Ghost Town

Carrie Bradshaw:

NY is definitely haunted. Old lovers, ex-boyfriends, anyone you have unresolved issues without balance you run into again and again until you resolve them. My relationship with Aidan was long dead until one invitation in front of me he was suddenly present my life again.

 

When one relationship dies, do we ever really give up the ghost or are we forever haunted by the spirit of relationship past?

 

======

 

Have you ever thought that perhaps your dwelling city is haunted?

 

I left the house where I used to live together with my ex in 2005; at that time I was still pursuing my study in another city. No wonder, I never bumped into my ex although once in a while I visited my hometown because I was still working there. A year later, I finished my study and went back to my hometown, but I didn't tell him although we were not legally divorced yet. Therefore, he thought I was still living in another city; and, although we lived in the same city, we still never bumped into each other. Consequently, he never knew I had finished my study, lol.

 

 

Honestly, back in 2005 I was seeing someone else, oh well, not just 'someone', but some guys, lol, although there was nothing serious between us. In fact, I was sort of crazy for one of them, unluckily he was married. Ha ha … (un)lucky me, eh? Lol. Nevertheless, I had never done anything to make him leave his wife, I JUST enjoyed him a little and I realized my position. I was sweet, aren't I? lol. I abandoned my relationship with that man because I knew I had better do it as soon as possible. I should not let myself carried away by my own feeling.

 

 

I believe that Semarang is not as big as New York (I took 'ghost town' as the title of this writing from one episode of Sex and the City where Carrie thought NY was haunted: Carrie and her three friends were haunted by their past relationships, lol.) but I never think that Semarang is haunted. I never bumped into anybody I once had relationship with.

 

 

My ex and I were legally divorced in 2008, when he was going out of island for some months; it was the right moment for me to legally end our marriage as soon as possible. When he came back to our hometown, he got a notification from Religion Department officer about our divorce. I intentionally avoided meeting him (to meet our daughter) when he came to my dwelling place. I kept doing it for years. I didn't want him to feel I was willing to be back to him if I spared time to be with him.  Honestly, our divorce in 2008 was our second one. We first got divorced in 2000, and remarried in 2002.

 

 

When my daughter told me that her dad was going to marry a woman, I felt very relieved. It was a big sign that he was really ready to let me go. I didn't need to feel haunted by him anymore. Ah yeah, I had to admit that although he and I never bumped into each other on the street, he was still haunting me. The haunting came to an end when he got married again.

 

 

However, I have never been haunted by some other guys I used to have 'fun' with, lol. Perhaps because it was only for fun? Lol. Or perhaps in fact, I belong to the homebody type, I am not like Carrie and her friends who love hanging out in some cafes.

 

 

Have you ever been haunted by your past relationship?

 

PT56 14.34 22 September 2020

 

Are you team of Big or Aidan?

 

Carrie Bradshaw Almost Screwed Up Relationships for Me

By Leandra M. Cohen, an intern but also the founder of Man Repeller

 

It is a truth worth acknowledging that there still exists a panoply of women who model their relationships after Carrie and Big’s.

The model rarely changes. She is emotionally confused; he is hot, cold, lukewarm, hot again, then cold before he’s gone like a Sour Patch Kid that couldn’t handle its own sweetness. And because in Sex and the City’s penultimate moment, Carrie ends up with Big, it gets worse. This panoply of women genuinely believe that anxiety, frustration, questions marks and turmoil make up what relationships are supposed to look like.

 

Observe the following paraphrased scene from the second season of the show: Carrie is sitting cross-legged in a comfortable chair looking out a window from her apartment, martini glass in one hand, portable landline in the other. She looks calm, but once she starts pounding on buttons, the martini glass flies and boom! She’s shouting into Big’s ear at 5 a.m., “I am a wo-man – a wo-man.”

