Why do Men hate Sex & The City?

ntlbell

serenacat wrote: »

i know some guys that find it educational

They sound like well rounded individuals...you must be very proud...

BroomBurner

staker wrote: »

I liked the series,i've seen the film(which was overkill imo) but my gf keeps watching repeats every night at 10 pm!!! Now they're just 4 'aul fauvinists!! We need something new, next!

TV channels have been pretty smart putting repeats of SATC on after the football, allows the women-folk to watch it without the men-folk being able to complain.

Thanks SarahSassy for answering pevious q, though soft porn wasn't quite what I meant.

SarahSassy

BroomBurner wrote: »

soft porn wasn't quite what I meant.

Now, now kids lets not be patronising.... Or maybe I need to read the previous posts....

Well soft porn to me is anything that doesnt include cats, dogs, kids and handicapped persons... Maybe my understanding of what soft porn consists of is incorrect....

BroomBurner

Sorry SS, didn't mean to sound patronising! SP would be more titilation then anything else, i.e certain mags, dvds with "stars", etc.

Back to SATC, was in town thursday, was entertained by SJP-inspired outfit-wearing City Girls getting drenched in the rain. Who looks out their window in the morning, sees dark clouds, and thinks "oh, I'll wear those lovely open-toe, 4 inch heels with a sleevless dress.."?

SarahSassy

BroomBurner wrote: »

Sorry SS, didn't mean to sound patronising! SP would be more titilation then anything else, i.e certain mags, dvds with "stars", etc.

Ah ok, I thought it was soft if it didnt involve having sex with a horse Well maybe I would be happy enough with 'soft' and 'middle' porn so

As for the guna's in the rain - anything is better than skanks walking around town in their PJ's....

BroomBurner

Hahahahahaha yeah, what the hell?! Saw one girl a while back with her hair and make-up immaculate, four-inch just-over-the-knee leather boots, fitted jacket and PJ bottoms. What goes through people's minds getting dressed like that?! All that effort she went to, and then what? She forgot her skirt or trousers or something?!!

Do they change out of their night-time PJs to wear daytime PJs?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Thaedydal wrote: »

I have watched every espisode of it at least 3 times some of them a lot more then that.
Yes it is far fetched fantasy but it changed how people esp women talked about sex and sexauality which is a wonderful thing.

I think you might have a pretty sheltered and dull social life if thats your thoughts on the show and your experience with real life women.

Hey Mairt,

How did you find the people in NYC last time around?

Setun

pwd wrote: »

I'd say it objectifies men and encourages women to be slutty and materialistic; but I'd be worried I'd sound pretentious - so I'll just say that it's unfunny, irrelevant and dull.

Twenty pages later and no one has put it better than that.

I had to write an essay for college and used SATC as a case study. It's marshmallow tv, enjoyable to many etc etc, but when studying it in terms of feminism - christ almighty it is dreadful, and hardly the "independant woman" tv show it masquerades as being.

Mad Tv say it best (nsfw)

Nevyn

Mairt wrote: »

I think you might have a pretty sheltered and dull social life

Nope quiet the opposite infact.

Mairt wrote: »

if thats your thoughts on the show

Tbh I'm not arsed trying to explain to the likes of ntlbell who are just looking to rabble rouse.

It's a fantasy based on the exclusive lifestyles those flawed women live.
Yes the inter personals are with in the realms of possibility ( including the sex
I never considered the show riske and there are something they never delved into from a human sexuality point of view but as something that was a way to
open up topics by the simple fact of discussing the show and raising the topics that way it is a lot of good imho.

Mairt wrote: »

your experience with real life women.

what makes you think I kiss and tell ?

HoneyButterfly

ntlbell wrote: »

They sound like well rounded individuals...you must be very proud...

...Always so sarcy, pass-remarkable, judgemental, and just plain mean!! :eek:

arybvtcw0eolkf

Moonbaby wrote: »

Hey Mairt,

How did you find the people in NYC last time around?

Grand, why?.

Mairt

Mairt wrote: »

Grand, why?.

I just remember you giving out about how rude the people were.
Which was quite contary to my own expierence.
I wondered if you had changed your mind.

Ref

Dudess

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

...Always so sarcy, pass-remarkable, judgemental, and just plain mean!! :eek:

Try not to let him get to you - it's exactly what he's looking for.

Kidd-o

my bf likes it. Well not likes it but you know, will watch it and can laugh along, he thought the film was great :cool:

Hobbes

painfully boring show of a group of old women whining about something.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Moonbaby wrote: »

I just remember you giving out about how rude the people were.
Which was quite contary to my own expierence.
I wondered if you had changed your mind.

Ref

Oh, I was wondering where you were coming from.

Yes, I had a completely different experience this time. Although I stayed in a much better hotel in a nicer part of Manhattan (Crown Plaza on Times Sq.)

I also done most of my socialising around 'the Village and 'Hells Kitchen, where I found the people great and avoided places like the Subway and McDonalds (where people were horrible).

Anyway, Sex and the City, I love it. Although most of my friends wouldn't have the wad of cash to spend like the ladies on the show, I think the show reflects pretty accurately how my female friends live.

Oh, and if my female friends had that kind of money to spend they wouldn't hessitate for a moment before splashing out.

It might be the redhead factor.....but I used to meet the nicest people on the subway.
Someone was alway up for a chat.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Moonbaby wrote: »

It might be the redhead factor.....but I used to meet the nicest people on the subway.
Someone was alway up for a chat.

I'm a red head too

Mairt

Mairt wrote: »

I'm a red head too

It is a license to get away with murder in NYC.

I hate foreingders who don't fawn over my obvious celtic hertitage!

JC 2K3

I found that in nearly all cases, people's niceness was directly proportional to how much money they expected to get out of you. Of course, there were exceptions, but in general the whole place seemed like an uptight, commercially-obsessed jungle.

I really didn't like that place.... Of course, I wasn't actually living there, so possibly my opinion is skewed and based on being a tourist there, which is generally a different experience.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Moonbaby wrote: »

It is a license to get away with murder in NYC.

I hate foreingders who don't fawn over my obvious celtic hertitage!

That plus redheads are HAWWWWWT

Zaph

Back on topic or take it to PM please folks

HoneyButterfly

Yeah I agree, back to the topic please! ....now, Sex and the City is great!!

JC 2K3

I believe the topic was "Why do Men Hate Sex & the City?", not "What Do You Think of Sex & the City?".

HoneyButterfly

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I believe the topic was "Why do Men Hate Sex & the City?", not "What Do You Think of Sex & the City?".

K whatever smarty pants

arybvtcw0eolkf

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I believe the topic was "Why do Men Hate Sex & the City?", not "What Do You Think of Sex & the City?".

Maybe the title should read ''Why do SOME men hate Sex and the City', because there are some men out there secure enough in themselves to like Sex and the City.

HoneyButterfly

Mairt wrote: »

Maybe the title should read ''Why do SOME men hate Sex and the City', because there are some men out there secure enough in themselves to like Sex and the City.

Well said!

JC 2K3

Mairt wrote: »

Maybe the title should read ''Why do SOME men hate Sex and the City', because there are some men out there secure enough in themselves to like Sex and the City.

As well as those secure enough in themselves to not have to say they like it in order to assert their secureness in themselves to the world.

Red Hand

JC 2K3 wrote: »

As well as those secure enough in themselves to not have to say they like it in order to assert their secureness in themselves to the world.

As well as those who think that it's the equivalent of The Sun...and therfore sh*te.

The_Conductor

Mairt wrote: »

Maybe the title should read ''Why do SOME men hate Sex and the City', because there are some men out there secure enough in themselves to like Sex and the City.

Its more the case that the vast majority of men don't give a rats arse about Sex and the City (akin to the way we really don't care a damn about Big Brother and other similar trite). Liking SATC is not a security issue- its more getting yourself into a frame of mind where you would willingly watch that sort of thing. My OH is just as happy watching Top Gear- to be honest shes highly territorial- trying turning the channel elsewhere and see what happens......

To be honest I actually don't understand why you consider that most men are insecure- and thats why we don't like to watch SATC. Where does security enter the equation? Most of us are simply bored witless by it and would sooner have a snooze....... Those who are forced to watch it, zone out totally. Try asking a question about the plot an hours later......... errrr oooops- there is no plot.........

arybvtcw0eolkf

JC 2K3 wrote: »

As well as those secure enough in themselves to not have to say they like it in order to assert their secureness in themselves to the world.

A lot of time's I curse my dyslexia - this is one of 'em.

Sorry, but I can't make that out.

Dragan

Mairt wrote: »

Maybe the title should read ''Why do SOME men hate Sex and the City', because there are some men out there secure enough in themselves to like Sex and the City.

I used to love Doctor Quinn : Medicine Woman. Does that make me secure in myself?

Ah, i know where you are coming from dude but the show simply does not interest me in the slightest to be honest. Would rather watch Will and Grace.

And i believe JC 2K3 was saying that there are also men out there who will happily and honestly say they don't like it, rather than say they do just to get along with the wimmins.

I think.

Reku

Dragan wrote: »

I used to love Doctor Quinn : Medicine Woman. Does that make me secure in myself?

