husband etc. That many professional women feel they have sacrificed something important on the path of independence. That love in an urban environment is warfare. That its a difficult task to get two people together in a city of 'amoebes'. Modern feminism needs 're-thinking' or 're-formatting'. What feminism supposes women want on a personal level is really a lie (ie: women don't need men).
What you wrote above about women and sexuality is completely lacking in any insight.
I always find it amusing when other women use the same measurements traditionally used by men to 'brand' a woman for being sexual. Charming don't you think? I defy you to give defintion to the term slut or bimbo or even whore outside the sale of sex for money. You make no correlation between this show, half-naked women on magazines, girls giving blow jobs on school buses, and Janet's tit. Make a tight intelligent argument and perhaps you will receive more interesting responses.
Concerning little girls and sex:
"When anything goes, it's women who lose."
Camille Paglia
Last edited:
I actually can't stand Sex and the City, even though I've never seen an episode. I'm indirectly involved with marketing it through my work, which means ever new season - we get to hear everything about Carrie and her boyfriends. It's very annoying.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
You may not like the show Xev but you still cannot critique it without a viewing. There are certain authors I never read because I doubt I will enjoy them, but I wouldn't go so far as to pose an opinion about material I haven't digested. I can critique Sex In The City because I know its substance or lack of substance. Notice i didn't defend or throw mud at the series but gave wesmorisbabe something to go with, points for discussion that make up the content of the show.
Personally I make sure I give a show a chance and watch it at least once before I decide its rubbish, and I didnt think sex in the city was worth the tv time it got, like so many other shows. It all seems so pointless, most people know its difficult to balance life, work/education, social life with friends/relationships, family, ever notice how everyone reaches a certain age and wishes they'd done something differently?? Its irrelevent if its 4 women or men that are depicted we all have the same trouble, did we need a tv show about it?
i've seen it and it's pure fluff
not because women are openly enjoying and talking about sex, that's healthy and normal. but that's really all they are, sexpot airheads. their biggest problems involve high heels. complete and utter fluff.
not because women are openly enjoying and talking about sex, that's healthy and normal. but that's really all they are, sexpot airheads. their biggest problems involve high heels. complete and utter fluff.
Umm... well yeah that may be true but only in the USA... at least acknowledge that america is the only screwed up First World country, and that what we're in danger of is not Augilera or the Olsen Twins but the whole damn lot of them.wesmorrisbabe said: