Sex & The City Movie - Corrupting Women?

I won't say whether I think it's right or wrong for these kinds of shows to exist... obviously people like watching that stuff and it's completely their choice what they want to fill their minds with. I will say this though: no village bicycle is getting near my bed!

While I typically consider myself a futurist, certain special things seem to have been lost in recent generations because they were deemed "old fashioned" or the logic in waiting wasn't initially understood. Not that I think it's wrong to have casual sex, but I think in the long run there are more benefits to keeping your pants on when in doubt.

How many American teens have STDs now... 1 in 4? Yeah, and people wonder why I haven't dated in years. Not to mention practically everyone where I live has kids in their teens and single mothers are as common as married ones. Shows like Sex in the City certainly don't help, but whatever. Different strokes for different folks.

Originally posted by pexx421
agreed. I get so sick of people complaining that they are "fat" or need to lose weight when they look absolutely stunning. Im dating this girl right now who is 5'7 and 127 and has this bizarre idea she is supposed to be 15 lbs lighter. Its disgusting and unhealthy, and sad to say, the only reason ive even allowed myself to date her is that i know im moving out of state in a month, and would never have gotten into a relationship with someone of such obvious emotional scarring if i didnt have that safety there. I made the mistake of verbalizing this to her however, which shows also the depths of my own stupidity, but hey. Im just a guy after all.

Listen the girl already has problems thinking she has to be this super model for you and then you leave her in a month

She is gonna think you left her because of her looks, she will be more scarred.
Maybe she is like this because of past guys cheating on her, dumping her, etc.

My girlfriend was cheated on before, was dumped, and was called names. Then I came along thinking "Wow! What a STUNNING girl!" She actually has her self esteem back because of me, xD.

Maybe you're just bad with words and didn't mean what you were saying.

reply to post by q_ball


Q_ball, did you miss the whole Women's Liberation Movement? Men slept around for centuries and cared to not even be discreet about it... finally women decided turn about was fair play. And for awhile men loved it, Free Love and Helter Skelter. (Well, all was good minus the Helter Skelter Manson stuff).

Now, all men are cheating dogs. Some of us can be very monogomous. As can some ladies. That's a choice we make. Just like some guys make a choice to sleep with a different women every night... and some suceed. The only difference between a man and a women is a woman is guranteed to get laid if she stands around long enough, where even the most handsome man can strike out some nights (both throwing standards to the wind, that is).

Is it something to look up to. Depends. Are you devoutly of a certain faith? If so, then this would be considered sinful. Are you more of an in touch with nature type? If so, then this may be perfectly acceptable. Impulse is part of nature, and some would debate the call must be answered.

If women want to get drunk and spread legs and think this will find them love, that's there choice. They simply shouldn't cry and get stupid about it later. Same for the men... but usually they aren't looking for love in the first place, we usually get trapped into that one completely unaware. LOL!

SITC portrays issues nearly every woman in America has encountered throughout their life time - they just dress it up in haut-couture and manolo blahniks and put it in Manhattan. To further my point, Carrie (SJP) discusses the very issues that she and her friends face through her column so that she can share, in a very Aesop's way, the lessons they learn from said issues. So, it's not just about fashion - it's a moral play on fantasy and reality. Has every woman been in a lesbian relationship? No, but many have thought about it. Has every woman had an impotent husband? - no, but millions have. My point is, SITC functions as a mirror for women - so that a women on some dairy farm in Minnesota (or where ever) can say, "hey...they've gone through this too."

The very nature of this thread basically suggests that a woman is morally corrupt if she allows herself to be a fully realized sexual being. So, if you want to say that SITC corrupts women then you need to go back to the Sexual Revolution of the 60-'s and 70's that allowed women to get out of the kitchen shackles, get away from the ironing, get away from all those ridiculous female stereotypes that characterized June Clever and condemn it too. Because I promise you, it was the Sexual Revolution that made Sex In The City possible.

[edit on 29/5/08 by WickedStar]

[edit on 29/5/08 by WickedStar]

reply to post by kosmicjack


True.

Originally posted by WickedStar

SITC portrays issues nearly every woman in America has encountered throughout their life time - they just dress it up in haut-couture and manolo blahniks and put it in Manhattan. To further my point, Carrie (SJP) discusses the very issues that she and her friends face through her column so that she can share, in a very Aesop's way, the lessons they learn from said issues. So, it's not just about fashion - it's a moral play on fantasy and reality. Has every woman been in a lesbian relationship? No, but many have thought about it. Has every woman had an impotent - no, but millions have. My point is, SITC functions as a mirror for women - so that a women on some dairy farm in Minnesota (or where ever) can say, "hey...they've gone through this too."