Was a much better programme than SATC is IMO, to me there was far more substance to the drama in DQMW as opposed to seeming like nothing more than wishy-washy gossip column level drama. Think my mum mostly watched it for Sully (think that was his name) though.:p

Nevyn

smccarrick wrote: »

Its more the case that the vast majority of men don't give a rats arse about Sex and the City (akin to the way we really don't care a damn about Big Brother and other similar trite).

and some people are the same about soccer and I would say there are a lot more soccer fans world wide then there are SATC fans.

The_Conductor

Thaedydal wrote: »

and some people are the same about soccer and I would say there are a lot more soccer fans world wide then there are SATC fans.

Plenty of supporters of either or both- me, I support neither. I'd much rather a good sci-fi or horror flick......

HoneyButterfly

Would any men reading this agree that one of the main reasons you don't like it is because there is a lot of relationship analysis throughout the series and film (basically the whole time...if not about men then about their friendships)
This is one of the fundamental differences between men and women, so when I think about it, its actually obvious

The_Conductor

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

Would any men reading this agree that one of the main reasons you don't like it is because there is a lot of relationship analysis throughout the series and film (basically the whole time...if not about men then about their friendships)
This is one of the fundamental differences between men and women, so when I think about it, its actually obvious

I'd have to agree with you. I like a defined story with something happening- and not a series of events which are then analysed to death by those involved in them- while the viewer is expected to sit back and enjoy the analysis. Its not so much the relationship analysis- more the absolute fluff that the individual events in SATC are comprised of. You are of course right though- women enjoy analysing the emotional content of interactions- men tend to look at the interactions themselves, rather than whats going on under the surface. We have enough trouble getting to grips with our own personal lives, without having to try and do the same with fictional characters who mean absolutely nothing to us......

You don't need to dwell deeply on the emotional content of a car purring around a track, Freddie Kruger or a hero flick- you sit back, relax and enjoy it for its content- without dwelling on it. SATC does not appeal in this way.

Wibbs

Only in stereotype or a particular subset of men maybe. We're not all boorish knuckledraggers you know.

I know I have talks, often deep stuff about relationships with my male mates. Of course not to the same degree as the women I know and certainly men I would know would not have relationships as high a priority as the women I would know. Well not priority exactly, but not picked apart in as much detail anyway, or their social success, character or maleness being defined as much by it. On the surface at least. So maybe thats part of it.

Slutmonkey57b

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

Would any men reading this agree that one of the main reasons you don't like it is because there is a lot of relationship analysis throughout the series and film (basically the whole time...if not about men then about their friendships)
This is one of the fundamental differences between men and women, so when I think about it, its actually obvious

No.

The only thing that strikes me as interesting about the relationships in the programme is wondering why any man would want to get involved with one of the harridans in question.

BroomBurner

HoneyButterfly wrote: »

Would any men reading this agree that one of the main reasons you don't like it is because there is a lot of relationship analysis throughout the series and film (basically the whole time...if not about men then about their friendships)
This is one of the fundamental differences between men and women, so when I think about it, its actually obvious

Don't think I've ever discussed my relationships with anyone. There is nothing worse than listening to someone bang on about how great/not so great their OH is. What goes on in your private lives is just that. Private. I also hate SATC, so maybe therein lies your summation. It's not a man V woman thing, it's whether you're interested in hearing other people's boring relationship rabble, or not.

HoneyButterfly

BroomBurner wrote: »

I also hate SATC, so maybe therein lies your summation. It's not a man V woman thing, it's whether you're interested in hearing other people's boring relationship rabble, or not.

To be fair, yes you're right, its not a man V woman thing. To say so would be to generalize.
But I do think the majority of females are prone to over analyising more than males. Definitely! I mean, thats fact more than anything. Its all come down to a bunch of chemicals doesn't it?!

Sod'o swords

Funny i just went to see sex and the city instead of watching the Euro 2008 final.
Beat that.

HoneyButterfly

Sod'o swords wrote: »

Funny i just went to see sex and the city instead of watching the Euro 2008 final.
Beat that.

What in the name?! What do you mean "beat that"
I didn't even know there was football Euro thing on. Let alone a final. I would do anything other than watch it

Red Hand

Sod'o swords wrote: »

Funny i just went to see sex and the city instead of watching the Euro 2008 final.
Beat that.

I actually watched a rerun last night on Paramount instead of a recorded Fraiser.

Now beat that!:pac:

I watched a full episode just out of curiosity, cause before I would've only watched a few minutes before getting bored. Not my cup of tea at all. Seems from it that women are only interested in shoes and money. The blond one went to bed with a guy cause of the quality of his presents to her. And he was an old codger as well.

BroomBurner

Sod'o swords wrote: »

Funny i just went to see sex and the city instead of watching the Euro 2008 final.
Beat that.

I hope you're suitably ashamed! Even I watched the final, and soccer is the worst team sport in the world.

