LOVE it, hate it or completely ambivalent to it, Sex and the City is still the benchmark when talking about depictions of love, sex and relationships.
The show was never about sex or the city - it was about friendship, it fetishised female friendship. Its girl gang was aspirational, rather than admirable. It was the Yiddish proverb "your friends are God's apology for your relations" televised.
Sarah Jessica Parker, the actress who played columnist and fashionista Carrie, said in an interview this week: "I like to remember that Carrie and the other women in Sex and the City were really nice to each other. It's kind of surprising to say, but in a way it was a more innocent time."
The show finished in 2004. Was it a more innocent time? Or was it just that the show presented idealised notions of female friendship rather than the real thing, the real messy, complicated, insecure and wonderful real thing?
Popular culture's task is to identify a gap in the lexicon and give a name to it, gifting a universal code with which to talk about our experiences. Sex and the City did that for young women, for their friendships and relationships. We learned the language in that unusual situation, that of being able to eavesdrop on what other women say in the bosom of each other.
It also gave young women something other than dresses to aim for. Parker is right, the Sex and the City friendships were largely glossy and warm, as real to life's friendships as the notion that so many designer shoes are easily attainable.
Carrie had her inseparable band of four, making women who had only one or two besties - or a splintered mob of one-here and one-there - feel inadequate. They would bustle to each other in the heat of crisis for a face-to-face emergency meeting, making those who send a text message feel inadequate.
Carrie and her gal gang made female friends the priority, even if the show's protagonists occasionally put mistas before sistas. While I didn't particularly like the women, I wanted my friendships like this - unconditional and honest and regularly round a table sharing food.
The SATC foursome broke taboos - and I don't mean those taboos. Carrie is the first woman I can think of to float the notion of a Gift List for singles, that we spend money on weddings and childrens' presents with nothing in return; a fairly revolutionary notion. Ditto Samantha and her proud proclamation that she was 45 and didn't give a hoot. Mulling it over, I can't think of a single time they spoke about their weight.
The show's friendships were farcical and cliched and a little bit rubbish among the snap of glamour - just like life.
In her interview, Parker adds: "Women that dominate culture today are pretty unfriendly towards one another. They use language that's ... not supportive."
Maybe, but it's also more real. In real life women can be backstabbing and bitchy, selfish and difficult to know. It doesn't make you love them any less.
SATC never dealt with friendship failure, which was a failing. It's easy, in a relationship, to blame the other party but impossible in friendship. Even if it's not you, you'll still place the blame at your own feet. It's harder and more painful to analyse what you said or did or - as likely - didn't say or didn't do. SATC skipped all this.
The beauty of female friendship is how it makes life's damages fade to specks, and SATC showcased this as elegantly as it did the splendour of New York at dusk.
I admire Parker's idealism and I would love that female friends are fastidiously forgiving, but I also like a chum to tell me when I'm insufferable - that was the one lifestyle aspiration SATC truly lacked.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article