The very nature of this thread basically suggests that a woman is morally corrupt if she allows herself to be a fully realized sexual being. So, if you want to say that SITC corrupts women then you need to go back to the Sexual Revolution of the 60-'s and 70's that allowed women to get out of the kitchen shackles, get away from the ironing, get away from all those ridiculous female stereotypes that characterized June Clever and condemn it too. Because I promise you, it was the Sexual Revolution that made Sex In The City possible.

[edit on 29/5/08 by WickedStar]

True women just want to be free...so everyone stop hating. I mean can you blame them for trying to find their place in the sun in 08.

reply to post by Sonya610


No, just insane. I have an ex-wife that if you threw in the fact that it is acceptable to smack men, she would be a clone. Kudos to Pexx P.S. I think most women can think for themselves and regard SITC as mere entertainment. It would be silly not to actually realise this.

reply to post by BradKell


Well put! Bravo, well put!

Originally posted by WickedStar

The very nature of this thread basically suggests that a woman is morally corrupt if she allows herself to be a fully realized sexual being. So, if you want to say that SITC corrupts women then you need to go back to the Sexual Revolution of the 60-'s and 70's that allowed women to get out of the kitchen shackles, get away from the ironing, get away from all those ridiculous female stereotypes that characterized June Clever and condemn it too. Because I promise you, it was the Sexual Revolution that made Sex In The City possible.

Your post is such a gross over-generalization as well as a modern day cop-out.

Believe me, I am a fully realized sexual being - within the context of a monogamous and fulfilling marriage. And guess what - horrors! - I enjoy cooking and other domestic tasks. (gasp!)

A poster a few pages back inferred that there are distinct differences between men and women and that the difference is the essence of a woman's beauty. I could not agree more. It's when women try to emulate male behavior that they lose their feminine charms. And let's face it - just to put it in terms as elementary as you have - most men want to marry the virtuous, disciplined and dedicated girl next door. Oh, they may dally with the more flamboyant types, but they always go back home. That is our real power, the difference between us.

True feminism lies not in the concept that I can do everything a man can do, but that I am not less than a man just because I am different. Yin Yang baby!

[edit on 29/5/08 by kosmicjack]

Originally posted by kosmicjack

Originally posted by WickedStar

The very nature of this thread basically suggests that a woman is morally corrupt if she allows herself to be a fully realized sexual being. So, if you want to say that SITC corrupts women then you need to go back to the Sexual Revolution of the 60-'s and 70's that allowed women to get out of the kitchen shackles, get away from the ironing, get away from all those ridiculous female stereotypes that characterized June Clever and condemn it too. Because I promise you, it was the Sexual Revolution that made Sex In The City possible.

Your post is such a gross over-generalization as well as a modern day cop-out.

Believe me, I am a fully realized sexual being - within the context of a monogamous and fulfilling marriage. And guess what - horrors! - I enjoy cooking and other domestic tasks. (gasp!)

A poster a few pages back inferred that there are distinct differences between men and women and that the difference is the essence of a woman's beauty. I could not agree more. It's when women try to emulate male behavior that they lose their feminine charms. And let's face it - just to put it in terms as elementary as you have - most men want to marry the virtuous, disciplined and dedicated girl next door. Oh, they may dally with the more flamboyant types, but they always go back home. That is our real power, the difference between us.

True feminism lies not in the concept that I can do everything a man can do, but that I am not less than a man just because I am different. Yin Yang baby!

[edit on 29/5/08 by kosmicjack]

It is because of the Women's Liberation Movement and the Sexual Revolution that you have the choice to be a monogamous domestic house wife. Women didn't truly have a choice before this social change and when they did - they were ostracized. Where's the cop-out?

Also, there is far more than the essence of a woman's beauty that makes her different than a man - try her intellect, her emotional openness, her ability to create, her ability to intuit - I could go on. With your statement, it seems to me that you base your femininity solely on the essence of your beauty.

I simply don't understand where you take fault with me. I have said nothing different than you have, I just merely said it differently. I certainly did not infer that women were less because they were different than men - and I'm highly offended if that is what you're accusing me of.

reply to post by WickedStar


That's because, as with most of America, you assume that the term "beauty" must therefore mean physical attractiveness. How sad, you have missed my point entirely.

[edit on 29/5/08 by kosmicjack]

On review, maybe we differ by degree. A "which came first the chicken or the egg" type of thing. I'm sorry if my response was perceived as too harsh.

reply to post by kosmicjack


apology accepted. If you knew me, you wouldn't have made that assumption. I'm an artist, a musician, a composer and I'm fat and gay. Trust me, I understand the depth of beauty. If I didn't, I'd be dead by now.