Sex and the City author "Truly alone"

Wibbs

Madden Slimy Rejection wrote: »

Sex and the City was a celebration of consumerism and sexual objectification of men dressed up as feminism. Nonsense fantasy where a woman has endless resources (based on her clothes and lifestyle) as a result of doing dear diary type columns at the end of each of her adventures.

But it wasn't about career over motherhood. Hedonism over relationships maybe.

Or it was an escapist fantasy TV show. War and Peace it wasn't and wasn't dressed up to be and wasn't taken seriously as social comment by the vast majority of people.

Autecher

anewme wrote: »

The quality of the After Hours threads in general has gone downhill rapidly. Thats why im asking what the hell is going on.

I said on another thread that I dont even understand many of them anymore as they seem to be digs at people and if you dont know them, you are completely lost.

I might be the only person thinking the made up characters are just not funny and a complete borefest. More infighting.

Theres a clear pattern of these women hater threads also, same people make up names and register to abuse women. Ive seen them deliberately try to wind up and upset people (one particulat thread comes to mind). On another hand, its quite worrying that these nasty people are out there, mind you theyd probably not say boo in real life.

I didnt tbink after hiurs was supposed to be a as narky and negative. Is there a coup taking place or something where the fun posters disappear leaving the same person f8ghting with their three or six personas.

Pity that its going this way.

I agree completely. I was hoping that with the Current Affairs forum opening that After Hours would go back to threads like the Casual Friday started today by facehugger99. I like threads like that because you get to know about others, have a laugh and maybe even throw with some friendly slagging in there
I think part of all these new accounts where a new poster appears, goes on the wind up and then deletes their profile is partly to do with the school Summer holidays and partly because a lot of people go on this forum every day who aren't registered and they see these threads and sign up to either go on the wind up or post their actual opinions.
Again though I stress that if they are ignored they will disappear quicker then if they are engaged with. From the bits of this thread I read this morning it was men/women and newer/older poster that contributed to this thread and made it the mess it is.
Again my advice to most would be to let it go and move on, it's just a few people you don't know disagreeing with you and not worth hours/days/weeks of your life. Use your energy for good and not fighting with strangers!

tjhook

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

As wedded as many menfolk are to the idea of men aging like wine, for many, that isn’t the case.

Excuse me, I have aged like a fine wine. One that was left open behind the shed for the summer. But I'm happy, and that's what matters.

As for SATC I never had any interest. But then, being a man, I was never its target audience. Sure, maybe it hasn't aged well, but the same goes for most TV series - Friends?

As for me, I still enjoy watching the odd old episode of stuff like The Office (UK version obv.) or Peep Show. I wouldn't use them to guide my life, and I couldn't disagree if somebody tells me it's air-headed rubbish. But there's nothing wrong with a little mental time-out from time to time. I'd kinda view SATC as doing the same for other people.

kikilarue2

Madden Slimy Rejection wrote: »

Sex and the City was a celebration of consumerism and sexual objectification of men dressed up as feminism. Nonsense fantasy where a woman has endless resources (based on her clothes and lifestyle) as a result of doing dear diary type columns at the end of each of her adventures.

But it wasn't about career over motherhood. Hedonism over relationships maybe.

Are women not allowed a bit of nonsense fantasy? It’s not as nonsensical or fantastical as a lot of the “content” online aimed at men.

d8491prj5boyvg

This is an interesting thread - it has turned into a proxy war.

I don't want to get into the politics of the matter. If this woman feels she is truly alone, then that is truly sad.

Zahir Loose Scumbag

Zahir Loose Scumbag wrote: »

This is an interesting thread - it has turned into a proxy war.

I don't want to get into the politics of the matter. If this woman feels she is truly alone, then that is truly sad.

Yes true, but having a child so she would not be alone in old age seem a fairly poor reason for having children, more so as she choose not to have chidlren and now at 60 regrets that.

kikilarue2

No one admits to it because it’s a societal taboo, but plenty of people who do have children regret it.

jackboy

kikilarue2 wrote: »

No one admits to it because it’s a societal taboo, but plenty of people who do have children regret it.

I would say that is pretty rare. Far, far more people who don't have children regret it in my opinion.

sportsfan90

jackboy wrote: »

I would say that is pretty rare. Far, far more people who don't have children regret it in my opinion.

Your second sentence is probably true.

However that doesn't mean that it's rare for it to be the other way around. But like kikilarue2 said, nobody will admit it as they will automatically be labelled as some kind of monster and a bad parent.

kikilarue2

jackboy wrote: »

kikilarue2 wrote: »

No one admits to it because it’s a societal taboo, but plenty of people who do have children regret it.

I would say that is pretty rare. Far, far more people who don't have children regret it in my opinion.

Fair enough, but your opinion is all that is.

Some people simply refuse to believe that a woman can have a full, complete, happy life without kids.

And the regret thing is gaining more and more prominence- well, it’s always been easy to see with men because they just walk out (there are something like 100k single mothers in Ireland compared with 9k single dads) And there are Facebook groups with tens of thousands of women who identify as regretting having kids.

That doesn’t mean they don’t love them, it just means if they had their time over again they’d choose not to have them.

bitofabind

i dont see kids as some sort of escape from loneliness - it can be quite the opposite. my own parents have had a nightmare and a very lonely experience indeed dealing with a child that has significant special needs and mental health issues. i love her because she's my sister but i'd rather be child-free forever than to have to accept the life this has given them.

having kids to stave off loneliness is up there with having kids to validate your existence or seeing your kids as an extension of yourself and trying to mould them into a mini-me, as far as selfish reasons to have children go.

jesus like, just get a dog instead.

I doubt if anyone regging specifically to remind women of their sell by dates, or people taking mean-spirited satisfaction in people apparently missing out on relationships (and blaming it on them alone), or kids - or just about anything - are doing so out of concern for either women or society at large.

Mind you, be a stay at home mother and you're either a golddigger or a sponger. Work to keep yourself independent and you're making all the wrong choices, for which you'll be surely judged and ridiculed. It's almost as though women can't win. Well, that's the point of these threads, isn't it?

Sometimes it's a sort of payback for a lifetime of not being popular with the opposite sex, they want to think people have paid a price for not being interested in them and they use what they want to be true to hurt them, a sort of I told you you'd regret it.

It's quite a small and sad thing really, if you make a point of spitefully poking at a wound and revelling in what you perceive as someone's pain because it makes you feel powerful, if only for an empty moment. Nobody does that kind of thing because they have their own lives sorted out, they do it because misery loves company.

suicide_circus

nerves have been hit

kikilarue2

Tom_Jefferson wrote: »

I think it's important for people to be aware of what they want in life and to have a realistic understanding of the timelines involved in achieving what they want.

If I were a woman and I absolutely wanted a family I'd start looking for a husband by around 23 or 24. It would be easier for me to find a higher quality husband at that age than at say 32 or 33 when my ability to attract men has diminished.

Lads keep throwing this around as though it's a fact and it's not. At 23 there's a huge proportion of fellas who are still bringing their washing home to mammy at the weekend, spending every penny they have on booze (and maybe a bit of weed or coke) and haven't a clue what they want to do with their lives.

And before you say it, yes, the same is true for women.

At 23, much of how your life is going to turn out and what kind of person you're going to be is still in flux. At 30, you know what kind of person you're getting involved with. The quantity may be higher in youth, but the quality is lower.

kikilarue2

suicide_circus wrote: »

nerves have been hit

Wasn't that the point?

suicide_circus

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Wasn't that the point?

suppose i didnt expect it to be taken quite so seriously

kikilarue2

suicide_circus wrote: »

suppose i didnt expect it to be taken quite so seriously

Well, the OP wasn't framed in a light-hearted way, was it?

s7ryf3925pivug

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Are women not allowed a bit of nonsense fantasy? It’s not as nonsensical or fantastical as a lot of the “content” online aimed at men.

Pretty sure I wasn't forbidding anyone from anything. I like the imaginary authority you ascribe to me though.

riclad

i think the trend is in the future, 10-20 per cent of people will live alone ,
some will be in rental accomodation ,due to the high cost of housing .
I think most women in their 20,s want to meet someone and get into
a serious long term relationship .
After a few years they may decide they want to have children.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

nerves have been hit

Sorry, SC. I'm not in the demo you're hoping to wound.

suicide_circus

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Well, the OP wasn't framed in a light-hearted way, was it?

i didnt think it was super serious.

i also love how i'm a big meanie for the thread but they i'm getting pretty scathing reviews of my multiple failures as a human being. so the response to my meanness is...meanness. youre stooping to my level.