HoneyButterfly

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I actually watched a rerun last night on Paramount instead of a recorded Fraiser.

Now beat that!:pac:

I watched a full episode just out of curiosity, cause before I would've only watched a few minutes before getting bored. Not my cup of tea at all. Seems from it that women are only interested in shoes and money. The blond one went to bed with a guy cause of the quality of his presents to her. And he was an old codger as well.

Well that was Samantha and thats faaaar from the best episode! But Samantha's great from comic value, but hey, at least you watched an episode:)

dr.bollocko

My problem with it is on an artistic level.
Girlfriend loves it so I have seen more of it than I would like to.
I find the pun based humour that Carrie always uses in her writing to be the most banal thing about the show. Then she references herself again and again and again as things change and I just find myself hitting myself in the head with a shoe.

I find it ridiculous to expect us to believe that these 4 women tend to have the exact same experience as each other nearly every episode, then meet up and have different views on it.
Thats not something to base 4 characters on, thats one character who can think deeply enough about a personal issue to see it from more than one viewpoint. It's dumbed down to appeal to the masses rather than explored as an actual dramatic production.
The 4 characters are often used as plot devices at different times while big stories develop with other characters to express a counterpoint to another social situation.
This is why the protagonsits themselves just seem so fake. Carrie is the classic straight man woman man, Samantha is the sexually liberated man-eater with a heart of gold, Charlotte is the one who wants a stable relationship, and nobody ever wants anything else. It never develops, its just a series of scenarios to throw one dimensional characters into. The plot kinda writes itself from that point of view.
That and the fact that it degenerated further as it went on to a sort of fashion show with a vaguely feminist message.
Its shot in a confusing manner where women often resort to shoe-shopping ice-cream munching stereotypes and men tend to be assholes unless your friends know them
The whole thing just begins to unwind as an exercise in either delivering a mass message or a soap opera or a product placement extravaganza to the point that they clearly lost the plot entirely. That, and the trite "girl power" type nonsensical soundbites they spout in a coffee shop about complex gender issues which have been a hotbed of discussion in feminist literature for years.

Whoah.
Hang on.
Steam shouldnt be coming out of my ears.

cHaTbOx

dr.bollocko wrote: »

My problem with it is on an artistic level.
Girlfriend loves it so I have seen more of it than I would like to.
I find the pun based humour that Carrie always uses in her writing to be the most banal thing about the show. Then she references herself again and again and again as things change and I just find myself hitting myself in the head with a shoe.

I find it ridiculous to expect us to believe that these 4 women tend to have the exact same experience as each other nearly every episode, then meet up and have different views on it.
Thats not something to base 4 characters on, thats one character who can think deeply enough about a personal issue to see it from more than one viewpoint. It's dumbed down to appeal to the masses rather than explored as an actual dramatic production.
The 4 characters are often used as plot devices at different times while big stories develop with other characters to express a counterpoint to another social situation.
This is why the protagonsits themselves just seem so fake. Carrie is the classic straight man woman man, Samantha is the sexually liberated man-eater with a heart of gold, Charlotte is the one who wants a stable relationship, and nobody ever wants anything else. It never develops, its just a series of scenarios to throw one dimensional characters into. The plot kinda writes itself from that point of view.
That and the fact that it degenerated further as it went on to a sort of fashion show with a vaguely feminist message.
Its shot in a confusing manner where women often resort to shoe-shopping ice-cream munching stereotypes and men tend to be assholes unless your friends know them
The whole thing just begins to unwind as an exercise in either delivering a mass message or a soap opera or a product placement extravaganza to the point that they clearly lost the plot entirely. That, and the trite "girl power" type nonsensical soundbites they spout in a coffee shop about complex gender issues which have been a hotbed of discussion in feminist literature for years.

Whoah.
Hang on.
Steam shouldnt be coming out of my ears.

Ooooooookay ***backs out of thread****

HoneyButterfly

dr.bollocko wrote: »

My problem with it is on an artistic level..

Eh...right so.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I find it ridiculous to expect us to believe that these 4 women tend to have the exact same experience as each other nearly every episode, then meet up and have different views on it.

What now they never have the "exact same experience" ...yeah they meet up for lunch and chat about, ot analysis as I've said, their experiences. But...what are you on about like

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Carrie is the classic straight man woman man

Again, what?!

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Its shot in a confusing manner where women often resort to shoe-shopping ice-cream munching stereotypes and men tend to be assholes unless your friends know them

Yes ok you got me. We love shoes and ice-cream. God dammit!! I've been found out!! Oh and there are some assholes yep (just as there are in real-life) but Aidan, Steve, Jared, Harry...these are assholes?! No they are not. Big, however, is. But not in the end I suppose. I was never a "Big" fan...