Cobb

I thought Sara J Parker was a lot more attractive as her character than, say, Murphy Brown or whomever Calista Flockhart was supposed to be. There is a certain time in a citified bourgie man's life (or perhaps I should say 'guy') when that is exactly the right kind of babeage. But at some point the joke wears thin. A woman who goes broke from buying too many shoes is just not worth the time, at least with those I consider grownfolks.

I cannot say that I'd watched the show enough times to find if any of the chicks had any redeeming characteristics, but watching always reminded me of that great line from 'The Cook, The Thief..'. "Men who hang around the ladies room are bound to be disappointed." The whole voyueristic appeal of hearing women confide about their sex lives may seem liberating, but after a while it's like 70's porn. Enough already.

Spending much time considering the feminist ramifications of sexual freedom in the context of 'Sex and the City' seems a little bit foolish. First of all, doing so would contradict my first rule: "There is Marriage, and then there is everything else - nobody really cares about everything else." Isn't that the point of sexual freedom, getting your jollies? It's about not having to care. Secondly, sexual freedom (read 'studied promiscuity') after some point goes against the natural inclinations of the body as it matures. When you start taking hormone shots just so you can feel young, you've gone beyond any reasonable standard of freedom into the areas of obsession and denial. (Some anthropologist of the future is going to have a field day explaining the twisted toe bones of pump-wearing women of the 20th century). At some point more sex is just more sex. What's liberation got to do with it?

But sex can't only be sex. That's the problem. Meaning has to be attached, love has to be attached, power has to be attached. If 'Sex and the City' was ever worth watching, it must have explored all of the ways these various weights attached themselves to all the sex that sounded like such a good idea back at Suburban U. Unless you're trying to be Wilt Chamberlain or Luke the rapper, amassing huge numbers of giving and getting orgasms doesn't manage to be a decent life goal. If the point of 'Sex and the City', or anyone's concept of sexual freedom is that it doesn't change who you are with your clothes on, where exactly is the liberation? You're not a prude? - OK that can be proven in a week. Then what? To go on for years and years of sexual escapades is to treat it like a hobby, a pastime, a recreational sport.

Perhaps I have a wacky sense of the word liberation. For me, it always meant 'freedom from' which is very different from 'freedom to'. What does a woman who can screw her way through dozens of men prove herself free from other than meaningful and lasting relationships with men? "Men, who needs them", is not the point of feminism, otherwise what responsibility can it take for men?

One final note. I wrote about dancing with sluts about a year ago. I know what it's like to be a lighthearted sexual predator. It must certainly be different for women to enter such a hunting mode. But If one becomes proficient it's unlikely that the skill would be significantly diminished over time. If one can turn the habit of objectification of people as sexual prizes on and off at will, doesn't that say something pretty heinous about our regard for each other as human beings? I say turning it off for good says something positive and mature about individuals, not to mention realistic at middle age.

So here's to 'Sex and the City'. May it remain turned off.