Sardonicat

Tom_Jefferson wrote: »

That's why if I was a woman at 23 or 24 looking for a husband I'd look for men in the age range of 27-33 primarily. At 23 I'd have a better ability to filter out the mediocre and lower quality men due to my ability to attract the best of the bunch.

Jane Austen called. She'd like her plot back.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

i didnt think it was super serious.

i also love how i'm a big meanie for the thread but they i'm getting pretty scathing reviews of my multiple failures as a human being. so the response to my meanness is...meanness. youre stooping to my level.

Your op drips with gloating and spite. People pointed that out and wondered about what satisfaction someone could possibly get from trying to poke at wounds.

You reap what you sow, basically.

kikilarue2

Tom_Jefferson wrote: »

How time flies, SATC first aired 21 years ago!

Yeah, I believe you made that exact point yesterday under a different username.

suicide_circus

Candie wrote: »

Your op drips with gloating and spite. People pointed that out and wondered about what satisfaction someone could possibly get from trying to poke at wounds.

You reap what you sow, basically.

sure i get that just pointing out the hypocrisy. its almost like we're all flawed human beings.

kikilarue2

suicide_circus wrote: »

sure i get that just pointing out the hypocrisy. its almost like we're all flawed human beings.

We're all flawed to be sure - to different degrees, I'd have to say.

I haven't gotten to the stage where I'm starting spiteful threads and then acting like I'm the victim when it's pointed out just yet.

The number one rule of AH is meant to be "Don't be a d1ck". You were being a d1ck, and you got called on it.

Don't act like we're as bad as you for doing so, there's no equivalency there.

FatherTed

As my mother used to say to me after I would be scared to go to sleep after watching a scary film, it's just pretend. Yes I liked Lost, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Handmaids Tale, The Office and SITC, etc but at the end of the day they are fiction(aka made up stories) and I don't know why people such as the article writer take these things so seriously as if they're real life. Same with the fans of these books/TV shows, sometimes they go a bit too far with how much they adore them. They're just pretend after all.

suicide_circus

kikilarue2 wrote: »

We're all flawed to be sure - to different degrees, I'd have to say.

I haven't gotten to the stage where I'm starting spiteful threads and then acting like I'm the victim when it's pointed out just yet.

The number one rule of AH is meant to be "Don't be a d1ck". You were being a d1ck, and you got called on it.

Don't act like we're as bad as you for doing so, there's no equivalency there.

"holier than thou"

SusieBlue

Tom_Jefferson wrote: »

I think it's important for people to be aware of what they want in life and to have a realistic understanding of the timelines involved in achieving what they want.

If I were a woman and I absolutely wanted a family I'd start looking for a husband by around 23 or 24. It would be easier for me to find a higher quality husband at that age than at say 32 or 33 when my ability to attract men has diminished.

People can take all the necessary steps to achieve their goals and still end up not achieving them through no fault of their own.

Its not a case of simply settling down with an older guy at 22/23 and the case being closed, job done. Things don't always work out as we'd like them to.
So why are you pushing that notion so hard?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Ah here, you started a thread to gloat at someone else's sadness and to provoke people. Now it's getting this reaction you're backtracking saying it wasn't meant to be serious and everyone else is the big meanie. Anyone who's in any doubt as to the spirit of the OP (though I don't know how it would be given the wording) can just take a 5 minute look at your post history and decide for themselves how delighted you probably were when you saw that headline.


Suicide circus, who's spent much of the last few years openly and vigorously disapproving of women's various life choices, can't take it when a bunch of women don't like his thread.

*slow clap*

kikilarue2

suicide_circus wrote: »

"holier than thou"

Yeah, I actually would consider myself holier than thou to be honest.

Low bar though.

suicide_circus

Seamus Sparse Tequila wrote: »

Ah here, you started a thread to gloat at someone else's sadness and to provoke people. Now it's getting this reaction you're backtracking saying it wasn't meant to be serious and everyone else is the big meanie. Anyone who's in any doubt as to the spirit of the OP (though I don't know how it would be given the wording) can just take a 5 minute look at your post history and decide for themselves how delighted you probably were when you saw that headline.


