Fashion Board 3-5-04 to 4-6-04

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
If we're doing this, then Nic Cage and his movie are really screwing up the parking in my neighborhood.

If you were worth your salt, you'd get at least $2,000 for the inconvenience. Don't tell them I told you so.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
If you were worth your salt, you'd get at least $2,000 for the inconvenience. Don't tell them I told you so.

I'm one of the rare three-flat renters with garage space. Doesn't bother me at all.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
I can't remember. I'm not much of a drinker (anymore), and when I find myself in a drink-ordering situation, it's often the only thing I can think of (I panic!), so I get it. (Acutally, I usually ask if the place has any "house" drinks that are its specialty, and often go with that if it sounds good.) If not, I'll get that or something else that is good-tasting. Gin & tonic doesn't seem "special" enough for those occasions when I'm going out. I can make gin & tonics at home.

But whew -- martinis -- I went to some event last summer with my husband and a member of this "club" (a town historical society -- nothing fancy) was making martinis as they are his specialty. I had a few and could barely walk. My husband (who weighs about 70% more than I), couldn't either. Damn, they pack a punch -- and you barely notice. No thanks. They just knock me on my ass, and that's not fun. We got home and both of us basically passed out. I don't enjoy that feeling.

SATC was largely about [over-]analyzing relationships -- but that's what a lot of chicks do -- which is part of why it resonated with so many women. Talking about shoes -- that's pretty lame, but that was more of the "fantasy" element of the show, which, while fun, was not really the point. There were one-liners on that show that were absolutely hilarious, and the last season had some really touching moments. (The penultimate season was not its best, but it was a really enjoyable show.)

For my part -- I'm willing to do my part in the interest of scientific advancement -- I'm pretty sure RP will go along (we are, if nothing else, selfless.)

I don't fuck around with the martinis either. "Loudmouth soup" will put you on your ass. You know what really kills me? Red wine. I love it, but it levels me.

RP is still smarting in the corner of the ring from Coltrane's "stupid americans" comment. He's right - Champagne is soda. If you can't drink that straight, you can't drink anything... and dilluting good champagne is sinful.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
In a drug-related note, ncs was proven correct (and therefore Slave was proven incorrect) to a certain extent last night by Peter Jennings who did an in-depth report on ectasy.

Bottom line: The government has been exaggerating its harmful effects and you have a better chance of taking some prescription drugs and dying than X. No studies have been done on long-term effects, but there is only one study (a German one) that any of the non-government scientists put any stock into and it says that seratonin (sp?) levels in the brain are not dramatically reduced by the 60-85% amount the gov't argued they were. It's more like 3-5%, with sustained use. Further, any such damage is reversible after you stop using.

The main problem is that the government made it illegal, which means now you don't get pure X, you get shit that's been cut with lots of other cheap crap. And there's the danger.

TM

Right. Street X most likely has other stuff cut in, such as speed. What pisses me off is the government's treatment of the stuff. Mainly because I have a problem with being lied to. If they want to advertise that it could be a gateway drug, fine. But don't tell kids that they might die from it. They're more likely to get hit by a fucking bus crossing the street.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't fuck around with the martinis either. "Loudmouth soup" will put you on your ass. You know what really kills me? Red wine. I love it, but it levels me.

RP is still smarting in the corner of the ring from Coltrane's "stupid americans" comment. He's right - Champagne is soda. If you can't drink that straight, you can't drink anything... and dilluting good champagne is sinful.

Poor RP. post after witty, clever post, AND elevation to the lofty position of moderatrix, she is still confused with PJ. Moral of stroy. If you are gonna start a word in your moniker with "P" go all the way with the alliteration.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
When you begin comparing your husband to Sebby, you have a problem.

Early on I thought SATC was funny. The episode where the slut had a bf with a tiny penis was my intro to the show, and it was hilarious. It was never insightful, I thought -- the attempted insights were trite, obvious at best.

