No Sex, No Pity
Today, on my In Bed podcast, I take a look into the darker side of the Sex and the City phenomenon.
You know, I wouldn't care so much if those four neanderthal-ettes showed you how to shop for sexual insight— if that's their forté— but they even fail at that.
An unintentional erotic moment in the movie makes the point quite bitterly: three of the girlfriends realize that their fourth, Miranda, has neglected to shave her bikini line.
The camera shows a close-up of a couple of errant bright-red pubic hairs curling out from Miranda's upper thigh.
Her BFFs excoriate her: How can she destroy any hope of a sex life by refusing to shave! She must be turning her back on men altogether!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is what red cunt hair, the most prized of all genital details, has been reduced to.
When the film debuted, I spoke to Susannah Breslin at Salon, about the nausea of SATC:
"Did you see the recent New Yorker essay, "The Fall of Conservatism," by George Packer? It paraphrases social theorist Eric Hoffer: 'Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.'
"Sex and the City is the 'racket' part of what once was recognizable as the sexual self-emancipation of the feminist movement... I can't watch these women, you know, make asses of themselves and be so petty and small-minded about sexual possibility. I take it too personally."
Listen to an excerpt
Listen to the whole show: LINK
Get the show free for a month: LINK$2 a show, for a year, why not? LINK
In the second half of my show, a news story in France catches my eye- can a traditional marriage can be annulled because the wife isn't a virgin?
And finally, in my Try This at Home mailbag, I answer a letter from a worried mom: "My son is way too sexually precocious, and it's causing me alarm..."
Don't forget, you can send your confidential questions, and feedback about the show, to susie@audible.com. (Episode 347, July 4, 2008).
Photo Credit: This image is the top hit when you search Google for "Merchandising."



Carrie is supposed to be the Everywoman of SATC, and it really bothered me that, for her, sex seemed to be some kind of consumerism. It was always pretty bland and once she had hooked up with a guy, she always seemed in a big hurry to find something wrong with him so she could move on to next year's model. PLUS, she was a PRUDE. She broke with a guy because he asked her to pee on him. I began as a fan of the show, but by the final season, the fact that Carrie had not grown any or learned anything really bothered me.
Posted by: Bo Babbyo | July 12, 2008 at 12:39 PM
While I was an early fan of the series, the later seasons really annoyed me, particularly because they dumped on Miranda and Samantha. Particularly Miranda. Given that Miranda is the smartest and most rational character, after a season or so the writers decided to saddle her with the ur-schmuck Steve, impregnate her via the ever annoying Steve as a result of a pity f*ck, and generally saddle her with an army of dunces. Samantha the bad girl always faces much greater consequences for her actions than the others.
On the other hand the relatively passive airheads of the group Carrie and Charlotte blunder into good fortune at regular intervals.
Posted by: monopole | July 12, 2008 at 02:00 PM
I find it ridiculous that in this day and age, being a 'virgin' (for a woman) is grounds for annulment - what about the guy?
Frankly, my wife was a virgin (although she said she wasn't) - is that grounds for annulment? If there is a question of a child's father, perhaps, but I honestly wish my wife had 'more' experience and it probably would have helped our sex life. 3 children and 18 years later - personality issues rather than sex issues are the key, but this is ridiculous.
I agree with the rot on SATC. Every woman seems to be going for the waxed, lasered look - which (do you want me to be honest ladies?) makes women look like adolescents.
A 'bit' of pubic hair, I suspect for most guys, is confirmation of your womanhood. We don't want pre-pubescent girls (or those who do are paedophiles) - and trimmed, fine, nothing....mmmmm.
Given a choice, some hair please is the biggest turn on. Done it both ways and there are few if any benefits for a shaved pussy.
And, despite the series, isn't the 'sex' activity rate in NYC one of the lowest in the world?
Posted by: Mark | July 13, 2008 at 04:03 AM
I want to speak to some of the comments above, to point out that not all female-body-hair-removal is about wanton desperation and an attempt to pander, nor does it mean, just because some people make the association, that the lady in question wants to look like a little girl.
I remove my leg and pubic hair occasionally because -I-, as a confident, independent woman, enjoy the look and feel of hairless skin on me, in those places. I find it neater and easier to clean up after, as well. There are plenty of benefits! But it should be for the benefit of the person who owns that body, not because a little hair or lack might scare away other random people.
Posted by: elf | July 13, 2008 at 07:29 AM
My summary of SATC - vapid.
Posted by: Steve | July 13, 2008 at 12:10 PM
...I began as a fan of the show, but by the final season, the fact that Carrie had not grown any or learned anything really bothered me....
...Samantha the bad girl always faces much greater consequences for her actions than the others. On the other hand the relatively passive airheads of the group Carrie and Charlotte blunder into good fortune at regular intervals. ...
Hey, it's television! What do you expect?
