P R I S O N

 

I got the following poem from a blog friend from England. He told me that he got the idea from reading some posts of mine in my blog. (Thanks for the lovely poem, Pete:) )

 

a woman's prison is in the mind

a man's prison he will find

that pale yellow wallpaper around the room

helps the thoughts and helps to groom

 

each person has the truth inside

all it needs to open wide

truth and honesty with careful thought

deceit and hate we need to halt

 

look outside at the sun and rain

we need them both like wheat and grain

food for thought we have within

let it out to stop decayin'

 

women and men must live together

or end up as cold as a glacier

so don't think of life as a strangled cry

think of life as a small mayfly

 

flying free up in the air

looking at life so happy and faire

explosions of color up high and below

red, blue, and green and even YELLOW.

 

It is a lovely poem, do you agree? My favorite stanza is the second stanza where he wrote that "each person has the truth inside". It means what both men and women say are equally meaningful. Also the fourth stanza where he said "women and men must live together". Women and men indeed complete each other. That's what God created men and women for. This I also agree.

 

My question is even in the first two lines of the first stanza, "a woman's prison is in the mind ... a man's prison he will find ..." why not equal? What made him say that a woman's prison is in the mind? While men's prison doesn't exist yet, that's why he will find it (later).

 

As a feminist, I will say that why women's mind is the prison is caused by what men have indoctrinated women for ages that women are submissive. A woman will keep questioning, on her mind, why this male-dominated world is so cruel, why men always want to be dominant.

 

Men are of course not imprisoned by anybody, in any culture in this world. They will "imprison" themselves if they are willing to do so. If not? Of course not at all.

 

Talking about men's tendency to be polygamous, this is what one of my workmate complained to me some time ago, I told her that I don't believe in such a thing--that men have tendency to be polygamous so that we women must understand that. Men who say so are just irresponsible men and easily find a scapegoat for their being irresponsible by blaming/saying an excuse that "men are created to be polygamous." They are not willing to admit that they are just bullshit. A male workmate of mine who was there also when my female friend talked to me, he said, "It's all back to our own commitment in our own life, especially in our commitment when getting married. I think it is just natural for all of us--men and women--to be attracted to other people who are not our spouse. But, yeah ... only attraction for temporary, then come back to our own commitment with our spouse.

 

"It is obviously seen that this male workmate of mine is willing to imprison himself. Talking about marriage, well, I am not a marriage hater, just like what some people suspect me. When discussing marriage with my students, I just want to give them a clear description of what a marriage is, the position of man and woman in marriage, with many reasons that make people to decide to marry someone, where the reasons can be different from one person to another. Talking about prison ... who is willing to be imprisoned by someone else? :D

 

Semarang, April 25, 2006

 

P.S.: I copied the following writing from an old blog of mine, that doesn't exist anymore. I wrote it in 2006, it means this was based on my opinion 16 years ago. 😛 As the natural law says, I have changed too, although I still claim myself as a feminist. 😊

 

DATING YOUR HOMETOWN?

 

In an episode titled "Anchors Away", Carrie Bradshaw mentioned that New York City is a very good 'date' for single people. There are lots of theaters, parks, museums, night clubs, movies, not to mention restaurants. And if you are lucky, perhaps you will find a great love when you are dating your hometown. :D

 

Well, perhaps because Carrie is not an introvert person; she does not belong to a homebody type either.

 

 

 

As an introvert person, I cannot imagine I am dating Semarang, my hometown, lol. Semarang, the capital city of Central Java, is not a big city; though it is not a small one either. Even though Semarang does not have many 'amusement places' as Carrie mentioned (museums, theaters, parks, etc) I sometimes spend time to visit such places we have here, e.g. museums, but I don't do it alone. I do it with Angie, my daughter, or with Ranz, my biking mate. Once in a blue moon I watch plays in Taman Budaya Raden Saleh (before pandemic) because my (biking) friend played as one actor. :D watching movies is not my cup of tea to spend spare time. I'd rather watch movies in my laptop at home although it is perhaps not as entertaining as when we watch movies in the cinema.

