Who Needs Mr. Big?
here we see the begginning of the inevitable transformation of the sex and the city main cast into exactly who they are actually portraying the lives of ... that is... fabulous new york city gay men. carrie kicks it off by mutating into her gay character foil, aka stanford. fuck, a gay male samantha? probably even too hot for hbo!
.
another interesting yahoo article i read today details a new tv series being developed in collaboration with candace bushnell, aka, the writer of the original sex and the city story.
.
.
in essence, this series, thematically differs from sex and the city in an "age-group in question" way. that, as opposed to four 30-something women who's lives revolve around their sex lives and it multifarious exploits related to it, this new story is about three 40-something (although less we forget samantha was fabulously 40-something) women who, the question of love supposedly having being taken care of already (or simply ignore... even more comic effect), are now in a position to take on the next big thing on the "to-do" this... career. the exploits are about how one gets to the top and well...stays there hopefully... with or without the exploits of sex and love, with obviously more interesting of course. as described by bushnell herself ...
.
'Sex and the City' was about looking for Mr. Big and trying to find him," Bushnell said. "This is about women trying to become their own Mr. Big for themselves. "
.
so thinking about my own situation? if there is going to be a "sex and the city" about 30 something women, and now 40 something women... what about 20 something gay men? well, of course, everyone knows that "sex and the city" really was about late 30 something gay men though. but still, what about our age category? the late 20's are sort of the netherworld of cultural un-popularity. the early 20's are devoured by MTV. i mean, when i turned 25, i realized i couldn't even try out for the "real world" anymore. can you imagine the depression i went through ;-).
.
seriously, what are late 20 somethings "suppose" to do? thinking about bushnell's comment about either looking for mr. big or becoming mr. big, maybe the late 20's are an age of naievete where you actually believe that with enough effort you might be able to land both? that is, find that awesome boyfriend that eventually you can marry and move to the suburbs with AND move up the corporate ladder to become CEO by 35? it's the optimism of youth when you think, geez, my waistline is the best it will ever be and i'm as enthusiastic about work as i'll ever be as well, that makes you think you are invincible. and granted, i think some people can do that. who are just utterly fabulous and able to land both love and career simultaneously. but for the most of us, i think the late 20's are about thinking you can do anything, eventually realizing you haven't done shit, and then going into a mid-life crisis when you hit 30.
.
i don't know much about funny... but that shit sounds like it could be hilarious... ok, maybe just poignant... but funny in a god, i'm such a dumbfuck and the only way i can move on is to laugh at myself kind of way. why has hollywood not picked this up?
.
at the moment, i am taking a "strategic management" class and it talks about how business strategies often fail because they aren't focused enough. it relates that often the reason that a business goes bad is because the owners simply do not make a choice about what they really really want and then take steps that serve that goal above other goals. a company can either be "cost-based" or "differentiation based". furthermore, you can either be "focused" in your scope or "broad". the two by two makes a convenient matrix where "generic strategies" are either focused cost-based, broad cost-based, focused-differentiation, and broad-differentiation.
.
now, let's talk about love and career. so if we make a matrix that is love and career by focused and broad, meaning you can either be utterly focused on love...or (not and) career or broadly focused on love or (not and) career. so which one would you choose, it seems there no way you can really have your cake and eat it to...or is there?
.
in all honesty, i think i'd rather "be" mr. big first that find him. and here's why. when you "are" mr. big, the ball is in your court. as shallow as it sounds, a man who's "got it together" is amazingly attractive, albeit his age. the thing about men, and i would argue a similar truth is the same with gay men, success in life (as in career) is an aphrodisiac in itself. on one hand we have plenty of examples of, for lack of a better word, "boy toys" and their "sugar daddies"... and on the other hand, which i'd rather more look forward too ... the pool of men who are like you ... that are well aged AND fabulously successful, is obviously smaller (bc not everyone becomes successful) and therefore, if comprability is a basis for good relationship, there are less rotten apples to throw out. in another way of saying ... i think when you are young, the field is much much broader, and therefor there are statistically more chances for NOT finding the right one in relation to finding the right one. everyone is given the opportunity to be young. in contrast, not everyone applies himself enough to become successful and reinforcing this is that most people, for better or worse reasons, at the very least don't mind their significant others to be successful.
.
so if i had to choose, i'd think i'd focus on being mr. big first. of course, the irony of the situation is that i'm in my late 20's. so ultimately, i don't know what the fuck i want.
.
fun little quiz to tell you which sex and the city hunk is your man!
.
posted by faux chink @ 6:06 PM
1 Comments:
Alex - You ARE Mr. Big - only way hotter...! Are you going to come wtach balloons get blown up with me??!
Post a Comment
<< Home