Sexualizing the City – Glorifying and Epitomizing Shallowness

All hail the gods of sleaze! Sex and the City panders to the prurient interests, exulting the meaninglessness of humanity devoid of heart and soul. This it encourages under the guise of women’s freedom, the freedom to exalt the darkness within. Explore it, yes, acknowledge it as a part within all, yes, but worship it, no. Yet, women are flocking to this movie. What’s that about?

Proponents will defend their “freedom of speech” rights, being driven by their greedy agendas. Janice Joplin sang it best, “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” Oh great! There’s nothing left to lose, so what the hell. Let’s do nothing, declare our impotence, “there’s nothing we can do about it.”

Well, I don’t accept this, and I resent not only treating men as mindless buffoons, but also depicting women as shallow, lying whores. Both sexes have said the same of the other, haven’t they? Just like the very desperate housewives, these depictions NEVER show an evolution in thought and only serve to make these views seem more the norm and therefore OK. Is this really freedom, or our dark-sides spewing out in the name of freedom?

This show/movie depicts women acting like men at their worst. “You’ve come a long way baby,” now you can act like men at their worst. You go girls, show them what shallow heartless sluts women really can be. That will really make a difference, won’t it? And we all lap it up, like dogs in heat, don’t we? What great role models you actresses portray. But it sells movies, makes money, and whores are whores, aren’t they.

What about the damage done men seeing them as shallow simpletons whose purpose is to be manipulated and used? This naturally creates resentment in men. Sex and the City encourages women to act out their darkness as a norm. This comes from a twisted view of the feminine that it is weak, and therefore, women must act like men, forsaking femininity to be strong. This actually demeans the feminine. First off, women are not weak, though they are taught to believe this by the patriarchal paradigm, as are men. Women must break free from these beliefs and find their own inner wisdom, incorporating the masculine, NOT becoming men. The worst part in trying to act like the opposite sex is that usually each sex takes on the most glaring characteristics of their opposites. Like being a slut, which is not a feminine characteristic at all; it is the masculine energy in a woman run amok. It is the furthest thing from women’s heritage – wisdom.

As to the resentment created by using and manipulating men, as many women feel men have done, do you think that it will magically disappear? If you do you are delusional, and I promise you it will come back on all women to haunt them. Just as men’s transgressions come back on men to haunt them. Both viewpoints need to be healed. Vengeance is not evolutionary. Two wrongs make a catastrophe, not a right. A continual attempt to poke each other’s eye out leaves us all blind. This is not wisdom and it opposes the true nature and purpose of the feminine to be The Gods of Wisdom. Isn’t it time to awaken and see this type of “harmless entertainment” for the damage it does?

Read More
  1. Dr. David Eigen

    My dear Doug,
    Thank you so much for your comment. I remember Siddhartha well, and am concerned that in my passion you missed my meaning. I consider this movie to be fodder for the grist mill of polarization, that is to say, it reinforces the polarizing views. I am a supporter of loving partnerships and mutual respect. This movie and the show that spawned it absolutely does not do this. It demonstrates the masculinization of women, not the empowerment of the feminine. What I was passionately “ranting” about is my objection to the objectification of men. This is adding fuel to the fire of the Battle of the sexes. I know you don’t support this. It truly a reversal of thought, the opposite of the patriarchal beliefs, but not a positive move. It is an eye for an eye thinking, and this would leave the whole world blind.
    Thanks again for the comment.

  2. Doug Knowlton

    My friend, your response to this film concerns me.

    Have I seen the film. No. Is it likely? No, at least not until it’s released so I can view it at home.

    Then again, I suspect you haven’t seen it either. Since this isn’t a review, then, can we say, rant?

    You remember this one don’t you

    . . . .

    “Siddhartha was thus loved by everyone. He was a source of joy for everybody, he was a delight for them all.

    But he, Siddhartha, was not a source of joy for himself, he found no delight in himself.”

    . . . .

    Later he converses with himself “How deaf and stupid have I been!” he thought, walking swiftly along. “When someone reads a text, wants to discover its meaning, he will not scorn the symbols and letters and call them deceptions, coincidence, and worthless hull, but he will read them, he will study and love them, letter by letter. But I, who wanted to read the book of the world and the book of my own being, I have, for the sake of a meaning I had anticipated before I read, scorned the symbols and letters, I called the visible world a deception, called my eyes and my tongue coincidental and worthless forms without substance. No, this is over, I have awakened, I have indeed awakened and have not been born before this very day.”

    It concerns me that the above you’ve written appears to be a signal of growth in a more polarized direction. Is this true?

Leave a Reply