 

I sometimes go to cafes, sometimes alone, sometimes with Angie when we want to eat out; or with Ranz when she is in town.

 

Despite the fact that when I was a teenager, I didn't really enjoy staying at home during weekend or holiday, (I used to like visiting friend's homes or hanging out with them somewhere) recently I stay home most of the time. As a part time teacher, I go to my workplace only when teaching. I do the preparation at home. After finishing doing my household chores, I will sit in front of my laptop, behind my bedroom's window (acting like Carrie does at SATC, lol) and start doing anything what I wanna do.

 

Before pandemic, I used to sometimes go to mall alone, just to get rid of boredom from my routines. After pandemic? I sometimes go to supermarket/department store nearby my house to go (real) shopping, not just for sightseeing. Pandemic indeed changes our lifestyle, do you agree?

 

Nevertheless, I think Carrie's idea is not a bad one.  Perhaps I need to go out more often, alone. I need to date my hometown, lol.

 

PT56 10.31 15.11.2022

 

FLIRT OR ABUSE?

 An old writing of mine, I copied it from my facebook note.

Just found it inside my mailbox. I wrote it four years ago. Well, I am not sure if I have posted it in one blog of mine (I sent it to a good friend of mine.) Now, I want to share it with my blog visitors.

 

FLIRT OR ABUSE? FLATTERED OR HARASSED?

 

When women become a criminal only coz of wearing “open” clothes—under accusation to turn on men’s desire when looking at their sexy body, why is there no law saying that men are allegedly guilty for abusing women by staring at women, or whistling at them or saying something abusive to women who don’t wear “open” clothes?

 

I was brought up in a very religious family, sent to an Islamic elementary school, indoctrinated that women’s body is the source of sin, that women can become the cause of the fall of men to hell due to women’s sinful sexy body. (Similar to the fall of Adam to this mortal world coz Eva gave in to Satan’s trick to eat “khuldi” (this is how Al-Quran named it)—the forbidden fruit in heaven.) Because of that, women are supposed to cover their source-of-sin body in order that men will not get aroused.

 

After I grew up (I always consider myself as a rebel), I started to wonder why all mistakes are put on women’s shoulder? Why is there no punishment for men who cannot control their lust?

 

Since knowing feminism, and got answers of my lots of questions (due to the gender bias in Islam) when I was a kid or teenager, I came to the conclusion that if women can control their lust (women are just human beings, like men, they have lust too!) when seeing naked men’s body, men are supposed to be able to control their lust too and not abuse any woman they want. I completely agree with Fatima Mernissi, a Muslim feminist Morocco saying, “If the rights of Muslim women become problems for a group of Muslim men, this is not engendered by Al-Quran or Islam itself, but this is caused by the different interpretation resulting in contradictory interpretation opposing the want of a group of elite Muslim men.”

 

sample of sexual harassment at workplace

 

Btw, some months ago, I had a middle-aged private student who was outstandingly pretty. We often took a walk for sightseeing or had lunch in a downtown mall. Contradictory from me that mostly wear my “uniform” (long black dress and black blazer—I am not an Amish nor Quaker though LOL) this student of mine loved wearing “sexy” clothes. The first time we went to have lunch, I felt very disturbed and annoyed by men who stared at her greedily. It sometimes made me want to throw my thick-heeled shoes to those men’s eyes! Later on, I realized, that not only her “sexy” clothes attracted those men with greedy eyes, she in fact also showed “inviting” body language to those guys. No wonder she didn’t feel abused. She herself invited those guys to abuse her.