 

This was in relation to his decision to leave for Paris for six months without explicitly telling her or providing her with an opportunity to weigh in on the decision, which is super fucked up, yes, and good on her for defending herself, but what red flag beams so loudly as the one that reveals that your partner is crossing continents incognito? Lest we forget this happened again in season five, when post-Aidan (her most sound decision) and affair (why, Carrie! Why!), Big went to Napa and left behind a shady ticket for her to come visit. On it read, “For when I get lonely.” She smirked like it was cute, but I don’t know, Carrie. You’re not a prostitute?

 

Aidan brings me to another interesting point. There are two finite schools of fandom among Sex and the City viewers: those who cheered for Big and those who cheered for Aidan. Those who cheered for Aidan, I have realized, respect themselves far more than those who did for Big.

 

Admittedly, I was a big Big fan. I am inclined toward the manipulation of a script and a show’s directorial pursuits, and the sauce! The drama! The steam that Big brought, it made for much better television than Aidan’s fried chicken and cherry wood love seats. Those two were always talking to each other in rhyme, he is in his slightly Southern accent of unknown origin and she as his “booth bitch”. It was corny and kind of annoying but the man offered to sand her floors. He wanted to introduce her to his parents and took all the familiar question marks that arise in the early stages of a relationship and gave them answers. He carved a chair from a big block of wood and turned it into a wedding gift for Carrie’s friend! That’s so real. But also, I guess, kind of boring.

 

Of course, television isn’t life and in your personal narrative – the one where you end up in love, first and far more importantly with yourself and then sometimes maybe, also, with someone else – it should feel like smooth sailing down the g-dang Suez Canal, not a tango through Niagara Falls. In life, boring is good. It’s not actually boring. Do people understand this?

 

I, for one, did not. I married an Aidan, yes, but that’s because I got lucky. Originally, I thought he was a Big. This is chiefly because he broke up with me before I was ready for that to happen and as a result, I experienced the fluctuation of Big doubts and tangled emotions. But these were self-imposed, I now realize. My husband was always very explicit about his impetus and even three-year post separation – a time during which we still had plenty of sex – when we got back together, he laid on the table that he was 25 and could not imagine that his reunion would be “it”.

 

I did not tell him this at the time, but I knew that if it wasn’t, I would never recover and thus have to murder him. But once volume two of our relationship got going, I felt like something was missing. I told my girlfriends that the spark had died. I even considered breaking up with him, but that would have been foolish.

 

It wasn’t a “spark” that was gone. It was the neurotic stories that I fed to myself during the previous three years. Back together, I always knew where he was. I never wondered when he might next reach out. I didn’t question what he was doing on his phone when he used it and I didn’t have to ask how he felt about me. I knew! All the hard stuff became quite simple and I almost disposed of it because I briefly mistook his Aidan for an absence of Big passion.

 

There is a piece of intel that is not often shared about companionship and when you know a relationship is right: when it is, everything feels easier. There are no question marks because the answers are in. the drama is null, the sauce is reliable (like pesto! Never not delicious) and the steam? Still there when you take hot showers.

This article was originally posted at this link.

Who is your favorite character in SEX AND THE CITY

If ‘Sex and the City’ came out today, Miranda would be the protagonist

By Harling Ross, a writer and was most recently the Brand Director at Man Repeller

 

This story first ran in June 2017, but Cynthia Nixon’s recent gubernatorial bid contributes a whole new chunk of evidence to my thesis. If ‘Sex and the City’ came out today, do you think Miranda would get political? Let’s discuss.

 

Out of the four main characters on Sex and the City, Miranda is by far the most universally maligned. Her name is dreaded result at the end of a Buzzfeed personality quiz. No one wants to be the Miranda. She is basically Hufflepuff.

 

Bearing these truths in mind, what I am about to say may shock you. Contrary to popular opinion, Miranda is actually the best character on Sex and the City. Not only that, but if the show had premiered in 2017 instead of 1997, I’m fairly positive she would have been the protagonist instead of Carrie.

 

Did I just blow your mind? Is the coffee that was in your mouth now dripping down your shirt? Don’t worry. It will all start to make sense soon.

