(Pedantic note: it’s “Sex AND the City”)

On top of that, I’m hating the fact that this is being portrayed as the “ultimate women’s movie.” For a start… where are all the OTHER women’s movies? And why this one, when there are so many other perspectives about sex, feminism and women that could be explored?

Shall I rant about how one columnist called it “porn for women” because it was focused on fashion and shoes? Grrr…

Tried to watch a couple episodes of the series, but I must be too jaded: The show seemed like just a bit of slightly bolder sexual tokenism buried in a sea of typical TV fare. I understand your frustration. The fact that SATC is considered a standout of sex-positivity just underscores how sexually constipated we are in this country.

I see your point in venting about SJP. OK, actors are just actors: They don’t often embody the characters they play in their real lives. But the mainstream media and/or SATC’s Marketing Dept. has chosen her as the primary face, the personification, of this show, and everything it represents. If the marketing juggernaut behind the series/movie really wanted to effect any change, they would’ve pushed a different spokesperson from the group, one who wouldn’t so actively and squeamishly go against SATC’s message. I’m not really their intended audience, but I know women who are. I don’t want them seeing the actress whose character they admire being such a negative, judging prude.

BTW, if Peaches Christ EVER puts on the kind of Midnight Mass showing you suggest in your post, I’ll sell my left tit to fly there! Thanks especially for giving me the visual of rabbit vibe as shiv! LOL

“But it’s important to realize there’s a fantasy dynamic in there. If I found out that a guy in one of those scenes really was a misogynist bastard that likes to choke girls because he hates women, I’d wanna break his kneecaps with a tire iron. But I can accept it as a fantasy, especially now that I know professional submissives who enjoy that part of their work. It’s not until you meet someone who really enjoys something that turns you off that you start to realize you shouldn’t fully reject those things.

(…) It’s important to remember that those people are actors. I mean they don’t show porn stars going out and getting their HIV tests.”

first let me say I have nothing against SJP, or actors. but imagine if I spent ten years building a career with a lot of secondary meaning to a lot of people, based on a certain kind of actor. and then outside of my career’s secondary meaning, I did interviews where I was so uncomfortable by acting, I couldn’t even say the word “actor”. what does that say about how I’ve used acting to build my career, and also what does it say about how I really feel about all the people who’ve identified strongly and personally with my career’s secondary meaning?

it’s food for thought, you know? porn performers may have different kinds of sex in their personal lives — or not — but they aren’t hypocrites about the fact that they fuck for a living (and have sex IRL). SJP, to me, has embodied Hollywood’s hypocrisy about selling sex and actually being honest about what they’re selling.

that said, it’s may be possible that SJP and I have agents in common, and I’ll be hearing about this one… ;P

I take sex seriously and “Sex and the City” is far from what I would call serious. More of a comic-strip version of sex.

That being said, I met SJP one evening and she was both lovely and friendly, even if I thought her series was a a bit of a joke. And I took great offense to one of those men’s magazines calling her the most un-sexy woman in the world. Ridiculous stuff, to say the least.

I would rather that people form their own opinions about sex though experimentation and research than from some “actor” or their series, is all I’m sayin’. I just don’t think that “Sex and the City” was/is all that important. Except for the Cosmo, of course. ;)

“Sex sex sex sex! Sex sex sex sex!”

btw, my spellcheck says there are no vaginas, only “vaginae”. :D