 

As a feminist that believes women can do anything they like, as long as they enjoy it and not harm other people, I think it is okay for her to do that. However, as someone with very religious upbringing when I was a kid, I still sometimes didn’t understand why the hell that private student of mine attracted men’s attention demonstratively despite her outstanding beauty. Her beauty only was already enough to attract people’s attention. So, when she wore sexy clothes and showed inviting body language, it was just very understandable if then those guys with greedy eyes “abused” her. (Oh well, she herself didn’t feel abused. She felt flattered. LOL)

 

On the contrary from this flirt, LOL, I never show any inviting body language, I never wear any open clothes to attract men’s attention. I never feel ready to get abuse. Does it mean, then, I never get abused? Unfortunately, the answer was SOME GUYS WITH GREEDY EYES STILL ABUSE ME, by staring at me indecently, whistling at me, smiling at me abusively, etc.

 

The conclusion? SOME MEN ARE INDEED BIG SHIT.

 

Recently, in Indonesia there has still been a very “poignant” debate about pornography bill where it states that women are not allowed to wear body-hugging, tight and “open” clothes because it will cause men to get aroused. A woman will be punished if she unintentionally/intentionally turns on men in public, by wearing “sexy” dress, for example. Why is there no statement that men will be put into jail when they cannot repress their lust in public?

 

I prove it myself that although I mostly wear clothes covering all over my body (except my head), it still doesn’t stop men to try to abuse me. Who can guarantee that issuing such a bill will stop sexual abuse? Something wrong is not in what women wear, or how women walk and move, not in women’s voice, but in men’s mind! 

 

Nana Podungge

Semarang March 16, 2006

 

P.S.:

Or this is just myself who still cannot get rid of idea that men harass me when they stare at me 'unclearly' why. I myself need 'medication' to get rid of idea that I -- belong to the creature with breasts and vagina -- am the victimized and not on the way around despite the fact I have been 'indoctrinating' myself to be a feminist. As many 'wise' people say "We are what we think."

 

Ugh ... :'(

SHOULD WE BE IN A RELATIONSHIP?

 

Samantha and Smith

In (the so called) Western culture, where people can have sex with anybody they want -- as long as both parties agree -- and they do not need to bother thinking about 'being sinful to have sex outside wedlock', why should they get married? Or why should they still want to be in a 'relationship'?

 

(background of this thinking was: most of my 'respondents' (read => my students) answer when asked, "why people get married" was to be able to have sex 'unsinfully' and legally.)

 

I sometimes think this way. In my favorite serials SEX AND THE CITY, the three main characters (Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte) were shown to be okay to be in a relationship, only Samantha refused to be 'tied' in such a relationship. In one episode entitled "Plus One is the Loneliest Number", Carrie illustrated that New Yorkers will feel that their life is complete if (1) they have steady job (2) they have a place to live (3) a plus one. A plus one here is not always necessarily related to a boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife, but this one can also refer to a child.

 

Charlotte and Harry

 

 

Charlotte -- the most conventional girl among the four girls -- always thinks that having a plus one is important; this will make her feel loved and not alone to live her life; this will make her feel not miserable. Due to her love to Harry, she even converts to Jew in order to marry him. Miranda and Carrie undergo a long way to look for someone the most compatible with them; until Miranda realizes that Steve -- the father of her baby Brady -- is the one. Carrie -- the first main character -- finally ends up with Mr. Big a.k.a John Preston, the guy she falls in love with at the first sight in the first episode of season one, after a long up and down journey of their love.

 

Miranda and Steve

 

 

Why do they need to be in a steady relationship? And not enough just having random sex partners? First, perhaps to feel secure in one relationship, that there is someone beside them, that will do anything to make their life feel easier and better. Second, of course a safer sex, because they have steady partner for that.

 

Charlotte is the first of the 3 girls (Samantha is not included) who gets married. It is apparently due to the fact that she belongs the conventional type. Getting married is Charlotte's teenage dream. Miranda finally marries Steve after several breakups and realizes that Steve is the best partner for her, moreover Steve is the father of her baby.

