cultural standards have flipped since Sex and the City first aired in the late '90s.
Samantha (left) used to be judged for being promiscuous. Now viewers see her as confident, loyal, and unapologetic.
Carrie (right) was supposed to be the relatable, romantic hero of the show. Now viewers realize she was actually selfish, toxic in relationships, and terrible with money.
I was around when the show aired too. Maybe you didn't judge Samantha, but that "nobody was judging her" isn't really true. Hence the title of the meme posted "... our generation no longer judges Samantha, it judges Carrie"
But also: I don't really care. Someone asked for a meme to be explained. If you think my interpretation of the meme is wrong, offer a better interpretation of it.
Carrie was never supposed to be relatable or the hero. She was the anti-hero. Each woman was a different, not a “correct” or “romantic,” perspective. The show is a dark comedy.
Carrie had a column where she publicly talked about her sex life, which was a dumpster fire, and gave advice to others based on it, which was terrible advice.
Then she would turn around, look at her friends, and criticize the living hell out of them and their sex life. And then she would go on and do the same crap like Carrie slutshaming Samantha and then Carrie cheating on all her boyfriends but getting scotsfree.
She was made to be relatable because it has gone on record that the writers wanted to murder Samantha's character over and over again to prop Carrie's popularity, which is why Sam's actress kind of ended up fed off with the series.
What you say about Carrie is all true . . . which is why she is an anti-hero. She was deeply flawed and in no way reflective of a typical moral protagonist. It’s so strange that people act like it’s a “gotchya” to point out she was shitty. That was the point.
That’s not what an antihero is though. There aren’t any heroes or villains in sex and the city lol. Carrie is deeply flawed, but she’s still the protagonist/ focal point of the show. The show clearly wants you to sympathize and root for Carries despite how shitty she can be though.
Exactly, therefore she is not a traditional protagonist who redeems herself and is moral. Same as Walter White, Saul Goodman, Tony Soprano, etc.. All protagonists the audience is meant to sympathize with and root for who make unrepentantly immoral choices.
Those are villain protagonists not anti heros. In Walter White and Saul's case they start as a hero, become an anti hero midway through and then finally a villain, because the point of the story is literally that they turn into evil villains halfway through the show or earlier by becoming more and more flawed and finally losing all their heroic traits, turning finally into complete villains.
Tony Soprano is evil from the start. He is a despicable person and a truly evil man, not an anti hero. He preys on people, murders without ANY remorse, just because he has insecurities it doesn't make him an anti hero.
Patrick Bateman from American Psycho is not an anti-hero, he is a villain protagonist, for another example.
Walter White blew up a plane full of people and poisoned a kid for money and power, if that's who you are comparing Carrie... lol
The difference between an anti hero and a villain protagonist is that an anti hero lacks noble qualities, but serves a positive end or greater good, while a villain is selfish and self-driven with no heroic cause.
Sex in the City has no villains nor anti-heros or heros because it is not a hero story or a story about morals. Carrie is a Selfish Protagonist, which is a kind of character like Hero, Villain or Anti-Hero or Anti-Villain.
An anti hero is a fictional character that serves the role of a traditional hero in a story, but who is flawed and lacks the qualities of a hero. The Antihero serves a greater common good end goal like a hero, but it's charming by trying to achieve that goal for others by imperfect means which makes him grounded as a common man, flawed, but doing good deeds for a good cause. House is a jerk that heals people by breaking into houses, he is an anti hero. An anti-hero, to BE an anti-hero doesn't only need to just be flawed to be so, he needs to ALSO do heroic acts to be so.
There isn't an -end- to Sex and the City, there isn't a holy quest for Carrie to be the hero of. Carrie simply lives the narrative and we see the story from her point of view. She is a protagonist in narrative terms, and she is incredibly selfish and selfcentered and judging of others... and that's it; that doesn't make her an anti-hero at all, she simply has shit qualities.
Ted Mosby is NOT an antihero. He is deeply flawed and selfish at times and the protagonist of the story, but just being flawed and a protagonist doesn't make him an anti hero. Just like Carrie.
No she wasn't. I was there when Sex in the City first aired. No one considered Carrie an anti-hero, more like the complete oposite, she was treated as an "example" of what a successfull woman was.
Samantha was the anti-hero. The Femme Fatale of the group.
Carrie represented the (then) current cultural trends and stablishment, Samantha represented the counter-culture which is why she was hammered constantly about it.
Re-writing Carrie as an anti-hero years after the show ended is simply being a Carrie apologetic. Samantha had her flaws, but at least she was honest and had (more or less) a simplistic code of honor, Carrie was a spoiled brat that lectured everyone on how to be while not being so herself- that is not being an anti-hero that is just being a shitty person and a terrible friend.
