After reading a post online about the second movie of Sex and the City, I’m less than impressed. That series was about “how to live single and still be happy” for me; true, it’s not orthodox, but if you look at the female monarchs they all lived like the girls from the TV show. Eat whatever you want, wear whatever you want, consort with whomever you want and move on when the consorting ends. Who said Elizabeth wasn’t happy living that way? I always thought the classic “she must be so lonely, she’s single without children” to be a stereotypical mistake. Celebrate being free, celebrate your choices instead of moping over it. Be intelligent. Be fashionable. Be whatever you want, and don’t apologise for it.

One of the factors that made the message was Samantha. Eldest of the four, wild and free, she showed one way a woman can live – especially when she shouts out the window “You see us Manhattan?! We have it all!” She never apologises for who she is, happy being who she is.

But then I read that Samantha might be trying to get pregnant and… marry Smith. Meaning that all four girls will now be married, as if in order to achieve happiness eventually you have to get married and have babies. I’m not saying marriage+babies= doom, but marriage+babies does not equal happiness either. If she does get married, everything Samantha had said in the past would be a farce, leaving us with the question: is being single and being happy impossible after you hit 35?

This thought terrifies me. Nobody said I’m going to get married for certain. Nobody assured me a happily ever after ending. I’ll get married if I want to, but do I have to do the reverse apology or actually go apologising if I don’t? Did Samantha always feel that she was missing out on something? What if you don’t want to settle down with any old guy? Very few people actually marry their princes, and the vast majority end up marrying based on compromises and give-ins. What if I didn’t want to? Will I be satisfied, or would I always feel a gaping hole?

And is this what masculine society has forced us to think, or is this the natural course? Because life isn’t an HBO sitcom; like everything else, it has expiration date, and chances of marriage and conceiving decline after you hit thirty. So what if you are Samantha, and then suddenly realise that life isn’t actually worth living if you don’t have a husband and three children, but by then you’re already forty-three? It’s a bit too late for marriage and/or conception.

Being single means certain freedom. Sleeping at 3AM, waking up at noon, wearing whatever you want, buying only for yourself. As soon as you’re married and have kids, you stop caring for you appearance (most of the time), the kid is drooling and screaming in the other room and your husband is hungry. I’m not entirely sure which is better.

So I’m not saying the second movie, if the speculations are right, will be a betrayal to single women. But it will certainly be a betrayal to its premises.