Sex and the City - Season 6 (1 Viewer)

[BrianB]

I think you need to stop watching it too, Dan, doesn't sound like you're getting any enjoyment out it whatsoever

I can undestand not being somewhere were there are annoying kids, (e.g. a movie theater) but if you were to approach me about my child then there's gonna be some violence in that spot.

It's the context - Samantha isn't allowed to talk business on her phone in this fancy upscale restaurant, yet this child is allowed to act like a brat & annoy the other patrons. Sam got her comeuppance, remember - she didn't come out "on top".

 

[DAN NEIR]

I understand how annoying it is to be somewhere with someone who doesn't know how to control their child but I just think she was out of line. Is it just me or does the season just not measure up to previous ones. I got into the show late, I started watching around the end of season 2/season 3 beginning but the girls never annoyed me the way they do now. I'll stick with it though because this is suppose to be the last season and I wanna see what happens to everyone.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I got into the show late, I started watching around the end of season 2/season 3 beginning but the girls never annoyed me the way they do now.

Well, Carrie's shoe fixation has been a constant. It's just that now you know the price of the Blahniks she's always loved. (Some of us already knew.)

Charlotte is the same as she's always been, except that now she has Harry to challenge her prissiness. I think the pairing is hilarious.

As for Samantha, I applauded her tirade, while at the same time knowing it was hopeless.

M.

 

[Steve_Tk]

They are just different personalities. Not every one in the world is going to be exactly like you. Some peoples personalities just clash and annoy us, but we just have to accept that they are not the type people we enjoy. No reason we should think they should change though, because they probably think we should change also.

And kids, I will not get into it but they are annoying if the parents do not know how to make them behave. It would be more annoying to me to see some kid playing with his food and making a lot of noise than to see someone on their cell phone.

500 bucks for shoes is a little silly to me, but I've had people say I'm absolutely crazy for spending 3000 on a TV. They literally go nuts when they hear that. So everyone just has different ideas of what their money should be spent on. But saying it's ridiculous is stupid. Because there are a lot of people out there that think what you spend money on is ridiculous, like kids for example.

 

[DAN NEIR]

:rolleyes

 

[LisaDoris]

Interesting episode. Though personally I wouldn't have approached the woman and her child, I would have pointed out the double standard between a cell phone conversation and an obnoxious brat.

I too had some issues with the overpriced shoes but, I spend my money on DVD's, books, and CD's, Carrie spends hers on shoes. My only beef with that was: has Carrie paid Charlotte back for her apartment? If not, shouldn't she be paying off the debt instead of buying $500 shoes?

Love Blair Underwood and I really really really hope he sticks around for awhile.

 

[Patrick Sun]

The "Mimi and Jules" parallel on display for Mr. Leaves and Miranda was nervously uncomfortable, but probably a portent of things to come. Gotta love how Miranda went into flirt mode from the get-go.

Both sides of the annoyance issue for Sam's subplot were aired, and Sam was the one leaving wearing green pasta.

The breeders do seem to have a few more rights than singles (a la the Carrie subplot with all that gift-giving that is "expected" from friends.) At least Cara got the hint when Carrie turned the tables on her in the end.

I was just as grossed out as Charlotte was when her new hubby was sitting on all that white fabric-covered seating in the apartment au naturel. Ewww... put some pants on, dude!

 

[Peter McM]

re: the whole "tea bag" thing, I can't believe the girls still get shocked at some of the things Samantha says.:b

 

[Lew Crippen]

And I'm sorry but $485 for f.....g shoes!!!! Give me a break. Grant it if I was responsible for losing something that belonged to someone I'd pay up and I'd expect the same in return but $485 for shoes is ridiculous.

Considering the number of people on this forum that spend what many (perhaps most) others would consider outrageous amounts of money on TVs, projectors, Speakers, receivers, DVD players and large DVD collections, we ought not to be so judgmental on the spending habits of others. Plus, we have already been treated to plenty of bits about Carrie’s shoe buying—even one where she had no money for an apartment due to her (excessive) shopping.

 

[Patrick Sun]

As soon as they zoomed in on the teabags early in the episode, I knew where the girls lunch was going when Charlotte brought up Harry's teabag "disposal" technique.

 

[Paul Jenkins]

I think this season is one of the best, certainly better than last year in my view...

Last night's was great, the naked husband bit was too funny, and the 'tea bag' conversation had me laughing out loud.