 

Carrie refuses Aidan's proposal in season 4 because she is not sure whether she really loves him. She seemingly cannot let go Mr. Big's presence from her heart. Carrie and Mr. Big get married in Sex and the City movie 2. Why finally get married? And not just enough be in a relationship? Perhaps New Yorkers still worship marriage. Haha …

 

Carrie and Mr. Big

 

Samantha is the unique character because she seems to be highly confident with herself. Of course during 6 seasons of SATC, Samantha has several steady relationships. The first boyfriend is James, with whom Samantha patiently waits until their fifth date before making love. Unfortunately, James has a small dick that Samantha cannot accept. The second one is Mr. Cocky. On the contrary from James, Mr. Cocky is told to have too big dick Samantha cannot handle. The third is Chivon Williams. Their relationship doesn't last long because Adeena, Williams' sister doesn’t like to see her brother date a white woman. The fourth is Maria, the first time Samantha is told to have a lesbian partner. Their relationship doesn't last long because Maria is easily jealous of other men who want to date Samantha; and Samantha herself is not ready for a steady relationship with someone, moreover this someone is a woman. The fifth is Richard, the playboy. Samantha cannot accept the fact that many women like to date him, the rich tycoon. And the last one, Smith Jarrod, the sexiest and most loving boyfriend despite their quite big age gap.

 

Unfortunately, although Jarrod patiently and devotedly stays with Samantha while she is battling her breast cancer, and their sexual drive is compatible to each other, Samantha eventually says goodbye to her. This is perhaps either she belongs to the type who cannot stay with one steady partner; or Smith is too young for her.

 

--------------

 

How about in Indonesia?

 

Some time ago, I had a casual talk with a loved one. He told me about his (ex) workmate who refuses to get married although "he loves having sex". I asked him whether his friend refuses to get married because he doesn't want to be responsible with any 'burden' in a marriage. He said, "perhaps." when I asked him whether his workmate had sex with any random partner, he said no. perhaps he has a steady relationship with someone, only he doesn't want to marry her? Or is it their commitment together that they are just be in a domestic relationship without getting married? Unfortunately I don't get the answer yet. Because I am of opinion that even though the relationship is 'only' domestic, both of them must face the 'burden' together.

 

Meanwhile, another good friend of mine told me that his girlfriend doesn't want to get married. She only wants to be in a domestic relationship without legally getting married. My question is: is it already openly acceptable in Indonesia? Moreover in small cities? (not in metropolitan such as Jakarta.)

 

I also interviewed another friend whether he doesn't want to get married. He has a girlfriend. And he said, it is up to her whether they will lead the relationship into marriage. He also said that perhaps if he and his girlfriend live abroad, they will not think marriage knot is important, because he believes that domestic relationship is okay there. So, if until now he is not married yet, it is not because he avoids the 'burden' in a marriage. He let his girlfriend decide.

 

Another interesting story from a friend is that her college mate -- a transsexual woman -- is married (or perhaps 'only' in domestic relationship?) with a woman and live together 'normally' (I mean just like a common man-woman relationship) in one district in DIY. The neighbors know that one of the women is a transsexual one. And they accept this pair. Isn't it lovely?

 

To conclude, indeed, to be in a relationship or not depends on us. We are the ones who will be responsible with the consequences.

 

PT56 13.48 2 September 2022

 

Nothing in Common?

"How could two people who don't have anything in common be in relationship?"

 

Carrie Bradshaw asked herself this, related to her relationship with Aleksandr Petrovsky, a very famous Russian artist in season 6. His fame was world-wide, his colleagues were from anywhere. And apparently, Petrovsky's elit colleagues had judged Carrie's column as something far from art. Carrie's column on 'sex and the city' was apparently just a garbage for them. 

 

 

Meanwhile, it is true that Carrie knew nothing about Petrovsky's famous arty work. Even when the first time Carrie accompanied Charlotte to attend Petrovsky's art exhibit, it was not because Carrie was interested in art; instead, she went there for Charlotte, her best friend who worked for an art gallery. Petrovsky's interest in Carrie made him date her and then they became lovers.

 

Petrovsky was interested in Carrie's column and her witty as well as smart character which can easily be seen in her articles. Nevertheless, knowing that Carrie was not arty, he never involved Carrie in his work. When he was very busy to prepare his exhibit in Paris, he didn't let Carrie come in his workshop. Therefore, when he got stuck in his work, he got emotional and Carrie could not help him anything, but lending her ears.

 

 

*********

 

Around 15 years ago, when I was very close to a best friend I called 'Abang', he asked me whether I wanted to know (and learned) anything about his job, or the way he viewed things that were probably different from my way. He asked me this since he had tried his best to view things from my point of view. (FYI, he read lots of my writing in my blogs back then.) Selfishly, I said no. lol.

 

Recently, I have started thinking something similar with this. My (biking) soul mate is an IT graduate; she is responsible any work related to this in her workplace. Besides, she has a knack in photography. Knowing this, I rely anything related to IT and photography on her, for sure. Lol. I don't wanna know more things about these two things by myself. Let her do whatever she has to do, no need to involve me, lol. This made me think, although we both are compatible (we communicate well in most topics) I sometimes do not know some things she handles every day. Ah, in this case, I still stay the same, selfish of me.

 

Srambang, Ngawi, December 2019

 

In addition, does she understand things I must handle every day?  Are we two also like Carrie and Petrovsky? We have nothing in common? We have different taste of music, food, movies, and many other things. (but one thing though: biking, although recently, she seems no longer interested in it as much as years ago.) 

PT56 10.57 24 August 2022

 

 P,S.:

In fact, I have written something similar with this topic, lol, you can view it here

Other Half

 

the pic was taken from here

Intellectual gap is the main 'culprit' of the divorce between ex and me. You can condemn me anything, I don't mind at all, lol.

 

Based on this thing, I told my only daughter to focus on being compatible when looking for a life partner, with whom she can talk about anything with ease. Well, of course it is somewhat impossible to find someone who is 100% compatible with us, but, at least we can try our best to get someone who has the most 'common ground'.

 

*******

 

Honestly, as an English teacher, I heard this phrase -- other half -- for the first time only around 15 years ago, from one very good friend. He called his wife as 'my other half'. Better late than never, don't you think? At that time, I was of opinion that the phrase was a romantic one, instead of just use the common word "my wife". I didn't come to think where the term came from.

 

Until out of the blue I met someone with whom I share many things in common, things that oftentimes make both of us wonder, how come we have the same way of thinking, when viewing things? And, just like that, suddenly the phrase 'other half' came to my mind, and it made me think,

 

 

"Oh, is it why the phrase 'other half' is suitable to describe a couple? Because many common things unite them? 

 

 When writing this post, I didn't come to the phrase 'other half'. However, when starting writing this post, I read the article I entitled "why getting married". How many people who are married in fact are really 'other half' of their partner? How many of them really find their life partner compatible before they decide to marry him/her? I am of opinion that more people get married due to social pressure (perhaps this is only in Indonesia?) instead of awareness that the love they have for their partner comes from how compatible they are. If so, isn't it predictable that unwanted things will happen in their marriage?

 

Just my two cents.

Semarang, 29 March 2022

No ifs, and, or buts

 Dating for the first time

What made you continue dating someone? 

Or on the contrary, what made you decide to stop seeing him again?

 

In the episode 5 of season 3 SEX AND THE CITY, (the title is "No ifs, ands, or buts") Carrie met Aidan -- her second 'main' boyfriend in the serials after Mr. Big -- for the first time. Aidan was a furniture designer, cute, and still single (never been married yet). And it was falling in love at the first sight, if I may say so. Without thinking any further, Carrie decided to buy one big chair made by Aidan, in his store after seeing him; while in fact, at first, she reluctantly accepted Standford's invitation to visit the store. 