Suicide circus, who's spent much of the last few years openly and vigorously disapproving of women's various life choices, can't take it when a bunch of women don't like his thread.

*slow clap*

lol i can take it just fine, just saying we're not that different you and i. i suggest putting me on ignore if my posts upset you to this degree.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

suicide_circus wrote: »

lol i can take it just fine, just saying we're not that different you and i. i suggest putting me on ignore if my posts upset you to this degree.

Lol what, to the degree that I'm existing and responding to your shítposting?

Do you know what the word means?

"People are talking and not agreeing with me, they must be upset!"

Weird world you must live in dude.

bitofabind

this rereg stuff is definitely personality disorder stuff.

anewme

Ahh the Buddhist is back- this reincarnation stuff happens at top speed now.

kikilarue2

It’s one way to kill a thread stone dead.

EmmetSpiceland

kikilarue2 wrote: »

It’s one way to kill a thread stone dead.

Wouldn’t be the worst thing if it happened to this one, K.

anewme

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Wouldn’t be the worst thing if it happened to this one, K.

Ah well, the thread has been reincarnated numerous times over the past few weeks. It will return again in another guise unfortunately.

d8491prj5boyvg

kikilarue2 wrote: »

Lads keep throwing this around as though it's a fact and it's not. At 23 there's a huge proportion of fellas who are still bringing their washing home to mammy at the weekend, spending every penny they have on booze (and maybe a bit of weed or coke) and haven't a clue what they want to do with their lives.

And before you say it, yes, the same is true for women.

At 23, much of how your life is going to turn out and what kind of person you're going to be is still in flux. At 30, you know what kind of person you're getting involved with. The quantity may be higher in youth, but the quality is lower.

You presume a 23 year old woman is better able to nab a 23 year old lad only. All else equal, She is more attractive to the 30, 40, 50 year old lad too.

d8491prj5boyvg

mariaalice wrote: »

Yes true, but having a child so she would not be alone in old age seem a fairly poor reason for having children, more so as she choose not to have chidlren and now at 60 regrets that. There are a lot of women who never met anyone to have children with and now their time has passed, or who desperately wanted children but were infertile. This woman is wealthy and had a lot of choices in life and now regents some of her choices.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Life has lots of paths, some primary, some secondary. Marriage, work, kids are primary routes. She took a primary route and now regrets it. That is very sad. What happens to others is irrelevant for this woman.

bitofabind

Zahir Loose Scumbag wrote: »

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Life has lots of paths, some primary, some secondary. Marriage, work, kids are primary routes. She took a primary route and now regrets it. That is very sad. What happens to others is irrelevant for this woman.

its kinda just life though. every choice you make excludes another life path. candice didn't feel the urge to have kids and was in her fifties before she began to regret that, provoked it seems by a divorce, a life event that is always going to change your perspective.

i think having kids in her thirties "in case i might regret it down the line" is a massive gamble and some might say irresponsible, given you cant exactly hand the child back and opt out of motherhood if you're not cut out for it. id hazard there's a high percentage of women that do that and just get on with things, becoming mothers against their own interests because of this massive "what if" and spending their life muted about the fact that they didn't and dont really actually enjoy motherhood.

Whatever about the author, the show was pure sh1te, and one of the first signs of the decline and dumbing down of Western civilization.

d8491prj5boyvg

bitofabind wrote: »

its kinda just life though. every choice you make excludes another life path. candice didn't feel the urge to have kids and was in her fifties before she began to regret that, provoked it seems by a divorce, a life event that is always going to change your perspective.

i think having kids in her thirties "in case i might regret it down the line" is a massive gamble and some might say irresponsible, given you cant exactly hand the child back and opt out of motherhood if you're not cut out for it. id hazard there's a high percentage of women that do that and just get on with things, becoming mothers against their own interests because of this massive "what if" and spending their life muted about the fact that they didn't and dont really actually enjoy motherhood.

I agree with most of what you say. Should she have children in case of the what if? No. Should she have thought it through thoroughly and take into account the potential regret and path she is going down? Definitely. Maybe she did, and one would hope she did, but the fact she regrets it now suggests she didn't. At the very least, she took the wrong option.