Spoilers................. No wonder Carrie and her husband separated, how can a guy deal with a woman who has had thirty three lovers. That is a woman with issues, and I don't see her staying with anyone for two long. Funny how this was not a major issue fer the husband marrying her in the first, place then Charles giving up Henrietta for the woman... totally unbelievable.
sharelamont-harden wrote:Interesting. So you would not marry Carrie, Miranda, or Charlotte from Sex and the City? And you have no hope for the marriages of Miranda and Charlotte because of their previous "promiscuity." Their sexual history is very close to that of Carrie from FWF.
Spoilers................. No wonder Carrie and her husband separated, how can a guy deal with a woman who has had thirty three lovers. That is a woman with issues, and I don't see her staying with anyone for two long. Funny how this was not a major issue fer the husband marrying her in the first, place then Charles giving up Henrietta for the woman... totally unbelievable.
posted by ellie_andrewsThis is over the six seasons (Six years? Certainly not more.) It is only the sexual encounters that we know about from the program, so it is a minimum. Sam is an outlying data point, but the average for the others is 2.72 different partners per season year. If they started at 20, a very conservative estimate, they would have had 29.9 different lovers each by the time they are what I guess to be our Carrie's age (32).
Okay, this is the men they've slept with (just from what we see on the show) according to Kiss and Tell
Carrie: 14
Charlotte: 17 (not including the Rabbit [] )
Miranda: 18
Sam: 37
I was serious, but you did enlighten me. i guess i did not think it thru, and just for the record I would probably still marry Sam, {I'm week for her} but Carrie never.
shareI would not marry Carrie Bradshaw, but because of her spending habits and not her sexual habits. Charlotte is too conventional for me. Miranda is the best looking of them, in my opinion, and at times she is just breathtakingly beautiful. A little bitchy, but she is the one I would go for. I have more in common with her than the others. I would not worry about any of them being unfaithful to me.
I think a major difference in our perception of FWF Carrie and the SitC girls is that we watch the story of the SitC girls sex lives unfold. I don't really feel that, except for Sam, they are promiscuous. With FWF Carrie, we just have the list and not the context.
Miranda "breathtakingly beautiful" and a little bitchy...LOL You surprised me. thought she was the least of the one's to marry on this show, but we will differ on that. I chose Samantha because you know what your in for, more so then the others. I better sigh off of this thread before to many people find out I was a closet fan of this show...LOL
share[deleted]
rebschucks wrote:
Only she was supposed to be, like, mid-20s right?Why do you think that? She certainly doesn't look it. It never occurred to me that she was anything other than mid-30s.
And they were mid-30s?I think the plot makes the most sense if Carrie is about 35, and her biological clock is ticking. (We see her with a baby at the end.) She has left her job at Vogue, and she seems to be looking for a permanent relationship. (At the first wedding, she is quite aggressive in trying, unsuccessfully, to attract Charles, and the next time we see her, she is engaged.) That suggests to me mid-30s rather than mid-20s.For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
Why can't we have a movie called "Thirty three lovers, two engagements, one wedding and a funeral"?
Oh, wait! I forgot Charles!
Make that: "Thirty three lovers, two engagements, one wedding, one de facto and a funeral"?
"great minds think differently"
Mandyjam wrote:
Why can't we have a movie called "Thirty three lovers, two engagements, one wedding and a funeral"?If you listen to the commentary, Curtis and Newell are quite amused at the reaction and disbelief that someone (they gave a name, but I didn't recognize it) had to the 33 lovers.From my observation, that is about what I would expect for an unmarried woman in her mid-30s pursuing a career in a big city and has been so since the mid-60s. But people are routinely obsessed by it and freak out.No one has to approve of it or like it, but it is the way the world is. I don't see anything wrong with it, and I trust that anyone who would condemn Carrie's behavior would also condemn the same behavior in a man.It is only two to three new men in a year for God's sake. What do people expect a woman who is not in a long-term relationship, possibly by choice, to do?For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
The way that she has them numbered and lists them off that is rather revolting.
Three new blokes a year does sound rather a lot to me.