 

the four girls talk about Charlotte's date who happens to be a bad kisser

 

Carrie and Standford in Aidan's store

 Unfortunately, on their first date, where Carrie expected to have a passionate kiss that then would make her and Aidan continue having a relationship, Carrie got a big disappointment: Aidan didn't like seeing her smoking. He even told her that he would never date a smoker. Carrie got offended, for sure, as what she confided in Standford. However, her three friends supported her to stop smoking due to health. By the end of the episode we see that Carrie chose to continue dating Aidan and stopped smoking. Well, at least, she would not smoke while dating Aidan. :)

 

Carrie and Aidan on their first date

 

 

Meanwhile, Charlotte dated someone who happened to be a bad kisser. Her three friends spontaneously asked her to stop seeing the guy. But you know, the kind-hearted Charlotte didn't have a heart to just dump him after their first date. She thought she still could 'teach' him how to kiss well, lol. Unfortunately, by the end, Charlotte gave in. she eventually dumped him.

 

Carrie talks to Miranda about her new crush, Aidan

 

 Miranda had a little problem with Steve, her then boyfriend, in supporting his pipe dream of making a half-court shot at the Knick's game. FYI, Miranda was a successful lawyer, had her own big apartment, while Steve was a bartender. Men usually are not that confident facing a woman with much higher salary than them. It is understandable that Steve wanted to make his dream come true to get one million dollar prize. Perhaps by having such big amount of money would increase his self-esteem in front of his girlfriend?

 

While Samantha started dating an African American record executive, Chivon Williams. Samantha, who usually preferred having just one night stand date, decided to continue dating Chivon. Unfortunately, Chivon's sister disapprove their 'relationship' due to their different color of skin.

 

-----------

 

From the summary I wrote above, we can make a conclusion that some things can happen to stop us dating someone, let's say your date has a bad way to kiss, lol. How to kiss well? Well, of course It depends on everybody's interest, I suppose. Can someone's way to kiss be 'corrected' or improved, lol, as Charlotte said that perhaps the two can have a talk about it and that practice makes perfect? Lol. Or as Samantha said, "Bad kisser is NOT negotiable. If his tongue is just gonna lay there, what do you think his dick is gonna do?" lol.

 

While different skin color perhaps can make two people stop dating each other, moreover if the family disapprove the relationship. In Indonesia? It can refer to different ethnic group until the most 'popular' case: different religion.

 

Do you happen to know a case where two people stop seeing each other due to smoking? Or drinking? Or do you think these two things are still negotiable?

 

How about having a girlfriend who is more financially established, if you are a guy. Is it a kinda threat? Will it make you feel like you are not manly enough?

THE READER

 

In fact this movie is a flash back to Michael's past experience when he was a teenager. He was 15 years old; the setting of time was around the second world war.

 

Michael was not feeling well when going back from school. He took a tram and couldn't stand his bad condition. After getting down from the tram, he vomited in front of Hannah's apartment. Hannah -- 30 years old back then -- was the conductor of the tram. Seeing his bad condition, Hannah helped him, brought him to her apartment and took care of him.

 

Several days later, Michael went to Hannah's apartment, brought her a bouquet of flowers to show gratitude. At that time, he saw Hannah getting dressed and attracted to her beauty and sex appeal. Realizing Michael's interest in her, Hannah even seduced innocent Michael. Since then on, they had discreet affair.

 

One interesting thing in their affair -- for me myself -- was when Hannah told Michael she was illiterate, and was very curious to know how it was like to be able to read books. Therefore, then Hannah set up a new rule: she asked Michael to read her a book before their lovemaking.

 

 

 

After some time, out of the blue, Hannah disappeared; leaving Michael deeply broken-hearted.

 

8 years later, Michael was a student of a law faculty. His professor asked him and some other students to attend Nazi trials. To his horror, Michael found that Hannah was one of defendants as she was a guard at Auschwitz; she was accused of allowing several hundred prisoners to burn to death locked inside a church. Among some defendants, Hannah was accused to be the guilty one because she was the one who signed the instruction letter. She defended herself that she just did what she was supposed to do as her job description but because she (was forced to) admit that she was the one who signed the letter, she could not avoid her punishment: life imprisonment.

