‘Sex,’ Etc.

Howard Rosenberg obviously adores “Sex and the City,” whereas I merely think it’s semi-smart, somewhat amusing and modestly insightful; definitely not the laugh-out-loud “funniest comedy in prime time” (“Sex, Act III,” June 9).

And, as for an upset at the Emmys--come on Howard, let’s be honest--no network is allowed to air this type of program. It’s operating in a totally different universe.

Finally, let me help you reconcile this series with Darren Star’s “lower-brow hits”: He’s a talented writer who’s been freed of the straitjacket of conservative mainstream television.

LUCIA HERNANDEZ

Los Angeles

“Sex and the City” is set in New York, but there don’t seem to be any Asians, blacks or Hispanics living there. Just a world of sex-obsessed white women who bore the hell out of me.

NEIL ROBERTS

Los Angeles

Rosenberg’s column was disturbing, not because of the show’s content, but because of the fact that here we have another superb television show on a premium network.

Over the last 10 years, television viewers have slowly gone from watching great shows (e.g., “Seinfeld,” “Northern Exposure”) on free TV to having to watch equally excellent shows like “Sex,” “The Sopranos” and “The Larry Sanders Show” for a price.

Some may argue that moving television shows to the premium mode gives producers greater freedom regarding content. More and more, however, it just seems to me that premium outlets like HBO and Showtime are giving producers and networks an ever-increasing excuse to charge their audience for programming.

Just like having to sit through commercials in movie theaters before we can watch a film that we already paid for, I believe that the future of television will involve both corporate advertising and a monthly service fee. Very sad.

DARRELL CRAIG

Irvine