Life vs. Sex in the City
Now that I live in New York City, I’m constantly amazed by how accurate that show Sex in the City really is. Someone on the show once quipped that nobody in New York buys furniture until they have their first guests. This was certainly the case me for me. And the four ladies’ conviction that fabulously single, female New Yorkers never seem to have all three at the same time: the great apartment, the great job and the great boy? True. I love my apartment and I have a good job, but there’s no boy in the mix. Once I find the boy, I’m totally convinced that I’ll probably lose either my job or the apartment.
Then, there are the obvious Sex in the City connections: the landmarks. I’d heard of Yankee Stadium, Staten Island, the Bronx, the Upper East Side, Central Park and other New York locales but it’s nice to have my own association with these places now. I remember the first time that I went to the restaurant / night club / meat market called Bed, I thought, “Hey, isn’t this that place from Sex in the City?! … tee hee hee … I’m in bed.”
As much as life imitates art, there are certainly a few places where the two part. Take Samantha, for example. A 40 year old woman with a cool pad in the Meat Packing District that dates a hot, young male model. Un. Real. Istic. There’s a a Metro article in which their columnist agrees with me on this one: “hot, young male models don’t date older women; hot, young male models date other hot, young male models.”
There are people who may disagree with me about the whole New York life vs. Sex in the City thing. Sure, somewhere in the city, there are women who actually do have all three: apartment, job, boy. And, yes, there’s probably some 40 year old woman fucking a hot, young male model silly in her Meat Packing District apartment at this very second. But, still, it’s interesting to compare my life now to the show that I loved then (… and, I still love that show).
November 27th, 2005 at 8:36 am
I thought Sex in the City was a more accurate depiction of Bridget Jones Diary (the novel), rather than the stupid love triangle fiasco that they actually made. Whenever Bridget was upset, she would call on her girlfriends. And she had a mandatory gay friend who was simply too fabulous. And they spent a lot of their time discussing really important issues (like the zipless fuck) rather than mooning between men.
Am glad you like it. I was afraid you were gonna go for it with Edward Scissorhand fingers.
November 27th, 2005 at 8:46 am
A friend once told me that you can love where you live, love your job and have a mate you love, but rarely all three at the same time, that if you get two out of three, you’re very lucky, indeed. I was reminded of that when I read your post. Good entry.
November 27th, 2005 at 8:47 am
Girl…I like Sex in the City, but is it really relevant to the Black woman’s experience? Ok there are some universal elements, but there are some resounding differences..although I really wouldn’t mind having Carrie’s shoes…lol…
Awesome blog..I found you through Style & Grace
November 27th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Sex in the City reminds me of life during the Eighties, but I never found it that glamorous. Perhaps New York really is Oz.
November 27th, 2005 at 10:27 am
I’m glad to hear that such a great show was actually somewhat accurate. Thanks for blogging about it.
November 27th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Jenn: I saw the first Bridget Jones movie, but I didn’t see the second one. (I heard it was beyond horrible.)
Andy: “A friend once told me that you can love where you live, love your job and have a mate you love, but rarely all three at the same time.” Hmmm … so far, this had totally proven true in my life (in New York, and elsewhere).
Suezette: WELCOME to the blog!! :) By the way (and since you asked), in my opinion, Sex in the City is just as relevant to a black woman’s experience as Girlfriends is to a white woman’s. Bottom line? All women are free to love shoes!!! ;-)
goldennib: I *LOVED* the 80s :) Oh, back in the day …
MamaChristy: So far, it seems like it’s somewhat accurate, but I’ll let you know if I still feel this way one year from now. :)
November 27th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Hey Stolie, I haven’t checked in in a while. You’re sounding good. Keep it going, my friend.
Mike
http://kandmking.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Hey Mike,
Welcome back to the blog!!!!!
I just re-checked you out and you’re looking good as well. I think we started blogging at about the same time, give or take a month or two.
HANG IN THERE!!! :)
Hmmm … That kinda of sounded like an AA meeting, didn’t it? “Hang in there.” I’ve never been to an AA meeting, but I have a friend that wears a shirt that says “AA is for Quitters.” She, of course, is an alcoholic …
November 27th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
OK, I think I’ve decided to add you as a link on my blog, maybe we can get this kind of East Coast, West Coast kinda conversation going on, though why that should happen is anyone’s guess, and is probably a task best left to Sisyphus, but I have some good friends from NY, and I love to bug them about our differences, but will try to make some cogent remarks in this blogspace which may be somewhat entertaining and enlightening, especially your blog, and will in the future also try to deviate from the path of run-on sentences, but in the meantime let’s just say what the hell, and go from there.
November 28th, 2005 at 6:33 am
Thanks for the link.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:53 am
It just occurred to me that I am quite impressed by the writing and grammar skills expressed throughout Stolie’s blog and her guests’ posts. I am a relentless editor, and being a seventh grade teacher, I read a lot of really crappy grammar. Thank you all for restoring my faith in the proper use of punctuation and correctly spelled words. I now know where to turn when reading other people’s writing (even so-called professional writers’) gets me down.