"great minds think differently"
Mandyjam wrote:
The way that she has them numbered and lists them off that is rather revolting.I am charmed by her honesty and impressed by her memory. Remember that she is exposing herself to a man that she had hoped to have a relationship with, but he wasn't interested. Also remember that Charles initiates the conversation and asks her twice how many men she has slept with. He probably does not expect such a detailed answer.
Three new blokes a year does sound rather a lot to me.She started early, something like 16, and a whole bunch of her partners were while she was quite young. I believe the plot works best if Carrie is 35 and her biological clock is ticking.
Well, Grandma here has a lot of catching up to do, then!
"great minds think differently"
I strongly agree with the OP. Charles had to be out of his mind to want her. Who in their right mind would want a relationship with this woman either as a wife or girlfriend. She has absolutely no morals. Remember that she screwed Charles while engaged to someone else, so what expectation is there that she will remain faithful? With all his knowledge of her sexual exploits, how in the world could he ever trust her? It doesn't make for a very healthy relationship.
Even if he had no knowledge of her previous sexual exploits, he knows that she cheated on someone she professed to love. She's dishonest, has no decency, is an opportunist (cheating with Charles when her fiancé had to leave) and obviously has no conscience what so ever. How can you possibly want to spend the rest of your life knowing that she is capable of cheating again, given the opportunity, if she were to meet someone else she fancies? But then he was pretty screwed up himself; screwing a woman he knew was engaged to someone else and what he did to Henrietta. So I guess they deserved each other.
Rpdsf wrote:
Who in their right mind would want a relationship with this woman either as a wife or girlfriend.I would, in a minute, and I assure you that I'm in my right mind. She is warm, honest, beautiful and there is something very homey and cozy about her. She is not the way that she appears to be when we first see her.
Remember that she screwed Charles while engaged to someone else, so what expectation is there that she will remain faithful?It is possible that you don't understand that Charles is the one that she wants all along. She tries to interest him after the first wedding but he shows no interest in exploring a relationship and she leaves.She runs into again at the second wedding and she tries again. It was not simple unfaithfulness; Charles is the one that she really wants.See: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/view/236602761?d=236602761#2 36602761Carrie may or may not love Hamish, but she wants to settle down, and Hamish's offer is one that almost all women of her age would be very attracted to. She is certainly not betraying Hamish's pure love when she tries again for Charles.
With all his knowledge of her sexual exploits, how in the world could he ever trust her?I'm not going to argue with you about sexual standards. That is a very subjective thing, but Carrie's "sexual exploits" are quite modest by the standards of the real world, or of Friends or of Sex and the City. There is nothing unusual about the number of Carrie's sexual partners for a woman pursuing a career in a big city and there has not been since the 60s.I would not have any trouble trusting Carrie. Would you not trust Rachel Green, Monica Geller, Carrie Bradshaw, Miranda Hobbes, or Charlotte York when they are in committed relationships? Carrie is not driven by sex anymore than they are. Samantha and Phoebe are another matter.Carrie's number 17 was while she was still in college. Leaving out the man she married and the man that she ends up with, Carrie has 14 sexual partners in about as many years. That may seem excessive to you, but it is quite modest in the real world. share
I would reply in detail as you have but I've come to learn that it is pointless to do so with someone who's morals are different than mine. One quick mention...when she was listing her previous experiences, two of them (23 and 24) were at the same time and two others (28 and 29) were son and then father. Let's just say I agree to disagree with you about her inept morality.
shareRpdsf wrote:
I would reply in detail as you have but I've come to learn that it is pointless to do so with someone who's morals are different than mine.You are basing your assessment of Carrie on your view of her morality, and I agree that personal morality is subjective.
Let's just say I agree to disagree with you about her inept morality.There are two things here. One is subjective and one isn't.Carrie's morality does not bother me at all as far as her being faithful in the future. That is certainly subjective.That Carrie's morality is the norm in the society in which she lives, and I mean the particular part, is not subjective. Objectively, her sexual behavior is normal and average, probably below average, for an unmarried woman pursuing a career in a big city, and that has been the case since the 60s at least. That is as far back as my experience goes and as far back as I can speak about.I have no idea what you mean by "inept." share
Inept......as in lacking
I probably should have phrased it "morally inept".
