Sex and the City

Stephen Colbert described Sex and the City as the “story of four shopaholic whores.” He said he meant that in the"nicest" way.

A few days ago, a writer in a local newspaper gave a concise explanation of the reason for shows and movies like Sex and the City - equality between the sexes. What does that mean? It appears that the kind of equality being mentioned is this: today, relatively attractive women with money can use and abuse men in the same manner as relatively attractive men with money use and abuse women.

Cougar Town was also mentioned as part of this trend. An older woman makes lewd remarks about young men and hopes to have sex with them.

The writer goes on to say that ‘true equality’ will only occur when nobody cares about such behavior anymore. Another example of, “Hey. What’s the big deal?” This moral indifference raises practical questions. Isn’t love preferable to occasional sexual encounters? Why do 48% of black women have genital herpes? Why are one in five people in the United States walking around with an STD?

Is “just sex” preferable to true love, commitment, trust and sharing?

Saint Paul tells us to flee from sexual immorality, the media wants us to celebrate it.

God bless,

Some observations:

– Show me somebody who actively promotes promiscuity and the acceptance of promiscuity in polite society, and I’ll show you somebody who has a really bad conscience.

– I’ve been saying for years that the real purpose of feminism and “gender equality” is to make the world safe for neanderthals.

– Ann Coulter’s theory is that Sex in the City is really about homosexuality: these randy women are really acting like gay men. They certainly don’t act like women behaving according to their God-given nature.

Please explain what this “God-given nature” is.

(a) Modest. (b). Not promiscuous.

And by the way, I am a woman, so I have some insight into the fact that a woman has to do great violence to herself (or have it done to her) to get to the point of acting like the women on this show.

I think you’ve lumped in a whole bunch of stuff that may have nothing to do with the other

Steve Corbett likes to make humor out of the most absurd stuff, he’s not making a comment about society.

Sex and the City, its about sex without consequences and doing it with an unlimited budget. I don’t think there is any hidden messages involved. Its all about free love and an endless sea of money.

I so completely agree with that. She hit the nail on the head with that one.

The sad thing is that a lot of women see this and think that is how they are supposed to act and that is what will bring fulfillment to them.

“free love”? Just like the Sexual Revolution, it’s about sex, not love.

God bless,

Thank you for the clarification. Do you believe that men have this “God-given nature” of modesty and non-promiscuity also? Is their “God-given nature” different?

I’m not trying to start an argument. I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

Do you think there are real live women who act this way and aren’t miserable? Just wondering, as I have never met any. Any woman I have know who is promiscuous is generally extremely insecure and unhappy, to the point of mental breakdown at times. These women in the show go on this way for years and are just thrilled about it.

YUCK! Can’t stand the storyline, characters or the themes. What’s the point of another movie? Why should I pay to see a story about selfish people with no morals when I can watch the soaps or read the tabloids for FREE!! :thumbsup::rolleyes::confused:

[quote="turtle18, post:6, topic:199363"]

The sad thing is that a lot of women see this and think that is how they are supposed to act and that is what will bring fulfillment to them.


I'm not so sure. The show was pretty clearly a fantasy, with lifestyles out of reach of most Americans. recently posted an article about the new movie, asking the question: "Why "Sex and the City" won't go away."

Women can't have it all. We hear this over and over again. We have to choose one oversimplified path at a time: Overworked career woman or nurturing mommy/housewife? Coy, fun-loving single temptress or lovelorn hopeless romantic? What, you can't choose just one? You have a career that matters to you, but sometimes you want to ditch it just to bake cookies and get your toenails painted? You have a great husband and kids, but sometimes you wish you could travel the world or just put on a dress and dance to Alicia Keys?

Enter Miranda, Charlotte, Carrie and Samantha, the yin, yang, yenta and yeah, baby! of the female psyche. These four archetypes transcend the plucky but bland heroines of romantic comedies like gigantic glowing goddesses, delivering ordinary women from their daily bread of self-flogging by serving up a rich, bountiful platter of slinky dresses, teetering shoes, glossy hairstyles, greased-up hunky boys, and hot sex that will soon be recounted over clinking cosmopolitans. Far from the flat, oversimplified girly-girl TV show that ambivalent onlookers make it out to be, "Sex and the City" always offered an escapist fantasy that integrated the different options of womanhood into a cackling, four-headed hydra of boozy, chuckling, winking delight.

Certainly not. I’m amazed when some people think it is. Though I think some of them have been hurt by past relationships, and since I haven’t had a relationship yet I wouldn’t know how that affects them. I also understand why someone may want “just sex” in preference to being completely alone.

Some guys (I don’t know any girls who do, though I guess some might), though, seem to prefer casual sex with strangers in preference to a committed, trusting and loving relationship, which–as I guy–I really don’t understand.

As far as the TV show goes, I agree that it was all about promiscuity. However, I’m not sure if any of you commenting here saw the first movie, but you might have been surprised. Two of the four women were married (and faithful), and the other two were admittedly not married, but in committed monogamous relationships with men to whom they were faithful (and one of those couples got married in the end). There was also a storyline about one of the husbands cheated once and how it nearly devastated the relationship. Yes, one of the characters had a male neighbor (not a central part of the storyline) who engaged in promiscuous sex, and there were gratuitous scenes of that, which were tasteless. But 90% of the movie was about relationships and commitment, not sex.

There was also the nice storyline where a minor character (trying to avoid spoilers) meets and falls in love with someone and moves back home to get married. I preferred the movie to the series really, and it seems in the movie the women have “grown out” of the promiscuity and want to settle down. The movie is, as said above, mostly about marriage, committed relationships and friendship rather than just about sex or promiscuity.

I have always found Carrie a bit materialist and a little annoying though, although I guess I don’t really get all the fashion–especially the designer stuff that seems to require a re-mortgaging to buy :wink: (I suppose I’m a guy, and I buy a lot of books and spend too much money on things though, so I guess let he who is without sin…). These women are definitely much more affluent than most of the population.

Terrific insight on all three counts:thumbsup:

Amen! I’m tired of people ragging on “Sex and the City”. I wonder how many people just get mad at the name, and have never seen the show or the movies? It was my favorite TV show in college. Not for the sex, but for Samantha’s one liners. I don’t desire to sleep around, but until someone makes a series about chasity that is funny and actually entertaining, “sex and the City” is the best in terms of female leads society has.

:thumbsup: In all seriousness, I would be very interested to watch a ‘‘SATC’’ type show based around chastity.

It would probably be very boring. Just like a Catholic dating show.

Kissing would be seen as a big deal (boring in TV land). The clothes wouldn’t be cute, and how exciting can women talking about holding hands be? A Samantha Jones like character wouldn’t fly for sure.


Kissing would be seen as a big deal (boring in TV land).


The clothes wouldn’t be cute

Now here’s where we disagree! Modest cute clothes are certainly possible.

At any rate, shoes can be quite immune from having to be modest and can show lots of skin, yes?

I love my sexy shoes (stilletos, knee high boots, etc.). I guess clothes can never be modest for me (big chested). High neck shirts make them look larger, so I wear v-neck and scoop neck tops. And I still show cleavage, even when wearing high tank tops under them.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit