Why I Loathe Sex and the City

Everyone likes a little fantasy in their TV. Men like action movies. Men like to watch Alpha Men struggling against each other across a backdrop of exploding buildings. Women like romance. Women like to watch Alpha Women being won over by Diamonds in the Rough. This is all normal and good; why watch TV if it isn't more interesting than life? Sex and the City, however, creates such an implausible reality that it is painful to watch. And I do watch it. I watch, squirming with discomfort, as if I had a tiny shard of glass embedded in my ass.

What makes SATC so painful? It's not the obsession with high-priced fashion. It's certainly not the sexual content; the show is mildly racy and nothing more. Women have casual sex; women use sex toys; women masturbate; so what? It's not like you ever got to see three guys making Samantha airtight. It's not even Carrie's regular narration of the opening lines of her columns, which are pointless navel-gazing, which all boil down to women not being satisfied with their options. The pain comes from the quartet's not being nearly attractive enough to justify the long-term attentions of the men they are with. On top of that, they still complain!

Let's be honest - the women of SATC are not knockouts, though they do all have nice bodies. I'd give them 7's, maybe Miranda would be an 8 if she wore makeup and grew out her hair. Carrie can sometimes look OK, as long as the camera angle makes her big nose look normal. Miranda looks boyish - not my thing. Charlotte has bulgy eyes and as the series goes on her nose starts to rival Carrie's. Samantha, finally, actually is a good-looking woman but she's well over 40 and it shows. But she gets an extra point for generosity.

In the real world, women like them would date guys who were also 7's, if not on looks then certainly on their composite of looks, earnings, and charm. They'd be dating either guys who had good jobs but were boring or who had average jobs but were good-looking and charming. In the real world, rich or gorgeous men might sleep with them once but would quickly forget them and move on. That's not how SATC works, though. Or, when it does happen, the women are outraged at how superficial men are.

Men have two minimal criteria for women: that they be cute and they be pleasant. Obviously, other positive attributes, like intelligence, independence, and the willingness to be a little freaky in bed, can all help. But the value of those attributes is highly subjective; some guys like them and some guys like their absence. What SATC substitutes for a real personality match is a more nebulous "complexity." Carrie is "complex," which ultimately means she's never satisfied. Men might find the challenge interesting until they realize they simply can't win - whatever they do, she'll always want something more or even the opposite. Fuck that.

Instead of true connections based on something real - even simple lust - SATC follows the romantic formula of assuming from square one that the man is irresistibly drawn to the woman based on something he can't define. In real life, this does not happen. Men know what they like about their women. In standard romantic fare, of course, it's simply that the woman is beautiful. Fair enough, that. But in SATC, precisely because there is no good reason for the men to be drawn to the women, the show has to fall back on inexplicable attraction.

When an aging Clint Eastwood or Harrison Ford hooks up with a gorgeous woman twenty or thirty years younger, it's a stretch, sometimes a little grotesque. But at least those guys play roles where they're the Alphas of the Alphas. On SATC, the women offer little but the certainty that they'll always feel they could've done better. I truly hope that real women just watch the show for the pretty shoes. I truly hope they don't relate to the characters.