$485 for shoes is like me spending $485 for a Tivo. Each of us gets what we want. So, what's the problem? I think you just exemplify what the show was about regarding the shoes

 

[DAN NEIR]

I respect the educated responses of others here as you have given me something to think about when it comes to looking at the other side. Point well taken. NOTE I said educated responses not foolish ones like the individual who doesn't agree w/ my earlier post and called it "stupid" and then gave the even smarter reply of saying that I may spend my money foolishly on MY CHILD! :rolleyes

 

[Michael Reuben]

then gave the even smarter reply of saying that I may spend my money foolishly on MY CHILD!

I think his point was that some people prefer not to have children and thus, for them, it would be a waste of money (among other things) to have them. In any case, regardless of what you may think of the post, calling another member a "buffoon" -- and I presume that's what you meant, though you misspelled it -- is a clear violation of the HTF rules. Please don't do it again. (And there should be no further responses to that portion of Mr. Neir's comments.)

M.

 

[Patrick_S]

I understand how annoying it is to be somewhere with someone who doesn't know how to control their child but I just think she was out of line.

I'm very interested in knowing what you think she should have done?

I personally have been in upscale restaurants where I've had to ask the staff to attend to an ill-behaved child. Most of the time they do it but a couple of times they have refused. In those cases I simple got up and ask the parents to please control their child so all of us could enjoy our meals. In one case the parents apologized and tried to get junior under control. In the other the mother started yelling at me at which point other patrons chimed in with requests that she shut up, sit down, and control her child. She left with brat in tow to a standing ovation from the majority of customers. Heck one table even offered to pay for my meal afterward.

I know children in public places is a very touchy subject but half the time I think that parents are so numb to their children’s behavior that they don't realize things are out of control. In those cases I think a little reminder can be a positive thing.

 

[Steve_AS]

Well, Carrie's shoe fixation has been a constant. It's just that now you know the price of the Blahniks she's always loved. (Some of us already knew.)

The thing that bugs me about this plot point is taht early on in the series, it was *Charlotte* who was portrayed as having a shoe fixation. Remember the episode where she got into a creepy/funny situation with a shoe salesman who was also a foot fetishist?

That aspect seemed to get dropped from her character and was donated to Carrie instead.

 

[Steve_AS]

I understand how annoying it is to be somewhere with someone who doesn't know how to control their child but I just think she was out of line. Is it just me or does the season just not measure up to previous ones. I got into the show late, I started watching around the end of season 2/season 3 beginning but the girls never annoyed me the way they do now. I'll stick with it though because this is suppose to be the last season and I wanna see what happens to everyone.

This season started out slow but the last three episodes have been first-rate. Charlotte's wedding #2 ranked with the series' best, IMO.

 

[DAN NEIR]

I edited my earlier post. As far as what Samantha should have done, I agree with asking the waiter what he could do but that's as far as I would have gone with it. I would never tell anyone what they should or should not be doing with their child and would get highly heated if someone tried to tell me what to do with mine. If my child is acting out of line I and I ALONE will address the matter. And if I witnessed someone not controlling their child then as I said above I would tell the waiter or theater manager if it happened at a movie theater for example but that's it. I think what Samantha did stems from the fact that she hates kids. And anybody who hates kids is somebody who I think has a problem and is not someone I would want to associate with. I wonder do you really think if it was Charlotte, Carrie or Miranda that they would have gotten up and talked to the mother. Plus I didn't see anything wrong in what she was doing she was playing with her child and having fun at the fact that he was eating his food. Should she be taken out back and shot for that? I can understand if the kid was running around, knocking down chairs and screaming at the top of his lungs.

 

[Michael Reuben]

As has been pointed out by several posters above, the issue is less the child's behavior than the restaurant's double standard.

Note that Samantha did not raise any objection to the child's behavior until she was told that her business cell phone call was not allowed (presumably because of noise), while a similar noise level was permitted to come from a nearby table where a child is playing with his food (or was it hers? I don't really recall the kid in the show).

The fault is as much the restaurant's as the child's (or its mother), which is why Samantha first approached the waiter. But the larger phenomenon that was the episode's main theme -- namely, the yards of extra slack cut to people with children -- is a legitimate issue.

And I say that having pushed aside my share of mothers with strollers who think it's their divine right to block whatever sidewalks, aisles or walkway they choose.

M.

 

[DAN NEIR]

The restaurant double standard thing is an interesting point but if that's the case then her issue should really be with the restaurant and not the mom/child.

On a side note how could you push aside a mom w/ her stroller?

I know I'm wrong for saying this but if it was my wife who was pushed aside w/ her stroller and I saw you do it, I would be in jail right now and you'd be in the hospital. Please don't take offense to that but it's just how I feel when it comes to my child. I'm the type that would have told Samantha to sit back down while she was still able to do it.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I know I'm wrong for saying this

That's something we can agree on. I think you've adequately notified everyone of your capacity for violence on this issue. Let's move on.

M.