Skip to main content

Why Skins Is a Bad Show (And It's Not the Teenage Sex)

The MTV show Skins has riled up a lot of people--particularly, but not surprisingly, the Parents Television Council.  They're trying to get MTV to edit the show or risk facing child pornography charges for a future episode where the naked backside of a teenage actor is shown.

The show is a hit over in England, and if you watch a few of the episodes on BBC America, it would seem like the show was almost tailor-made to be brought to America.  And what better home could it have than MTV?  The channel that's been offending parents for years.

So what did I think about checking out the show?

Well...it's kind of...boring.

Okay, I'll just come out with it:  It's a bad show.

And I'm not saying that because of the "offensive" elements of it.  It takes a lot to offend me.  What bothers me more about the show is the poor writing and the fact that the shocking aspects of the show aren't shocking at all.

Where has the PTC been the last ten years?

Teenage sex and drug use on television has been around since the original 90210.  A big deal is being made about the fact that these teenagers are being played by actual teenagers--as if somehow it's not as bad watching the kids on Glee cavorting around in skimpy cheerleader outfits because in reality they're in their late twenties.

Am I the only one who remembers the early days of Britney in the schoolgirl uniform?

Skins isn't the most sexually provocative thing ever put on the air.  That would be a show called Undressed that aired ten years ago where every episode feature three different couples--one of them a high school couple--having sex, talking about the sex they just had, and then having more sex.

I would venture to say that reality shows like Teen Mom and Jersey Shore do way more to influence the way kids behave, and the behavior on those shows isn't scripted.

It seems like nowadays if you to get a show on television, just tell some network honcho that the premise is "teenagers have sex and do drugs" and you'll be good to go.  The WB-turned-CW built an entire network around that concept.  Maybe that's why when I'm watching Skins, I just feel like I'm watching a rerun of some other show from a decade ago.

I don't find Skins to be worthy of all this attention.  Chances are, attention is what MTV was hoping for in the first place, because attention and bad publicity turn into killer ratings.  Remember all the flack Jersey Shore first got when it premiered?  Now it's become a tent pole of the network.

If the PTC really wanted to shut down Skins, they shouldn't have said a word about it.  A show that bad without any controversy surrounding it probably would have just faded away quietly.

Instead, we're probably going to have ten more shows like it in development by the time I'm done writing this post.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A List of People Who Can Go to Hell Now That I Can't Have Elizabeth Warren

So today was a rough day for everybody who isn't a @#$%-ing #$%hole. Let's just start there. If that upsets you, by all means, go straight to hell. This entire rant is going to be exactly what it sounds like. I am mad and I am going to exercise my right to BLOG ABOUT IT LIKE IT'S 1995, SO BUCKLE UP, BUTTERCUP. I really don't even know where to start, so let's just jump right in with the first person who comes to mind. Bloomberg, go to hell.  You really didn't have anything specific to do with today, but you can just go to hell for spending an ungodly amount of money on literally nothing.  I mean, you could have lit millions of dollars on fire and at least warmed the hands of the homeless, but instead, you made tv stations across the country that are already owned by Conservatives rich, so kudos to you and go to hell. Amy Klobuchar, I STUCK UP FOR YOU AMY.  I got into FIGHTS on SOCIAL MEDIA while DEFENDING your sorry, self-interested ass.  You know

Theater and the Outbreak

After last week's interview, a representative from a theater that recently experienced the results of opening too soon reached out to speak with me. I want to thank this person for coming forward in the hopes that it'll change some minds about what's safe and what isn't when it comes to the performing arts. Here's the interview: ME:  So this wasn't a full production or-- THEM:  No. It was us trying to do a little something for friends and donors. ME:  Who is 'us?' THEM:  The board of _____. ME:  And how long have you been on the board? THEM:  Three years. ME:  What was this going to be? THEM:  There's a, uh, beautiful park here in town, and we wanted to do an outdoor performance of a Shakespeare as a benefit, because, as you know, theaters are having a hard time right now paying the bills. We checked with the local government and the health department for the state to make sure we were doing everything the way we needed to in order to keep everyone s

People You Know Are More Important Than People You Don't Know

This post is in response to arguing with people--straight and gay alike--about a certain celebrity, whether or not she's an ally, if she's pandering, if pandering matters, and whether or not I'm an asshole. The last part is probably an enthusiastic "Yes" but let's reflect on this for a bit anyway without actually giving more time to an argument about a person none of us know, which is a crucial part of what I want to talk about. People you know are more important than people you don't know. I realize it's tricky in an age where we've never been closer or more engaged to our celebrities to keep in mind that we do not know them, they are not our friends, and while we may love them and stan and feel like we're attacked when they're attacked-- That is not true. That is not real. They are in no tangible way connected to us. Now, as someone who is obsessed with pop culture, I get that it's a little hypocritical for me to be making