While I was driving us up to Greenville on Saturday — meaning that I was a helpless captive at the time — my wife mentioned having looked at my blog, something she seldom does.
I thought, UH-ohhh, but out loud, I said, "Oh, you did?" I could tell she was about to light into me for something.
Sure enough, she called me a hypocrite for having called "Sex and the City" "trashy," because I watch and enjoy "The Sopranos." (On DVD, that is.) She submitted that there had never been, and never would be, anything in any episode that was anywhere near as bad as the fifth-worst thing that happens in the most family-values-oriented "Sopranos" episode ever produced. (She didn’t say it in those words exactly, but that’s the gist.)
"Of course, you’re right, dear," I said carefully, the way Tony spoke to Carmela at the end of episode 33, "Second Opinion." You remember — Tony comes home to find Carmela curled up on the couch, and she informs him that they ARE giving $50,000 to Columbia, and he starts to lay down the law, and she tells him again that they ARE giving the 50 Gs to their daughter’s college, and Tony wises up and realizes he’s being made an offer he can’t refuse, and starts try to think of what he can possibly say to get her to stop talking to him like this…
At one point, I did try to assert myself by noting that she watches "The Sopranos" with me — it actually kind of surprised me when she started watching it with me; I think she got pulled in because she sort of identified with Carmela (and she leaves the room whenever violence seems imminent) — but this was a tactical mistake on my part. It seems that that was neither here nor there; SHE had not publicly called anything "trashy."
So I thought hard about WHY I had written that post to begin with, and then I remembered, and it seemed exculpatory. So I explained that calling that lovely show with the nice ladies "trashy" had not been MY idea; I was simply reacting to a headline in the WSJ that raised the question of whether "Sex and the City" — actually, the fashion inspired by "Sex and the City" — was "empowering" or "trashy." And
I had just said, of course, it’s trashy; isn’t that the point? I mean, look at the title. (Extra points question for those who dare: With which program is the picture at right associated? Hint: This is not a dancer from the Bada-Bing!)
Yes, she understood that, but that was no excuse to go on and on in a holier-than-thou way about protecting children from "trash" like this, that a guy who watched all those naked women with their fake boobs at the Bada-Bing! doing nasty and degrading things in between the bloody murders had any room whatsoever to talk about such things. She explained that three of the women on "Sex and the City" are actually looking for love, that there was only one woman on the show who was an actual slut, and she recognizes herself as such, and that in any case sex was nowhere near as bad as violence, and for that matter the sexual content of "Sex and the City" wasn’t nearly as horrible and twisted as the sexual content on "The Sopranos." All of which, I’m quite sure, is true.
I sort of tried denying that the dancers at the Bada-Bing! were attractive to me — which they’re not; they’re too plastic-looking — and talked about how necessary it was for the viewer to be reminded how sordid Tony’s business was, so that we never start to think that the way he made a living was OK and start sympathizing with him too much, but I was not going to win this argument; it was fixed going in.
Then when we got to Greenville, I found out my sister-in-law had had a rare night away from the kids the night before — she’d gone to see "Sex and the City." Then this morning, I see a comment from Laurin Manning back on this post, in which she noted with amusement that no women had been a part of the discussion of this year’s biggest chick flick.
At which point, it’s probably a good idea for all guys present to stick our hands in our pockets, stare at the floor, shrug and go silent. I mean, Whaddaya gonna do?