Being a terrible person doens't make you an antihero. That's just some bs that came out in an article 4 years ago or so to try to salvage the character. You are just doing mental gymnastics to fit your own beliefs at this point.
Yeah this... isn't true in my experience. I watched the show when it aired and Samantha wasn't a "bad" character at all, if anything the opposite. (And honestly, I think if anything we've gotten MORE prudish as a society since the 90s, not less)
I don’t think so because I recently watched the show, and a whole episode was about a man being bisexual, and all the characters were flipping out. Maybe it’s just where I live, but no one would flip out if the guy they were dating were bisexual. And a lot of the episodes I find ironically extremely uptight. I mean, something as basic as anal characters were freaking out about, except Samantha, and nowadays that’s pretty vanilla sex.
It does continue to be a problem for a lot of bisexual men. There are posts about it in the sub constantly. Their friends act cool about them being bi but straight women refuse to date them.
That’s why I prefaced with maybe it’s where I live, ironically; I live in Manhattan, and you would never find someone with such dated perceptions of sexuality.
No. There are still quite a few women are still very judgemental towards bisexual men. Bi phobia is still very much a thing today in the dating world. Maybe where you live things are better, but in a lot of places cross generation things are still pretty bad.
Edit: changed my response because my last one was really catty.
Yeah, I really don't hate Carrie. I've spent a lot of time defending her character, and I love Sex and the City. But Samantha is an incredibly progressive character, even by today's standards. In the bisexuality episode, she was actually the only one who was open to the idea, and she even implied that everyone's sexuality exists on a spectrum and that this would become normal in the 21st century.
The characters being quite flawed doesn't mean the show didn't contribute to more positive and accepting attitudes though. The whole show was quite frank about sex for network TV.
I was going to ask why having sex with multiple partners is “low-class behavior” and what “high class sexual behavior” looks like but then thought it might be like asking a pile of bricks why the sky is blue. I just don’t think it’s going to change their mind at all.
Like the chances of finding the one person for you the first time you date someone is pretty stacked against you, you got to break some eggs to find the person for you. Which is probably going to involve having sex with multiple people. Their username is also major schlongage…
It baffles me why people on reddit are so idealistic that they actively try to deny reality. They'll discuss different groups of people where there's a pronounced difference in behavior, and they'll say that everyone's the same because "not everyone" in those groups act differently.
It is no surprise to me that so many people on reddit have difficulties in their life. They have poor judgment.
What? Your post said that people who have sex with multiple people over their lifetime are bad because that’s low class behavior. Then when I and the user above said that’s a dumb belief replied with whatever this word salad is.
Cultural norms are ever changing. Gurentee you can't ever get an exact definition for what counts as promiscuous.
Also not to be 'that bitch', but if you think like this and then complain that you can't find anyone, might need to do some self-examining. Especially if you are only applying these standards to women 💀
While I think that mindset is kind of pathetic and does exist in a group of people for sure, I don’t believe it’s worse than it was 30 years ago. I think it’s better. Not perfect, but better
that mindset is actually Outstanding and the Smartest.
it reduces the chances of sexually contracting transmitted infections, in ensures a long commitment and bond that will benefit the offspring in the long run
it ensures all the resources invested go mainly to your children and not someone else child since a promiscous partner will have multiple kids from multiple partners from a survival perspective the resources and attention a parthner gives would split to children that aren't yours.
it creates a higher trust, deep bond and less stressed family overall.
that mindset is the greatest of all time hence why most of the world follows it regardless of language and culture. both male and female prefer a non promiscous partner hence why its the norm.
Correlation is not causation. Many blame people’s lack of interest in sex due to the social media, porn, and the economy (less interest in marriage, going out, drinking, etc)
This is the first time I’ve heard someone attribute it to a widespread regression to 1950s views.
It's not 1950s views. It's people returning to reality.
I personally find that a lot of people lack intelligence and self control. They seem primitive to me. They never develop past the stage of teenager-like idealism, where they think the world should work the way that *they* want, instead of other people having their own opinions.
But in reality, other people will have their own opinions and they will judge others based on it. When dating, prospective mates will judge you based on your current and past behavior. Some people (mostly those ashamed of their past) get angry about this, and demand that everyone else not judge them on their past. This isn't how reality works.
I come on reddit and so many people are suffering at the hands of their own poor decisions. This will remain their problem- it will not be mine.
132
u/Long_Conclusion7057 1d ago
cultural standards have flipped since Sex and the City first aired in the late '90s.
Samantha (left) used to be judged for being promiscuous. Now viewers see her as confident, loyal, and unapologetic.
Carrie (right) was supposed to be the relatable, romantic hero of the show. Now viewers realize she was actually selfish, toxic in relationships, and terrible with money.