Skins: "The Most Dangerous Show on Television"

[Mini 14]

Skins” is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled “Skins” the “most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children.” The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.

Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week, “ ‘Skins’ may be the most realistic show on television.”

The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng

Has anyone seen it? I did. Worse than you can possibly imagine. And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."

The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode. Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water. Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit, The weed got wet". And they laugh and laugh and laugh... Scary.

Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous. Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.

This, a product of capitliasm... give the consumer what it wants. There is no morality when tit comes to profit. It's so funny to me that it is often conservatives who complain about television and it's material, yet are the foremost proponents for free-market capitalism, yet it is capitalism that directly produces these kinds of shows.

You're right.

And it is also capitalism that is choking the life out of it now that it has hit the air.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not just about whether it sets a bad example; most of tv does that.

It's the fact that it's CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. It is providing sexually explicit material TO children (furnishing) and it is portraying children in sexually explicit ways. This is against the law, and harmful to children.

 

[G.T.]

I am flummoxed as to why someone would let their child watch this, what exactly would be the purpose? what not to do? you can tell them that, they need to see it? Take them to a jail, show'em around. take them to skid row.....


and I thought one of the major issues was MTV may have used underage actors?

The purpose is a philosophical one. There's a couple of schools of thought.

#1 is that you shelter someone from the wrongs of the world....which could go wrong because they *may* be void of what to do once the shelter is lifted as pertaining to said situation. But it could all work out.

#2 is that you don't censor, you instead teach-of............and hope that they understand. This could also go wrong in-that your kid might be gullible and wrought by (said show/thing in life's) wrath.

Traj,
The original discussion was whether or not the show is dangerous and irresponsible. GT (no kids) and others (MOSTLY no kids) think its fine just the way it is, and not anything anyone should be concerned with.

Me (parents), and others (MOSTLY parents) think it sends a dangerous and irresponsible message to kids of a VERY impressionable age.

One of the tangents that GT and the other "pro-show" crowd have taken the original discussion along is that we are trying to censor the show.

Some are.

I'm not.

I see it for how it could affect teenagers, and thus, their parents. Not as a cheap thrill for people who it can't affect (those past the age of impression, or those without children of that age).

Its shock tv, no question.

And it appears the sponsors and the network are beginning to see that it isn't being received very well, even though it is chock full of kiddie sex and drug use.

I predict it will be gone before the first season is completed.

And you're right.....one of the major issues is that the ages of ALL of the actors playing the major characters are between 15 and 19. Not a single adult in the central cast.

I never brought it on the actual cencorship discussion. When I said censor, I meant on a personal level. I didn't see you promoting censorship of the show itself, on a national level, and never accused you of such.

Also, I also agreed that if the market decides people don't like it, then good, get rid of it.

Also, I never said it's not anything anyone shouldn't be concerned with. First off, I said that if you're a parent with a well-enough adjusted and taught kid, you shouldn't be concerned. And there's a difference between me saying that, and you saying what I said above.

Also, I never saw every episode, obviously they're not even all released yet, but if it one day breaches "child porn," then I have an obvious problem with that as would anyone, not b/c viewers but the actual actors themselves. I haven't seen that yet. I also posted a sex scene from 90210. West Beverly High! (in fairness, they portray high-schoolers but the actors themselves might not have been underage as these dweebs are).

 

[G.T.]

It's not just about whether it sets a bad example; most of tv does that.

It's the fact that it's CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. It is providing sexually explicit material TO children (furnishing) and it is portraying children in sexually explicit ways. This is against the law, and harmful to children.

I think that if the acting itself breaches child pornography, then I'll have an issue with it. I've not seen that, yet. You posted the law, which is nice, but the language of the law itself and the portrayal of the show itself is going to have the be subject to judicial review for me to know that for sure, because right now, to me, it's not "explicit" porn, in the sense that I've always known/considered porn to be.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's because you don't understand what constitutes pornography.

