Did women really fall for this shit?
>>218200191Dunno, but it was originally Sex in the City. Mandela Effect.
>>218200191Wasn't it sex IN the city?
Oh yes.
>dood the HUSTLE AND BUSTLE of the city>drama and hookups!>oops are we are now all bitter 40 year old spinsters
>>218200230I wonder how many women's lives this show directly ruined. Hundreds? Thousands?
>>218200211Yes, 100% it was. I remember joking that the producers specified that the women were having sex in a city, as opposed to sex in a rural area;etc.The Hadron Collider pierced the membrane separating dimensions. Really. So aspects from all 17 seep in.
>>218200250>I remember jokingAnd the basis of your joke was wrong, dumbie
It was a pretty clever and funny show at the time. Too bad they let a horse play the lead. The movie was like a parody of the show.
>>218200270No, retro-causality is a scientific fact, it was even reporting on CNN's website a the very bottom a couple of weeks ago. The present and the future can affect the past. Yes.
>"You're gonna need a bigger boat!"^ this it the new fixed reality as it was:>"We're gonna need a bigger boat!"
I watched it for she. Or was it a different show? I don't remember, I was a kid.
>>218200191Even the original author herself fell for this shit.>>218200230The problem this shit only "works" if you have a handsome and rich businessman who's madly in love with you at the end of the rainbow. Which is just not the reality for 99% of the women in general let alone the ones who live like this.
>>218200211I swear it was sex with the city.
>>218200360I like how you have no clue the other charaicters story.
>>218200319No way this is real
>>218200622Go check. Btw Amazon is still selling official merch that says: "We're".
>>218200191They fall for just about anything that comes from a position of authority i.e. the television.
>>218200191Yes. Not only that but they actually emulated them, with different girls in various friend groups assigning themselves the characters. "OMG, like, I'm sooooo Carrie and, Rebecca, you're definitely Charlotte.... teehee."
>>218200250Yes. That is the most plausible theory.Some fringe lunatics, however, are claiming that it is really easy to mishear in and and. Sex and the City > sex'n the city > sex in the city. They even claim that when you're reading things quickly your brain has a habit of making assumptions about what it is reading instead of paying attention to every letter of every word.But luckily you and I, we know that it is actually quantum leap retrocausality dimension shift.
>>218201087https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a63788081/consciousness-retrocausality/
>>218200211No. The show is about sex and NYC.
>>218200191All of them. Any order
>>218200191I still have PTSD from that ugly short haired one flashing her tit in that one scene. I didn't even fucking watch this show, I just zapped around on TV blindly and then this happened. Yuck.
>>218201244was the tit really that ugly?
>>218200191This show ruined a generation of women. Its effects are still felt today.
>>218201682
>>218200230Then why did they make a sequel
>>218200191I remember having a crush on SJP as a kid from Flight of the Navigator and also Hocus Pocus but she looks ugly as fuck. All the other girls mog her. Kim was obviously the hottest looking back.
