The Sex And The Pity

I felt it best to christen this website with a debate on a topic which I believe is long overdue, and that is over the show, “Sex and the City.”

Why the need for debate? Let’s just say I find “Sex and the City” to be the worst thing to afflict pop culture since MTV decided to try their hand in original programming.

There, I said it. Let the debate begin.

My distaste for that show stems from several areas. First off, I simply don’t get the show’s appeal. Now, I haven’t seen ALL of the episodes, but I think I’ve seen enough to form an opinion, an opinion which has inhibited me from wanting to see more. Every time I’d watch an episode, I couldn’t help but be disturbed by the show and what it valued and espoused. My distaste would then turn to bafflement when I realized that I seemed to be the only person who had these feelings toward the show.

Here is a show whose main appeal (from what I can tell) is that four single woman talk about sex and other things in their life with the same frankness and tact as a bunch of college frat guys. Apparently giving these women the ability to say words like “cock” is radical and a testament to feminist progression – at least that’s what I’ve been spoon fed by mainstream media and some of my friends who watch the show religiously.

Having a show where woman talk like men isn’t a sign of feminist progression; it’s simply taking the most disgusting aspects of men and applying them to woman. Let me put it this way: if there was a show that had four men talk about nothing but getting laid and buying stupid shit, you know what you have?

“Entourage.” But I digress…

Never mind the frank sex talk. I find most of the “Sex and the City” characters shallow, superficial, and materialistic – especially the Sarah Jessica Parker character (who’s name on the show escapes me). My memories of the show consist of scenes where Parker’s character gushes over an obnoxious, uninteresting snob simply named “Mr. Big,” (if this doesn’t emphasized the show’s shallowness, I don’t know what does). I remember one episode where the Parker character goes to Paris, and nearly the entirely show was dedicated to her shopping.

And this is where I get confused about the show’s appeal: Do people (men as well as woman like this show, surprisingly), watch this show because it’s pure escapism and therefore has no correlation with reality (e.g., the size of Parker’s NYC apartment. Magazine writers can never afford space like that), or does the show take a sincere stab at penetrating the psyche of the modern single woman?

If the answer is the latter, then I must take this opportunity to renounce my heterosexuality from hereon in, because if these four women are suppose to represent an amalgam of the modern single woman, then I have a better shot seeking happiness with another man. Is this show suggesting that these are my options: A whiney fashionista; a hopelessly romantic goodie two shoes; a cynical, man-hating career-woman; and an uncouth nymphomaniac?

Here is a sample at the sort of insight this show offers:

“That’s the thing about needs. Sometimes when you get them met, you don’t need them anymore.”

“The most exciting, challenging, and significant relationship of all is the one you have with yourself. And if you find someone to love the you you love, well, that’s just fabulous!’

“I will wear whatever and blow whomever I want as long as I can breathe and kneel.”

“There are two kinds of guys: the ones who hold your hand and the ones that fuck you.”

“I used to masturbate to a busboy who was rude to me once. What do you think that means?”

“Who knows, he’s a man. You could lay your pussy on a table right in front of one and still not know what he’s thinking…”

“It’s really hard to walk in a single woman’s shoes – that’s why you sometimes need really special shoes.”

“Here. Swear. Swear on Chanel.”

I could go on, but I suspect my point has been clearly made.

Despite my confusion about whether or not “Sex and the City” is supposed to reflect the reality of the modern single woman, I nevertheless find the show’s existence extremely detrimental to the never-ending dialogue between the sexes. Shows like “Sex and the City” only further instigate the misogynistic stereotypes employed by men, i.e., love of shopping, penchant for emotional outburst, and impatience with men’s inability to sympathize with woman.

The men on this show aren’t any prizes, either. The few men I’ve seen depicted on the show are also caricatures of male stereotypes, i.e., sex-crazed, commitment-phobic, and unromantic.

There is not one character on that show whom I feel reflects a psychologically realized individual. The female characters especially are nothing more than composites of every unimaginative, petty, materialistic bimbo I’ve meet in my life: hollow, dissolute vessels of high fashion and cosmopolitan anxieties.

And despite the fact that I can tolerate “Entourage” much more than “Sex and the City,” I find it depressing that these types of shows don’t seem to be going away anytime soon. What can be done?

Well, for starters, let’s stop watching them.

This might sound a little naïve, but the reason why these shows are made (and are so successful) is because they are being watched, bought, (DVD Box Sets) and watched again through syndication (TBS, CW). The fact that there’s a movie version of “Sex and the City” is all the more disconcerting, a move that will keep the disgusting universe that is “Sex and the City” in the mainstream limelight much longer.

If men and woman alike realize how degrading this show (and others of the same ilk) is to both sexes, then the chances of these types of shows getting on the air will drastically decreased, and hopefully, be completely nil.

Not to sound like Peter Pessimism here, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Why? Shows like “Sex and the City” will always be popular BECAUSE they resort to stereotypes and generalizations. They are easily liked because they don’t challenge their audience. They PLACATE rather than NEGATE our beliefs and theories about woman, relationships, and life in general. Like most television content, “Sex and the City” doesn’t have an artistic ambition it is ditzy head. Shows like “Sex and the City” have no interest in exploring the complex dynamics of relationships because to explore them would mean to dramatize situations that don’t rely on stereotypes and generalizations. Such exploration requires WORK, it requires a dedication on the part of the creators to create a show – to create a certain art – that doesn’t succumb to fantasies about how both sexes should and shouldn’t behave and relate with one another. And since “Sex and the City” refuses to treat its audience as mature, sophisticated adults by providing a semblance of honest and insightful commentary, it’s an attempt of storytelling that is superficial, inept, and lazy.

There. I’ve said my bit. Let the debate continue…