Hard to understand why you would think men find the show "threatening" -- I suppose some men are uncomfortable with women who are comfortable with sex

Naah -- though I tend to describe the more cartoonish aspects of mr.dtb on this board, he is more than the one-dimension I tend to highlight. How funny would it be to talk about what a steady family-man he is, or what a hard worker, or good father, etc. That doesn't make for much entertaining conversation, even though it's true -- and I'm sure Sebby is more than his "persona" here (as are we all).

Yes, SATC dropped off a bit here and there, but what show hasn't (I am admittedly on shaky ground here, as I don't watch many tv shows)? I never said it was insightful -- what person's life is fraught with deep meaning at every turn? I said it resonated with lots of women -- because women have inane and repetitive conversations about relationships.

What's so hard to understand why men find the show "threatening" (I did say "men of [a certain] ilk" -- though I know how you like to take offense when anything against men is proffered)? Men are threatened by women who talk about sex (and as many have observed -- women talk about sex a lot -- and they don't lie; which for some men is likely unsettling). Is it your view that no man is threatened by a show depicting true-to-life (well, for a tv show anyway) conversations among women? Why else the visceral reaction against it? It's not like it was offensive so as to deserve the vituperative remarks against it. Was it often trite? Sure. Was it silly? Sure. Was it fantasy (I mean, how did she afford all those clothes?!?)? Of course. But to hate it with passion like the heat of a thousand suns seems a bit exaggerated. So you tell me. If not "threatening" then why the overreaction?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're slippin. Take a day off.

If you're going to try to come at me, make something up. This "that wasn't any good" type response doesn't mean shit.

TM

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Because that whiskey drinker had experienced Booker's, which is like sucking the sweet milk from the tits of Mother Nature herself.

So I take it you won the Jim Beam account for the firm. Congrats.

Just please do us all a favor, and try not to also extol the virtues of their new maxi-pad when and if you guys get the Playtex business.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
They're filiming In Her Shoes, right? A friend of mine's client just spent two weeks on that set with Cameron Diaz and Shirley McClain. Little old lady actress in her 80s who refused to comment on how Cameron Diaz dresses....

That's the one. I saw Toni Colette being attended to by her entourage on Market Street. No Cameron sightings, however.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by dtb
What's so hard to understand why men find the show "threatening" (I did say "men of [a certain] ilk" -- though I know how you like to take offense when anything against men is proffered)? Men are threatened by women who talk about sex (and as many have observed -- women talk about sex a lot -- and they don't lie; which for some men is likely unsettling). Is it your view that no man is threatened by a show depicting true-to-life (well, for a tv show anyway) conversations among women? Why else the visceral reaction against it? It's not like it was offensive so as to deserve the vituperative remarks against it. Was it often trite? Sure. Was it silly? Sure. Was it fantasy (I mean, how did she afford all those clothes?!?)? Of course. But to hate it with passion like the heat of a thousand suns seems a bit exaggerated. So you tell me. If not "threatening" then why the overreaction?

I wasn't taking offense* -- I was finding it odd that you would assume that your husband's response to a TV show is based on the same personality traits as Sebby's response.

Neither SATC nor any other TV show has antagonized me to the level of passion that you described (well, Buffy -- but that was positive passion, and that's quite different), so perhaps you are describing a phenom I don't understand.

As I suggested, I do believe that some men are threatened simply by women being comfortable with sex, and with talking about sex. So, I'm not sure what you are looking for. More than that, I would suggest that negative reactions to a cultural artifact tend to be similar in force to the positive reactions to that same artifact. So, your husband, or Sebby, or whomever doesn't particularly like the show. Would they rant and rave about it, if the show were getting only a lukewarm response from the general, and especially female, public? Doubtful. But the show gets held up as some icon of insight, brilliance, womanhood (yes, I'm exagerrating here), and the reaction to that grows from "I don't really like the show" to the furor of spitting bile that Mr. Bill apparently descended into on a weekly basis.