Where they will get off, if they do, will be by claiming there's a purpose to it aside from just producing pornography. That's what the whole spiel they've generated about it portraying what real kids are going through is all about. They're trying to make the case for "art".

 

[G.T.]

That's because you don't understand what constitutes pornography.

Where they will get off, if they do, will be by claiming there's a purpose to it aside from just producing pornography. That's what the whole spiel they've generated about it portraying what real kids are going through is all about. They're trying to make the case for "art".

I guess I don't understand the legal definition, that's true.

My understanding of porn is insertion, nudity, felatio, actual sex, anal sex, fuck.... some weirdos have some pee and foot fetishes, ....crap like that. I don't consider the "portrayal" of sex in, say, a movie....porn. Porn to me is XXX.

 

[Mini 14]

That's because you don't understand what constitutes pornography.

Where they will get off, if they do, will be by claiming there's a purpose to it aside from just producing pornography. That's what the whole spiel they've generated about it portraying what real kids are going through is all about. They're trying to make the case for "art".

While I can see an "art" quality to it (I think it tells an interesting story, but only appropriate for an adult), and while it certainly could be more "pornographic" than it is, my big beef is that it isn't appropriate for the audience it is aimed at (granted, I understand they are going after the adult lecherous crowd as well, but I believe the primary target is teens).

I think MTV is going to kill it themselves. They're already softening the blow with some of their latest press releases revealing they are growing concerned, and have sent future episodes back for further editing.

As one of the articles I read said (can't remember which one or I'd link), MTV has been pushing the envelope since the day they first aired, and they appear to be realizing that this time, they may have pushed too far.

 

[Zoom-boing]

That's because you don't understand what constitutes pornography.

Where they will get off, if they do, will be by claiming there's a purpose to it aside from just producing pornography. That's what the whole spiel they've generated about it portraying what real kids are going through is all about. They're trying to make the case for "art".

I guess I don't understand the legal definition, that's true.

My understanding of porn is insertion, nudity, felatio, actual sex, anal sex, fuck.... some weirdos have some pee and foot fetishes, ....crap like that. I don't consider the "portrayal" of sex in, say, a movie....porn. Porn to me is XXX.

Did you ever watch FX's Nip/Tuck? I always considered nearly most of the sex scenes as soft porn.

 

[G.T.]

That's because you don't understand what constitutes pornography.

Where they will get off, if they do, will be by claiming there's a purpose to it aside from just producing pornography. That's what the whole spiel they've generated about it portraying what real kids are going through is all about. They're trying to make the case for "art".

I guess I don't understand the legal definition, that's true.

My understanding of porn is insertion, nudity, felatio, actual sex, anal sex, fuck.... some weirdos have some pee and foot fetishes, ....crap like that. I don't consider the "portrayal" of sex in, say, a movie....porn. Porn to me is XXX.

Did you ever watch FX's Nip/Tuck? I always considered nearly most of the sex scenes as soft porn.

N'aw. Never saw it.

 

[Luissa]

Skins” is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled “Skins” the “most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children.” The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.

Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week, “ ‘Skins’ may be the most realistic show on television.”

The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng

Has anyone seen it? I did. Worse than you can possibly imagine. And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."

The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode. Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water. Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit, The weed got wet". And they laugh and laugh and laugh... Scary.

Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous. Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.

They had the same show, but probably worse in the UK. The children of the UK are still here.

 

[High_Gravity]

I guess I don't understand the legal definition, that's true.

My understanding of porn is insertion, nudity, felatio, actual sex, anal sex, fuck.... some weirdos have some pee and foot fetishes, ....crap like that. I don't consider the "portrayal" of sex in, say, a movie....porn. Porn to me is XXX.

Did you ever watch FX's Nip/Tuck? I always considered nearly most of the sex scenes as soft porn.

N'aw. Never saw it.

Nip/Tuck was for adults and was on later in the night, it was not geared towards children or feature children doing sexual acts.