Rpdsf wrote:
Inept......as in lackingI was confused because idiomatically in English, at least in the United States "inept" means "lacking" in a skill. It can be a physical skill — he is an inept carpenter — or a social skill — he made an inept remark — but is always being bad at something. You could say someone is "inept" in making moral choices in the sense that they are incompetent in choosing between alternatives, but Carrie's values are in line with those of the part of society that she lives in. She is not "inept" in that she makes different choices than you would.You would not say that a person is "inept in honesty" meaning dishonest. Or "inept in telling the truth" meaning they lie a lot. If you said that a treasurer was "inept in handling money," you would mean that he was incompetent in handling money, not that he was stealing it because he lacked morals.Language can be quite tricky. Sorry to be picky. share
Okay...you've drawn me into the debate. You stated "You could say someone is "inept" in making moral choices in the sense that they are incompetent in choosing between alternatives, but Carrie's values are in line with those of the part of society that she lives in. She is not "inept" in that she makes different choices than you would."
In order for someone to be "inept" at something there first needs to be an acceptable standard. In this case, what society accepts as basic moral behavior when it comes to sexual interpersonal relationships. Simply the difference between what society generally accepts as right and wrong and without the pseudo intellectual reasoning which serves only to distort the concept.
Some of her sexual exploits and her Infidelity for example is not as wide spread as Hollywood seems to want us to believe. Figures are thrown about by those who want to believe it is the norm but if you care to do a little research you might be surprised to find that it is not, at least not yet.
Let's break this down. You say that her values are "in line with those of the part of society she lives in". I have no idea what "part of society" you mean so I guess you are assuming that the majority of those like her, during that time period, same approximate age, same country or culture (she's from the US), with her professional stature and of her sex, those people would make the same choices. I agree to disagree.
Secondly, "not inept in the fact that she makes different choices" than I would. You may not agree but there are what the vast majority would consider to be basic moral social standards; whether they are chosen to be followed or not. One of them is the concept of fidelity. Ignoring the other issues, the fact of the matter was she was engaged to be married. In agreeing to marry someone, you commit your love to your betrothed both mentally and physically. It's a given. You don't say, "Okay, yes I will marry you but until that day I'm going to screw whomever I please."
If you recall she gave not a hint of regret, at any time, after sleeping with Charles when she was engaged to someone else. That alone reveals a lot about her own moral standard.
Without these basic moral standards, or values if you will, society would be out of control and relationships would only be self serving; simply for the purpose of self gratification.
It is my opinion that her choices, when taken in their totality, shows a pattern and an inability to make moral decisions when it comes to some of the basic norms of human relationships.
Rpdsf wrote:
In order for someone to be "inept" at something there first needs to be an acceptable standard.Yes, but the way that the word is used idiomatically in English, it is a standard of a skill; it is not a moral standard. I'm not arguing with you about your moral standards. I'm arguing with you about your unidiomatic use of the word. I gave you parallel examples that no native speaker of English would say. Look up "inept" in a number of dictionaries and look at the examples that they give.
So I guess you are assuming that the vast majority of those like her, during that time period, same approximate age, same country or culture (she's from the US), with her professional stature and of her sex, those people would make the same choices. I agree to disagree.Female sexual behavior outside of a relationship is highly variable. It is a very individual matter, and it is just all over the place. It has a very large standard deviation. Male sexual behavior outside of a relationship does not have anywhere near as much variability.What I am saying is that her behavior is normal and average based on what I have observed. Not that a vast majority of women would necessarily make the same choices, but that there is nothing unusual about her sexual behavior. Perhaps you have known different people and had different experiences. But Carrie's sexual behavior is in line with most of the girls in both Sex and the City and Friends. I would not describe either Samantha or Phoebe as average, but the rest are. I know that there are people — quite possibly including you — who think that they are all sluts, but that is very much a minority opinion.
Ignoring the other issues, the fact of the matter was she was engaged to be married. In agreeing to marry someone, you commit your love to your betrothed both mentally and physically.I believe her marriage to Hamish was much more of a business deal than anything else. They were both getting what they wanted, and that is not uncommon in marriage in the real world. But the business deal had not been finalized, and Carrie really wanted Charles more than she wanted Hamish. I am much less judgmental than you are, and I make allowances for what people do when they really want someone. In the commentary, Richard Curtis and Mike Newell said that they hoped that they had made Hamish so unattractive that people would not judge Carrie too harshly.
