I've rewatched and it wasn't much clearer the umpteenth time around. What was its objective? Is being a hooker synonymous with being powerful because as a prostitute one is commanding sexual authority? The whole "money is power, sex is power so money for sex is an exchange of power" comment from Samantha went completely over my head. I mean, I understand it literally but from an ethical point of view I'm not sure that it would work out exactly in that way.
The Charlotte tidbit was amusing. I think that it's interesting how she appeared a lot more relaxed in the earlier days than in even one season later. The artist's explanation of that female area being the centre of all that is powerful in the world took this episode down a more morally "acceptable" route (minus the gratuitous use of the C-Word) than the whole sex for money thing. Certainly not the greatest SATC episode but does raise a couple of interesting issues.

Yeah. She just reminded me of an older, louder and generally more obnoxious Debbie (Steve Brady's girlfriend in Season 6). Good thing she didn't appear again...EVER. Now if she were more like Susan-Sharon - who in my opinion wasn't half bad although she was louder than a french horn - she would have been invited back. Oh well, Amalita, see ya.

I totally understand what you mean Nikki, i didn't really take anything away from this episode, it was pretty unclear the whole point of this episode aside from just touching on the issues of 'money, power and sex' :shrug: