[QUOTE=DiosaBellissima]
I don’t really know how fair that is. Samantha slept with everyone, sure, but she had an incredibly successful, self started PR firm.
[/QUOTE]
It seemed to me that its success to a large extent relied on her tendency to put out.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
It seemed to me that its success to a large extent relied on her tendency to put out.
[/QUOTE]
I may be misremembering, but her only client I can remember her banging was the hotel guy- and before that account, her PR firm was already big.
Now, she did use her PR. . . rep. . . to get herself laid, into clubs, etc.
That’s correct. Samantha’s success had nothing to do with her sex life. Her whole thing was having everything on her terms. She would never have slept with a man to further her career, because that would mean she was dependent on him.
[QUOTE=Saintly Loser]
I don’t know the show, but from this, it sounds like she’s a semi-pro whore. That’s one way of dealing with New York real estate prices, I guess.
[/QUOTE]
Sex and the City represents four stereotypical archtypes for disfunctional female personalities:
Carrie - Self absorbed flake - Outwardly and superficially sweet, however she is totally absorbed with HER feelings, HER needs and HER desires. Judging her only by her actions - affairs with Big, cheating on Aiden, emotionally blackmailing her friends, etc - she is a truly terrible person.
Miranda - Bitter career woman - Arguably the smartest and least physically attractive of the four (still attractive though). No guy is good enough for her. She falls into the classic trap where no matter how successful she is, she needs a man at least as successful. Do male CEOs and partners in law firms look for a woman who is on their professional level? She is sarcastic and unpleasent, which of course turns guys off and thus makes her more bitter and sarcastic.
Samantha - Sexual predator (AKA “couger”) - Sex is power to Samantha. She usues it to both express her independence and dominate. Falls into the classical profile of a “couger” - an older woman who goes after younger guys.
Charlotte - Pampered princess - Basically her whole life involves fulfilling some internal fantasy of marrying some rich “prince” and being taken care of the rest of her life. Highly concerned with appearance and impressing her “friends” (not her real NYC friends mind you, her married “frienemy” suburban sorority sisters living up in Westchester or Connecticut or wherever).
In fact, there are a significant number of ACTUAL women in Manhattan who’s sole ambition appears to be little more than to marry an investment banker and live in his Park Avenue appartment.
None of these women find happiness until they fall out of there stereotypes. Miranda has a child and a relationsip (I forget if they married) with working-class Steve, Charlotte marries her frog-like divorce lawyer and Samantha develops a true intimate relationship with model Smith Jarod. Carrie, of course, is still obsessed with the ambivalent Mr. Big so of course, she will continue to remain disfunctional and unhappy in time for the movie.
[QUOTE=Barbarian]
74th and Park, second brownstone on the right, IIRC.
I live a few blocks south and east – 63rd and York. I paid $1400 a month for a subsidized 850 sq. ft. one bedroom apartment. (Owned by a university)
[/QUOTE]
You’re not a med student at weill cornell, are you?
[QUOTE=msmith537]
Carrie - Self absorbed flake …
Miranda - Bitter career woman …
Samantha - Sexual predator …
Charlotte - Pampered princess …
[/QUOTE]
And the show is defined by the irony of contrasting this evaluation to Carrie’s narration in the very first episode, in which she refers to this quartet as (paraphrasing) four great women who have it all, but somehow are unable to find worthy men.
I really wonder what is the view of the authors of this show? I get the impression that they really do think that it’s a mystery that such four “great” women can’t find the right men. From my perspective, it’s no mystery. Each of them would be a nightmare as a partner. Each of them is thoroughly unlikable as an individual.
Nitpick: It’s “cougar” and the term carries with it a connotation of a rather-too-old woman who goes on the prowl.
I think the show is meant to show you how these women who have “everything” are quite truly miserable people, until they switch around their values.
Everyone I know who followed the series agrees that Carrie is a bad person (selfish, selfish, SELFISH). Miranda is a bitch but amazingly intelligent, a great hard worker, and finally is truly HAPPY once she gets married and settles out of Manhattan with her son and husband. Samantha is the uber powerful cougar that is having a fling with the world’s hottest actor and model, until she gets breast cancer and is brought back to reality; after she had cancer, she realized what was truly important and was finally happy. And Charlotte married the rich, legacy named doctor, but realized that isn’t what it’s all about- it wasn’t until she married the guy of her nightmares that she was able to realize that being perfect isn’t everything.
In reality, Carrie is the only one who never really evolves- we’ll see if she does in the movie.
[QUOTE=shy guy]
That’s correct. Samantha’s success had nothing to do with her sex life. Her whole thing was having everything on her terms. She would never have slept with a man to further her career, because that would mean she was dependent on him.
[/QUOTE]
The only work-related person I remember her getting it on with was the UPS delivery guy. I’m not sure it’s fair to call her a cougar, either, since she shacks up with guys her age or older plenty. She’s just equal opportunity.
[QUOTE=NightRabbit]
You’re not a med student at weill cornell, are you?
[/QUOTE]
No, but one lived across the hall from me. My wife was post-doc’ing at Rockefeller University.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
And the show is defined by the irony of contrasting this evaluation to Carrie’s narration in the very first episode, in which she refers to this quartet as (paraphrasing) four great women who have it all, but somehow are unable to find worthy men.
I really wonder what is the view of the authors of this show? I get the impression that they really do think that it’s a mystery that such four “great” women can’t find the right men. From my perspective, it’s no mystery. Each of them would be a nightmare as a partner. Each of them is thoroughly unlikable as an individual.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Nitpick: It’s “cougar” and the term carries with it a connotation of a rather-too-old woman who goes on the prowl.
[/QUOTE]
Samantha, in her mid to late 40s, IS a little too old. For her 20-something boyfriend Smith Jerod. Not for Earth.
[QUOTE=msmith537]
Samantha, in her mid to late 40s, IS a little too old. For her 20-something boyfriend Smith Jerod. Not for Earth.
[/QUOTE]
But Smith was her last boyfriend and didn’t define the type of man she went after. Samantha wasn’t an elder sexual predator looking for young, nubile boys. She was just promiscuous.
As much as I am a fan of Sex in the City I have to admit that the characters are far from likeable. I love Samantha if only because she doesn’t spend her whole life whining about not getting what she wants (I actually felt genuinely choked up for her when she started crying having met this man she really likes but he has a small dick).
Miranda I like but I feel a strong desire to kick away the big soap box she spends her entire time standing on. If she spent less time pontificating on the flaws of men she might actually get one.
Charlotte - A woman I would never get tired of slapping around the face. I actually yelled at my TV when she was seeing a guy and it was going so well they decided to move in together. They end up shopping for crockery and he points out a design she doesn’t like, so she breaks up with him. What. The. FUCK? In my opinion, someone that spaced out on her own fairtytale complex deserved to be miserable.
And then there’s Carrie, lovely Carrie. If there’s a woman who spends more time obsessing about her own issues I’ve yet to meet her. I cheered when Miranda lost it with her one day and had a go at her for always being focused on Big and her latest little drama. I think it said it all when she finally decided to go for therapy (which she badly needed) and ended up sleeping with other patient Jon Bon Jovi. Of course it all goes wrong so she just quits because she can’t stand the thought of seeing him again - of course she COULD have just moved her appointment time so it wouldn’t have been a problem, but no, far too easy. And then there’s Aiden, the guy was perfect and offered her everything she wanted but then what does she do? Vomits up some crap about how she’s not sure she’s ready to commit yet. What the fuck? You just spend the last three series trying to get “emotionally unavailable” Big to do just that, what is fucking wrong with you woman?!?!? I’m glad so many people here have pointed out the severe lack of reality in the economy of her lifestyle as well - a part time journalist living a 24/7 party life with new designer shoes every five mintues? Don’t think so.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
I really wonder what is the view of the authors of this show? I get the impression that they really do think that it’s a mystery that such four “great” women can’t find the right men. From my perspective, it’s no mystery. Each of them would be a nightmare as a partner. Each of them is thoroughly unlikable as an individual.
[/quote]
My girlfriend reads a lot of Candice Bushnells books. The reoccuring theme for all her characters AFAICT is “fabulous Manhattan girl trying to have it all”.
“Fabulous” means “emotionally dysfuntional, self absorbed, fiscally irresponsible, self important, alchohol (and possibly drug) abusing and sexually promiscuous”.
“Having it all” means “career”, “social life”, “love” and
“Career” is always some ‘sexy’ job in publishing or PR
“Social life” basically is getting drunk at bars, lounges and clubs every night and sleeping with every attractive guy they meet.
“Love” means finding some rich dude to take care of them so they can continue their ridiculous spending patterns.
The major source of conflict for all these characters seems to be that they are in their 30s and are essentially now in a race against time to find their sugar daddy before the only thing they have going for them (their looks) fades away.
[QUOTE=friedo]
A co-op is similar to a condo building but with a different legal structure. A corporation (the cooperative) owns the building and you buy shares in the corporation which entitle you to a proprietary lease for a particular apartment. Co-ops are common in NYC but seem to be pretty unheard-of everywhere else in the country. I don’t know why.
BTW, the monthly maintenance on my co-op in Brooklyn is a whopping $419. 
[/QUOTE]
We own a share in a co-op in Memphis, TN. It is one of only two in the state of TN. You didn’t mention the cost of your share (ours was $25k and no mortgage allowed) Our maintenance is only $125 a month. Our main home is in MS, but my wife works in Memphis part-time, so it gives us a place to stay in Memphis.
[QUOTE=kniz]
We own a share in a co-op in Memphis, TN. It is one of only two in the state of TN. You didn’t mention the cost of your share (ours was $25k and no mortgage allowed) Our maintenance is only $125 a month. Our main home is in MS, but my wife works in Memphis part-time, so it gives us a place to stay in Memphis.
[/QUOTE]
That’s pretty rad. My shares cost $158,000 – pretty cheap for an apartment in New York City – and I financed 50%. The board requires a down payment of at least 20%, so we don’t have anyone here with one of those loony-toon mortgages.
One interesting thing about co-ops is that a portion of the maintenance fee often goes to pay some debt on the building as a whole. As a shareholder, I get to claim my share of the interest as a tax deduction (since I paid it through my maintenance fees). So I actually get two 1098 forms every year: one from my bank and one from the co-op.
[QUOTE=friedo]
That’s pretty rad. My shares cost $158,000 – pretty cheap for an apartment in New York City – and I financed 50%. The board requires a down payment of at least 20%, so we don’t have anyone here with one of those loony-toon mortgages.
[/QUOTE]
Did you buy way out in Queens or back in 1974 or something?
[QUOTE=msmith537]
Did you buy way out in Queens or back in 1974 or something?
[/QUOTE]
Nope, Brooklyn in 2006. There are deals to be had in lots of places if you’re willing to live outside Manhattan.
[QUOTE=friedo]
Nope, Brooklyn in 2006. There are deals to be had in lots of places if you’re willing to live outside Manhattan.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I figured.
I know people who are buying in Manhattan for about 2-3 times that, but it’s not in trendy neighborhoods like Soho or West Village.