 

Let’s start by breaking down the women’s personalities via the following conversation from the first episode of season four (appropriately titled “The Agony and the Ex-Tacy”)

 

Miranda: Soulmates only exist in the Hallmark aisle in Duane Reade drugs.

Charlotte: I disagree. I believe that there’s that one perfect person out there to complete you.

Miranda: and if you don’t find him, what? You’re incomplete? That’s so dangerous.

Carrie: Alright, first of all, the idea that there’s only one out there, I mean why don’t I just shoot myself right now? I’d like to think that people have more than one soulmate.

Samantha: I agree. I’ve had hundreds.

Charlotte and Samantha lack the complexity to qualify as potential protagonist material in any decade given they are essentially walking bundles of stereotypes (Charlotte; a prudish Pollyanna and Samantha, a sex-crazed vixen), so that leaves Carrie and Miranda as the only viable contenders. Emily Nussbaum once pointed out that “Before ‘Sex and the City’, the vast majority of iconic ‘single girl’ character on television, from That Girl to Mary Tyler Moore and Molly Dodd, had been you-go-girl types – which is to say, actual role models.” In 1998, Carrie Bradshaw was the first of her kind; a bonafide female anti-hero. But consider the optics of Carrie’s personality and aesthetic in 2017. She’s a try-hard. She only tells people what they want to hear. Her enormous apartment and shoe collection are laughably unrealistic. She eats politically incorrect meat. Her aspirational lifestyle and personhood is held together by tenuous strings of deluded impracticality. Miranda, on the other hand, never tries to cover up the dauntless core of her raw, unfiltered self. She in unapologetically blunt and tells the truth – a combination often misconstrued as cynical. By 2017 standards, Carrie is equivalent of an overly edited Instagram. She is the idea of a person. A snapshot. A fragment. Miranda’s sauthenticity is radical in comparison, and far better suited to our present-day hunger for “realness”. That’s what brands and identities are built on nowadays (Glossier, THINX, Jennifer Lawrence). In 2017, the raw, unfiltered self-reigns supreme.

 

Their respective personal styles reinforce this tipping of the scales in Miranda’s favor. Carrie is frequently celebrated for her bold fashion choices, and I would be the first to support her prowess in this regard. I frequently steal ideas from her various outfit combination, which are an actual treat to behold across the show’s six seasons. But I take issue with the fact that Carrie remains Sex and the City’s single, uncontested fashion icon while Miranda is dismissed as the least stylish of the group, especially given that Miranda’s wardrobe is actually more in line with the proclivities of today’s fashion climate. In her signature sleek suits, black turtleneck, trench coat, tiny sunglasses and effortless pixie cut, Miranda essentially looks like a French woman in Celine. Her more adventurous ensembles, like an overall/puffer jacket combo, are reminiscent of Vetements and Balenciaga. Dare I suggest that her style might actually fit seamlessly into the “cool girl aesthetic” of 2017? She’s a protagonist material any way you slice it.

 

Miranda’s relationships further underscore this claim. Skipper, Steve, and Robert are her three love interests -- a younger man, a man with a different socioeconomic status and a man of a different race. I realize these are paltry examples of boundary-pushing by today’s standards (and even now, the television industry still has a long way to go when it comes to tackling issues like stereotypical gender roles and lack of diversity), but in comparison to the other women, Miranda is by far the most progressive when it comes to relationships. Carrie, Charlotte and Samantha hook up with the same type of man over and over: handsome, financially stable, older, and white. It was supposed to be ‘shocking’ when Charlotte married a bald guy. A bald guy! I’m not forgetting Samantha’s brief dalliance with lesbianism. Unfortunately the show treated that relationships as little more than a joke, which renders it somewhat moot if I’m giving credit for bucking normativeness. Almost everything about the way Sex and the City depicts relationships would be problematic in 2017, but Miranda’s certainly come closest to meeting the higher expectations of today.