 

Michael was in a dilemma. He knew that Hannah was illiterate, so if he helped to tell the court about it, he could save Hannah from her punishment. He didn't understand why Hannah didn't tell the court the truth that she was illiterate. However, Michael chose to stay quiet.

 

******

 

Many years later, Michael, a widow with one child, still could not erase his past memory with Hannah. He kept his feeling guilty for years; this made him unable to have a good relationship with other women. To reduce his feeling guilty, he started to record his own voice while reading books, and sent the tapes and the books he read to the prison where Hannah was imprisoned. He just dropped the tapes and the books without meeting Hannah. He was sure that Hannah would know who the sender was.

 

 

 

Around 2 weeks before Hannah was free, Michael came to the prison, to meet her in person. The meeting was awkward. Hannah was a bit touched by Michael's attention to him, but she knew that Michael still kept a certain distance from her. Michael was described as doubtful what he was about to do. Their past affair formed Michael's character as someone who was always uncertain in facing women. (just my opinion, though.)

 

In that occasion, Michael told Hannah that he had prepared a place for Hannah after she was released from the prison.

 

On the day when Hannah ended her life imprisonment, Michael came to pick her up; only to find out that Hannah committed suicide.

 

My comment:

Why did Michael become so annoyingly coward? And I was very heart-broken when finding out that Hannah committed suicide. She survived from her long life imprisonment, only to end her own life on her free day.

 

Awards:

 

Kate Winslet (Hannah Schmitz) got Oscar for her best performance in a leading role

The movie got the best motion picture of the year

 

Boy, Girl, Boy, Girl

 The following article was inspired by one topic appearing in SEX AND THE CITY, with the same title" "Boy, Girl, Boy, Girl", episode 4, season 3.

Do you belong to the type of people who accept sexuality openly?

 

In episode "Boy, girl, boy, girl" of Sex and the City, Carrie dated Sean, a younger guy, after she was broken-hearted knowing news that her ex-boyfriend -- Mr. Big -- married another woman, Natasha, not long after their breakup.

 

On their third date, Shawn asked Carrie about her past relationship. Carrie mentioned her relationship that ended a while ago. then, she asked Shawn back.

 

Shawn: "Before you there was Kayla, an ironic. Before Kayla, there was Leslie, she could not commit. Before Leslie, there was Mark.

 

Carrie was shocked to hear that. Sean who could see Carrie's shocked expression asked, "is that a problem?"

 

The following day Carrie told her three friends. You can guess, Miranda and Charlotte could not accept that Carrie dated a bisexual guy, while Samantha showed her approval.

 

Samantha: "I think it's great.  He is open to all sexual experiences. It's hot.

"Bisexual is greedy." said Miranda.

"I am very in the labels. Gay, straight. Pick a side. And stay there." said Charlotte.

 

Furthermore, Samantha also said, "I am a try sexual. I will try anything once." doesn't she sound so challenging? Lol. I love her character so much, lol.

 

*****

 

Many people say that although SATC offered a breakthrough way of thinking entering a new millennium, the serial in fact, did not show the reality of New York which is a melting pot. The story was more about the white living there, only a little about the other 'race'.

 

This episode is an example. Carrie -- the self-acclaimed sexual anthropologist -- did not really accept bisexuality openly. It is as if although the people in NY admit that sexuality is not just straight and gay, they still consider that bisexuality is not supposed to happen among 'normal people'. Isn't as a sex columnist Carrie supposed to embrace all kinds of sexuality?

 

As one fan of SATC, I haven't watched the sequel, AND JUST LIKE THAT. Many articles say that AJLT is 'more New York',  all races are included in it, not just about the white. To me, AJLT sounds to be more receptive in describing sexuality too.

 

Btw, if your new date tells you openly about his/her bisexuality in an easy going way, how will you react? 

 

21.25 12/03/2022