 

[High_Gravity]

Skins” is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled “Skins” the “most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children.” The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.

Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week, “ ‘Skins’ may be the most realistic show on television.”

The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng

Has anyone seen it? I did. Worse than you can possibly imagine. And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."

The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode. Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water. Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit, The weed got wet". And they laugh and laugh and laugh... Scary.

Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous. Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.

They had the same show, but probably worse in the UK. The children of the UK are still here.

People in the UK have thicker skin.

 

[Luissa]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng

Has anyone seen it? I did. Worse than you can possibly imagine. And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."

The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode. Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water. Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit, The weed got wet". And they laugh and laugh and laugh... Scary.

Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous. Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.

They had the same show, but probably worse in the UK. The children of the UK are still here.

People in the UK have thicker skin.

I am sure the US version will not be so full on, either.
I watched the show. It doesn't sugar coat what really goes on with teenagers. Plus it was while they were in the UK's version of community college or whatever. Does the new show take place in high school or college?

We all realize that teenagers do drugs, have eating disorders, get in car wrecks etc, right?

If they go along the same storyline, like they usually do when they copy a UK show. It will most likely show all the downsides of doing all these things. The UK show was good at not making all these things look glamorous. The main character was hit by a car at the end of one of the seasons. What he goes through, isn't glamorous. His ex is also vilified for being a slut.

 

[BrianH]

Ahh lets talk about the daytime soaps...

Daytime soaps aren't geared towards teenagers......... Try to get a high school kid to sit through one...lol

Right the toddlers watch them while momma does.
It prepped them for the next level we are at now.

lol...yeah. From Ice Age, to Days of Our Lives, to Skins, to Space Nuts

 

[BrianH]

We all know what teens can and may do, however, we don't need to plaster it all over television. I feel the same way about tampon commercials... Like women really need an advertisement to discover that they exist...

 

[High_Gravity]

They had the same show, but probably worse in the UK. The children of the UK are still here.

People in the UK have thicker skin.

I am sure the US version will not be so full on, either.
I watched the show. It doesn't sugar coat what really goes on with teenagers. Plus it was while they were in the UK's version of community college or whatever. Does the new show take place in high school or college?

We all realize that teenagers do drugs, have eating disorders, get in car wrecks etc, right?

If they go along the same storyline, like they usually do when they copy a UK show. It will most likely show all the downsides of doing all these things. The UK show was good at not making all these things look glamorous. The main character was hit by a car at the end of one of the seasons. What he goes through, isn't glamorous. His ex is also vilified for being a slut.

People in the UK are more realistic and they realize kids will make mistakes and are not perfect, when in the US everyone wants to throw sheets over their childrens eyes and force them to live like nuns and priests, I'm not agreeing with the show either but this is what I see.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not offended by the show at all.

Me neither. It would be hypocritical for me to get indignant about it anyways. And I think some of the angst is a generational thing.

Back in the twenties, you just KNOW there were parents bent out of shape about knee-length skirts.



But if I was a parent I could see myself feeling differently about this show. There's reasons I don't sit at the table on Thanksgiving and tell the family about what I do and have done.

I think some of the controversial stuff in the show, parents can find themselves having done in their own past, or things they had seen others do back then--and they're things they regret and don't want their kids to repeat.

There is some legit truth under the over-dramatization, and I think that's why the show hits a parental nerve. I could just be talking out of my ass about this since I'm not actually a parent, but it sounds about right.

 

[AllieBaba]

What do you not understand about "child porn is illegal and harmful"?

 

[xotoxi]

I do block this shit and I'd be fine if the plug got pulled on this show. At what point does a line get drawn?

The free market will determine that.

so if MTV decided to air full on porn marketed specifically for the 13-17 crowd that'd be ok if the free market says it's ok?

The free market would not say it was okay.

 

[Sheldon]

What do you not understand about "child porn is illegal and harmful"?

A Wednesday night Bible study is the only place you're going to find someone in my age group who thinks that show actually depicts child pornography.