 

As I assembled the disparate pieces of this argument, I’ll admit I started to feel a bit badly for trying to kick Miss Bradshaw’s off her throne. I have a lot of genuine affection for Carrie. Her clothes are amazing. She’s massively entertaining. I rooted for her when I was introduced to the show in high school, and I still root for her now. But I stand by my conviction that Miranda has been dealt with an unfair hand. The traits her character is frequently reviled for – cynicism, honestly, drive – are, in my opinion, the traits that make her character the most interesting. Miranda is the 2017 protagonist Sex and the City deserves; Carrie would likely fill the role of her stylish, witty, adorably deluded, love-obsessed sidekick. At the end of the day, I’d rather be a Miranda. Wouldn’t you?

  

 This article was originally posted at this link. 

 

Defining Moments

 

Should we really make definition of anything?

 

In the western culture, people may have a one night stand 'date' without any explanation what kind of relationship two people have. Perhaps they can exchange phone numbers to continue dating -- and perhaps 'improve' to be boyfriend/girlfriend -- or they can just forget each other. No need to define what kind of 'relationship', except, perhaps a sentence like "oh he is just a guy to f*ck with" (said Samantha Jones, one main character in Sex and the City).

 

Nevertheless, in the episode entitled "Defining Moments" Carrie went out with Big for dinners and considered him as just 'friend' but apparently Big showed his jealousy when seeing Carrie dating Ray King -- a jazz musician -- so she asked Big, "What are we?"

 

Big answered, "we are friends."

 

"What kind of friends?" she continued asking him.

 

"Friends who listen to jazz, friends who eat pizza …"

 

However, if there was no Ray coming into their lives, perhaps Carrie would not ask him that question, "What are we?"

 

In the same episode, Charlotte also needed to define what kind of relationship she had with Trey. According to law, they were still husband and wife. However, they were already separated because Trey got a problem 'in bed'. And after Trey could solve this problem of his, Trey wanted to have sex with Charlotte everywhere, in a restaurant bathroom, in a bedroom of someone's house they visited, in a cab.

 

The fact that they were separated and they lived separately made Charlotte feel like she was just a sex toy for Trey. After Trey could solve his psychological problem and could have sex, Charlotte was waiting for Trey to beg her to live together again. The fact that Trey didn't ask her to be back to their apartment made Charlotte upset and she told her 3 friends, "I need to define what kind of relationship we have now."

*****

 

Indonesia absolutely has different culture. Despite the fact that (some) people have sex outside wedlock (either openly or secretly) in some social classes, people will not easily -- without burden -- say, "He is just a guy/girl to f*ck with" or "I had a one night stand date with that guy/girl some time ago."

 

 

17 years ago, one classmate of mine (when I was in college) told me openly about her husband who often despised her. She wanted to get divorced; however, it was not easy for her to file for a divorce because she was Catholic. Some classmates and I were 'enough' to hear how bad her husband treated her. Nevertheless, one time, she said, "Before filing for a divorce, I want to have one more baby from my husband."

 

 

I didn't understand her here. Compared to Charlotte and Trey who still loved and adored each other although they were separated, Charlotte still needed to define what kind of relationship they had; this classmate of mine? She often said she was 'enough' to be mistreated by her husband; but still, when she wanted to have another baby, she still wanted to have sex with that culprit.

 

 

Around 13 years ago, I wrote an article about "free sex is a (co) culture in Indonesia (already)". In the 'mainstream' culture, people still consider 'free sex' is from the West. However, in reality, even teenagers already did that. I once did a little survey asking my students about having sex outside marriage. They mentioned 3 reasons why they didn't do that. First, 'it is sinful'. Second, 'it can cause sexual diseases when people do it with a lot of sex partners. Three, "I am not ready to be responsible if my girlfriend gets pregnant."  The second reason -- this can lead to sexual diseases -- was the main excuse to control sexual need.

 

 

The male students I 'surveyed' referred to their girlfriends when talking about having sex before marriage, not just any girl. It means their relationship is clear: they are boyfriend/girlfriend. Meanwhile, once upon a time I had online male friends (in their mid-twenties) who said that they didn't want to do it with their girlfriends because they wanted to "keep the girls' virginity" until they married the girls; they felt responsible to make their future wife 'uncorrupted'. But they could not deny that they already needed to have sex. Therefore, they did it with any girl/woman who was willing to do it with them. And of course, they did not need to define what kind of relationship they had with that girl/woman.