Posted by: C.S. Lewiston | July 13, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Just another note that some people's preference for pubic hair removal is in no way a matter of wanting a 'pre-pubescent' look. A lot of people just think it looks neater and cleaner. And after all, does a woman who prefers men without beards really want a pre-pubescent boy? I didn't so.
Posted by: Stan | July 14, 2008 at 09:00 AM
Perhaps this is worth a post on its own, but I am ready to draw the line in the sand about phony "pubic hair debate." For centuries women styled their pubic hair as they found appropriate. For erotic reasons, for fashion reasons, for their own or their lovers' preference, and that included everything from trimming, shaving, shaping, waxing, gelling, and leaving utterly free and alone.
It is only for the past 25 years or so that the "bikini wax" became a marketing phenomenon that demanded women erase all hair on their thighs or tummy (or a single millimeter not protected by a thong) AS A REQUIREMENT OF FEMININITY. And if you have a teenage daughter, you know what I'm talking about. They all think they HAVE to do this, it has nothing to do with personal style or sexual sophistication, it is like having to have your shoes tied. For women coming of age the past couple decades, they think the condition of the hair on their legs is a matter of public insistence that it all be off, off, off.
It is total crap, obviously, a feminist issue, obviously, and yet everyone keeps talking about it like it's standing up for the rights of sexual minorities.Give me a break. NO one was ever oppressing anyone who shaved their pubic hair.. it was a highly personal, private matter.
In fact, it was EXACTLY how it is for men right now. Many men like to shave or trim their pubic hair, but do you see the whole beauty and hygeine industry DEMANDING that they do it, or be forever shamed and unwanted? Of course not, how ridiculous. ALthough, I have to say, this whole crap about how every man has to wax his back or chest is not a promising inroad.
Note I am not telling you my own personal habits regarding this. I am not a fetishist on the matter. I have actually been infatuated with people who both HAVE comely hair on their thighs, and OTHERS WHO DO NOT!
the point about the SATC shitheads is that they perpetuate that women have to turn themselves into a Plastic Wallet-Seeking Doll in every respect in order to even walk out the door. They make me sick.
Posted by: susie Bright | July 14, 2008 at 09:30 AM
My take on the French controversy : the law invoked in this case says that if there has been a mistake or deception on an "essential quality" of one of the spouses the marriage can be annulled. What constitutes an "essential quality" is left to the subjectivity of the spouses : marriages have been annuled because a spouse had hidden previous convictions, or because a man kept on having an affair...
The only reason there was a media storm in this case was that the couple was muslim, and the story fit in with the general islamophobic media panic. Incidentally, by annuling the annulment (which the woman had agreed to and you could imagine she could be quite relieved of being rid of such a jerk), the French State kind of promotes a forced marriage...
Informed juridical opinion here.
Posted by: ilestre | July 14, 2008 at 11:47 AM
I find the compulsory shaving thing, whether of faces, legs, pubes or whatever, extremely creepy. I became conscious of the pubic variety not through sexual adventures but because I do life drawing (that's drawing naked people). Several years ago it occurred to me that a lot of the younger models had little or no pubic hair -- they'd shaved it or cut it off. I thought it was just one of those awful but passing fashions of the young, like wearing your underpants on the outside, or driving half a pound of metal through your ears, but it hasn't gone away. Yet. I _do_ have a preference.
As for SATC, I thought it was just fluffy soap opera. I don't know why people are so excited about it. It's _supposed_ to be a vacuous, trashy entertainment, isn't it? Isn't the trashiness part of the fun?
Posted by: Anarcissie | July 14, 2008 at 02:09 PM
Pardon the double posting, but FWIW:
Back in the mid-1970's, I read an article in some hi-gloss men's magazine about something called "pubecuts", for women (of course). The photo spread was set in a beauty parlor-like environment (quite possibly an actual hair-styling emporium) where the female subject was first given a shampoo (which she obviously enjoyed very much!) and then had her bush styled into the shape of a heart.
Posted by: C.S. Lewiston | July 14, 2008 at 08:52 PM
After reading Bright, Queen, Califia, et al., I can't really watch SATC: it just seemed a poor version of some thing you know is much better.
Posted by: DC (in UK) | July 15, 2008 at 09:13 AM
SATC makes more sense as women playing rather uninteresting gay guys.
Posted by: bob | July 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM
C.S. ~ I would totally go to that salon. Style or no style, I'd love having my crotch scrupulously scrubbed!
Posted by: mossum | July 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I also find the whole "you had better shave/wax that thing" thing to be ridiculous.
That said, I am sick unto death of people dragging in the whole prepubescent/pedophilia angle to bolster their side of the debate. You can make a point about liking natural fur without sniping at people who won't turn their nose up at it no matter how she styles it.
Posted by: Amanda Gannon | July 20, 2008 at 11:41 AM