If people didn't seem to love reality TV shows, to get totally absorbed in them, almost to form a special "club" of reality TV watchers who appeared near-obsessed with the things, would the discussions of reality TV on this board send Bilmore into a kayak-paddling, let's-eat-only-the-things-we-kill-with-our-hands frenzy? Probably not.




*As to the exchange that I know you're referencing, can I suggest that we not bring that up? I've grown to like you again, so please don't remind me of a comment that will only fuck that up. Especially since you've apparently learned the use of qualifiers in the interim.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So I take it you won the Jim Beam account for the firm. Congrats.

You wound me. Since when am I such a complete and total whore?

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
If you were worth your salt, you'd get at least $2,000 for the inconvenience. Don't tell them I told you so.

Not when the local Alderman already got $20k...

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
That's the one. I saw Toni Colette being attended to by her entourage on Market Street. No Cameron sightings, however.

Little old lady client was in LA last week for the shoot with Cameron Diaz, and she reported that she didn't see Toni Collette at all when she was there, so that gels with my intel. If I remember the book right, the Cameron Diaz character has some scenes in Philly, though not as many as in Miami, which I assume LA will stand in for.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by dtb
What's so hard to understand why men find the show "threatening" (I did say "men of [a certain] ilk" -- though I know how you like to take offense when anything against men is proffered)? Men are threatened by women who talk about sex (and as many have observed -- women talk about sex a lot -- and they don't lie; which for some men is likely unsettling). Is it your view that no man is threatened by a show depicting true-to-life (well, for a tv show anyway) conversations among women?

I find it hard to understand because I don't really know men that are threatened by it. I imagine three categories of man-opinion on SATC:

1) like it, like the flashy lifestyle, also spend too much money on shoes, love that Samantha is a big slut (This is mostly one guy, but I'm sure that there are more like him.)

2) think the show was kind of interesting and amusing on occasion, and had a few insights, but think that it was completely played out by the end, think that it displayed well stereotypical behaviour of the kind of women I often dislike (Charlotte and Carrie were the ones playing into these stereotypes in the show sometimes) and it got really annoying when every show was "[insert concept here] is like dating and living in New York. (This is me, and most of the men that I know.)

3) didn't like it, because they were threatened by it, didn't like the idea that women were powerful and talked about small dicks and bad sex and things like that...

I guess you're talking about category three, but I don't really see the "threatened" angle. The women on SATC were often really kind of pathetic and sad, as would be any character emulating a stereotype. It's not like any of the characters really had redeeming qualities or much character development; I was amazed how fluffy the show still was after 5 or 6 seasons. Things happened to them, but the characters were still just cardboard cut-outs of people. There certainly are men who are threatened by strong, powerful man-emasculating women, but I just don't see those kind of men being threatened by the women portrayed in this show. Maybe I just didn't watch it enough, but when I watched it, I saw four women just fawning over male relationships and making bad decisions. Furthermore, I don't really know women like that in real life. The ones that are kind of superficially like that (like to go to openings, have drinks with their friends, wear nice shoes, etc.) aren't nearly as neurotic or as obsessed with being loved by a man as those women are. I guess the whole point of the show was that they were still single in their mid-thirties, and that dating was tough for single women in their mid-thirties in NY. But from what I've seen, attractive, successful women who want to define themselves in terms of their relationships can get into long term relationships with men whenever they want, even if they're kind of neurotic and hard to deal with.

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't fuck around with the martinis either. "Loudmouth soup" will put you on your ass. You know what really kills me? Red wine. I love it, but it levels me.

RP is still smarting in the corner of the ring from Coltrane's "stupid americans" comment. He's right - Champagne is soda. If you can't drink that straight, you can't drink anything... and dilluting good champagne is sinful.

I CAN drink it straight, ass--I just LIKE mimosas with French toast. And I never poison really good drinks, of any variety, with mixers.

And I drink my mimosas, which are without doubt uncool, girly, simpy, and a truly prissy country-club drink to scarf by the gallon at baby showers, without apology. So insult away.