 

How about you, guys? Do you need to define what kind of relationship you have with someone to do 'something special'? Or consent is all you need? "No need any definition of what kind of relationship, as long as he/she and I are willing to do that, just do that."

How can two people who have nothing in common be attracted to each other?

 

"How can two people who have nothing in common be attracted to each other?"

 

This question was asked by Carrie Bradshaw, related to her relationship with Aleksandr Petrovsky. Carrie, a columnist who loves fashions, claimed that she was not really arty. On the contrary, Aleksandr was like an art himself. So, when they have nothing in common, what in fact made them attracted to each other?

 

Carrie met Aleksandr for the first time in episode 12 of season 6, in one art exhibit, where Aleksandr was the artist. Carrie didn't show interest in the 'show'; she even considered it 'something not serious'; the thing that perhaps intrigued Aleksandr as the artist. Carrie never heard of the fame of Aleksandr's name before therefore she didn't feel guilty laughing at the art piece exhibited.

 

Carrie and Aleksandr

To show that the show exhibited in the gallery was serious -- a woman told to be not talking not eating for 16 days, 24 hours a day -- Aleksandr invited Carrie to come to the gallery at 03.00 to prove that the woman was still in the same position: sitting on a chair, doing nothing else but sitting.

 

From this moment, they started to be attracted to each other: Aleksandr who thought Carrie as someone who didn't understand art; and Carrie who thought Aleksandr as someone who didn't have the sense of humor as highly as she did.

 

Later on, Aleksandr never involved Carrie in his art job, even explained to her about what he was doing, like he never got interested in Carrie's job as a columnist although in one scene, she was described to talk about Carrie's column to his artist colleagues, who apparently didn't seem intrigued by Carrie's humor in the writing.

 

*******

Carrie with her 3 boyfriends in SATC

 

I was really intrigued by Carrie's question "How can two people who have nothing in common get attracted to each other?"

 

Carrie's statement in the following episode "a single gal spends most of her life searching for the perfect male." in fact explained what made Carrie attracted to Aleksandr at the very first place. She was single, waiting for a guy offering her a true love. Aleksandr was 'hot' (this was the way Samantha described him), he was also famous, and had "the whole floor to be his own apartment for himself" a.k.a rich. And he was seeing only one girl at one time. What else was a gal looking for in a guy?

 

What made Aleksandr attracted to Carrie? Perhaps her 'innocence' or naivety in viewing his piece of art was even intriguing, plus he saw Carrie as one lovely girl, as he said when they both had their very late date for the first time.

 

*******

 

Referring to my own experience. Hmft … I used to be naïve, I believe, lol. I didn't think I needed to find something in common with the guy I was attracted to back then, even when I was in the same age as Carrie Bradshaw in the serials Sex and the City, around 35 - 38 years old. First, of course, I needed to see something good -- attractive men. A guy didn't have to be gorgeous, lol, as long as I could cope up with, lol. After that to see if he and I could have a nice chat about anything, books, feminism, food, etc. if I found him boring, ya goodbye. :D

 

Recently, I have been making myself busy with biking -- bike traveling to cities around my dwelling place -- so I need at least to find one thing in common with a guy that I will be attracted to: biking. I am not really knowledgeable about bike parts, more to traveling by bike. However, having this one thing in common does not necessarily mean things will go smoothly; I mean I am not always interested in a guy just because this one thing. I need a guy who will understand my being agnostic; even better if the guy is also in the same 'boat' with me: not someone very religious. I also want him to have similar opinions with me in things, let's say politics; to have similar sense of humor; to get the knack of simple technology. And one most important thing: financially established for sure.

 

Hohoho … I am DEMANDING. Eh? Lol.