Without these basic moral standards, or values if you will, society would be out of control and relationships would only be self serving; simply for the purpose of self gratification.I am happy to agree to disagree with you about that.
It is my opinion that her choices, when taken in their totality, shows a pattern and an inability to make moral decisions when it comes to some of the basic norms of human relationships.I am happy to agree to disagree with you about that. I think Carrie is wonderful, and I would trust her completely. share
I never characterized her as a slut and the thought never crossed my mind. Her character was interesting to say the least but I wouldn't characterize her as you have suggested I might.
I forgot to mention that I did enjoy the movie.....
That's all it was. A movie purely for entertainment supposes and I didn't take it as a commentary on values and wouldn't (especially from Hollywood) although it was difficult to ignore.
Maybe this we can finally agree on.....
Rpdsf wrote:
(especially from Hollywood)Actually, it is a British film.Maybe we can agree that it is an extremely clever film in the way that Richard Curtis plays with the normal conventions of romantic comedy. Much more clever than anything that is likely to come out of Hollywood these days. And Curtis does not make explicit things that would be made explicit in a Hollywood film. The evidence is clear, but he does not just out and say what is going on. share
Thank you, I stand corrected.
We finally agree. It was very well done. I'm not sure but I belive "Notting Hill" was British as well and also well done.
We don't know what her arrangement was with her fiance. They may well have granted each other sexual freedom until the knot was tied. Or beyond; as far as we know, they planned an open marriage. (Plenty of people have them, drawing a mutually-agreed distinction between life partnership and sexual encounters.)
It's understandable but deserves comment that you feel your view is that of the "vast majority". We all mistake the bubbles we live in as having the dominant view. I would posit that standards are a lot more varied than how you perceive them. "Fidelity", for example, could mean adherence to traditional Christian marriage standards, or a promise to a more singularly-tailored pact. The norm in one region/family/societal subset is downright odd a few steps away.
Speaking strictly for myself, I'd be sad to screen out potential partners based on how many lovers they'd had. My best sexual experiences have been with partners with many, many encounters on their "resume", while my best ongoing relationship has been with someone with relatively little experience. Everyone has their own treats to bring to the table.
All that said: I don't imagine that my morals are the reigning standard, any more than yours are. Vive la difference!
butaneggbert wrote:
We don't know what her arrangement was with her fiance.We don't know anything about their arrangements before the marriage, but we do know that Carrie said she would be faithful to Hamish after the marriage. The discussion with Charles after the wedding dress scene centers around Charles's observation, which Carrie agrees with, that she will never sleep with another man other than Hamish. And she says that she left Hamish because of his infidelity.I did not take Carrie's sleeping with Charles after the second wedding as a sign of loose morals. I see it as a sign that she really wants Charles a lot more than Hamish, and she takes a second crack at him. (Charles has had three months to reflect on the "great opportunity" that he did not take, but he still does not say anything. Admittedly it would've been harder with Carrie engaged.) I cut people a considerable amount of slack under those circumstances. In the commentary on the DVD, Richard Curtis and Mike Newell said that they hoped that they had made Hamish such an unattractive person that the audience would not judge Carrie too harshly.You are quite right that there is not just one set of sexual standards. My point has always been that Carrie's sexual behavior is quite normal in terms of the standards of her society. Actually, quite modest, since she left college. share
I don't think 33 lovers is modest. I know many women myself included who were or still are single into there late 20's early 30's and none have a number that high. The closest is probably 21 but most are 10 or under.
shoppermom26 wrote:
I don't think 33 lovers is modest.I am quite sure that I never said that. What I have certainly said is that Carrie had 17 lovers between graduating college and Charles and Hamish. I believe that Carrie is about 35, and that is about one a year excluding the man that she marries and the man she ends up with.Yes, that is modest for a woman does not seem to have long-term relationships and who is pursuing a career in a big city. It is very much in line with the body counts in Sex and the City and Friends.I think that one different man a year is modest based on my observation.
I know many women myself included who were or still are single into there late 20's early 30's and none have a number that high.Were you pursuing a career in a big city?
The closest is probably 21 but most are 10 or under.Women vary a lot in their sexual activity, but I can tell you from my own experience and observation that there is nothing unusual in Carrie's number of sexual partners after college. share