 

PT56 15.43 28 August 2020

Dating a high school boyfriend

 

I have written somewhere before this that the possibility to date someone from high school is almost impossible. And I mostly relate this to make friend (again) with our high schoolmates. Will we still have hilarious moments together like we used to?

 

In fact, in one episode, Carrie bumped into her high school boyfriend. The man was married before, but then got divorced. After having (accidental) dates, Carrie thought that it was okay to date Jeremy again. Both found each other more attractive (and perhaps also more interesting to hang out together?)

 

(Un)luckily, Jeremy was one patient in one mental hospital. His doctor didn't recommend him to have a girlfriend until 10 months later. Due to this, both Carrie and Jeremy obeyed the doctor's warning.

 

Referring to what I wrote before, perhaps it was possibly okay to date someone from our teenage years. At least, I have one friend who has been dating her high school friend. And once she asked me the possibility for me to do the same. Ahhh … hell no. lol. I don't enjoy coming to reunion gathering.

 

Well, I did find one classmate from high school on facebook, he used to have a crush on me, but as I wrote in one blog post of mine, we have grown into two very different individuals. I used to be so-called religious, now I am an agnost. He seems to be even more involved in religious activities (perhaps, lol) than back then.

 

It is good for those who find their love with someone coming from their past. And it is good too for those who cannot do that. We each have our individual tracks, don't we?

 

PT56 16.19 26 August 2020

Zsa Zsa Zsu

Butterflies … stomach flips. … All used to describe the happy anxiousness that is the crossroads of something you’re looking forward to with the unknown. Carrie called it Zsa Zsa Zsu at the end of Season 5 (“I Love a Charade”).  She describes it as the feeling you get when you meet someone you really like. That sort of lovey, butterflies feeling when you just want to be with someone. 

Her actual quote was:

“How do you sustain a relationship without the zsa zsa zsu?”

“The what?”

“That butterflies-in-your-stomach thing that happens when you not only love the person, but you gotta have them. Isn’t that what gets you through the years? Even if it fades, at least you have the memory of the zsa zsa zsu.”

Interesting concept. But I am finding as I am zeroing in on thirty during this #31WriteNow challenge that Zsa Zsa Zsu doesn’t always have to be romantically linked even though that’s usually what is being discussed. As I come to know myself more and am clearer about the things I want, the things I need, and the things that are non-negotiable, I realize Carrie has a point. A lot of relationships may last for a long time without a butterflies feeling, but do you want that? Would you have an issue knowing that someone you love didn’t mind being with you, but didn’t necessarily want you? (How many relationships do you know that fit that description? I can think of several.) In fact, how many relationships have you been in for that EXACT REASON?

I am finding Zsa Zsa Zsu moments everywhere. Teaching isn’t glamorous (at all), but have my Zsa Zsa Zsu/Mr. Feeny moments every time I see the light bulb go off. When a child sees enlightenment in a concept I’ve taught them (in or out of the textbook), I get the butterflies. Those butterflies stop me from leaving the profession at particularly low moments. My friends provide Zsa Zsa Zsu moments over the years when I’ve felt particularly lonely in a new and bigger city than the one in which I grew up. The rest of that episode was interesting … truly one of my favorites. Miranda realized how important Steve was to her while Charlotte stopped her ideal man list to realize an ideal man was in front of her.

Carrie had some truly poetic dialogue in this show. My favorite lines were at the end …

“When it comes to relationships, maybe we’re all in glass houses and shouldn’t throw stones. Because you can never really know. Some people are settling down. Some people are settling. And some people refuse to settle for anything less than butterflies.”

I am deciding that’s true for anything that truly matters to me. And I truly feel blessed that those things are coming into fruition in my job potential, my friendship circle, my family, my faith, and the man in my life. The things I hold close to me are important to me because I want them … not just because they are there and available. Setting was a true possibility. When you settle, you’re always hoping for something different while being indifferent in the now. So as I get ready for my birthday dinner party … I am truly happy for butterflies.

Where have you experienced (or at least hope to experience) your Zsa Zsa Zsu?

Copied from this link