Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
The Nayshun
772 Followers
Mich De L'Orme
5514 Followers
Lara Jecson
1097 Followers
apextekJan 25, 2011
didnt MTV have a show very similar to this about 10-11 years ago?
entroperJan 26, 2011
Yes, it was called Undressed. I recall watching a marathon of Undressed the night before I left for my first year of college in 1999, almost exactly the timespan you mentioned.
apextekJan 26, 2011
Ive been trying to remember that show forever. It got me laid on 2 separate occasions and helped me seal the deal with one very long term relationship.
shivy18Jan 27, 2011
teach me of your magical ways...
apextekJan 27, 2011
if skins is anything like undressed, DVR a bunch of them and watch a marathon. after 4 or 5 episodes any girl your with will be so horny it will be hard to not get laid.
shivy18Jan 29, 2011
..but what will i do with all my drugs and alcohol? :(
PyriteGenieJan 26, 2011
Thank you, Professor Nabokov.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
Showing underage kids nude is kiddie porn.
From the pic it looks like "teenagers have orgies"...
mogebierJan 26, 2011
We can only hope they are all hot teens then.
rblancarteJan 26, 2011
But the show doesn't show underage kids nude.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
That's not what I understand.
shingoexJan 26, 2011
So, I guess all the executives involved in the advertising business where a commercial showed a baby's ass should be registered as sex offenders and imprisoned?
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
Man, I've been waiting for a chance to take down those pervs at Coppertone for years.
ageofmasteryJan 26, 2011
There are no underage nude kids in the show quirk, you're vocalizing your fantasies again...
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
I believe you are incorrect.
novenatorJan 26, 2011Submitter
You made the claim, it is up to you to back it up, believe it or not.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/skins-on-mtv-too-racy/tv-ma/
norman619Jan 26, 2011
Wow... Do you like to picture teens nude often? I see no nude teens in that photo and no orgy either.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
I'm speaking of the controversy regarding the show. They apparently showed underage nudity.
generalobviousJan 26, 2011
Um, no, showing CHILDREN nude is kiddie porn.
Showing a 16-17 year old nude is not kiddie porn.
Huge difference. It's kinda sad that we have people running around thinking that having a pic of someone who's 18 is fine, but ONE YEAR YOUNGER and you're suddenly a pedophile.
I don't think so, Tim.
tre03Jan 26, 2011
Like with any law...there has to be a line somewhere.
sattireattireJan 26, 2011
wow you're a pedophile man. I hope the internet police watches you. You say 16-17. then someone will say, "1 year lower, then 1 year lower, until someone will say 3-4yrs is just one year lower than 5 sheesh"
You're a pedo freak. I wouldnt want my children near you...hell i wouldnt want YOUR children near you sicko.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 28, 2011
This was a sarcastic comment? You didn't call him a sicko because of the thought of a 17yo being nude, right?
Our hangups over, *gasp*, nudity cause lots of problems. I prefer Europe's more open approach. With that, is Europe suffering from a much higher teen pregnancy rate? Are they more afflicted with child predators?
atomic1fireJan 26, 2011
The actors might not be underage, but it's directed at a youth demographic.
Even if most of the people who watch it are all over the age of 18, it's still going to encourage a lot of stupid people to share diseases faster the PBS can encourage children to share toys.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
So I guess that makes every naturist camp and beach around the country into full blown kiddie porn beaches then?
Good heavens, get off your stupid horse!
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
It's the context.
shingoexJan 27, 2011
"Showing underage kids nude is kiddie porn."
Make up your mind.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
Showing underage kids nude is kiddie porn.
From the pic it looks like "teenagers have orgies"...
Get over it? I saw the promo for this where the girl leaves the house saying she's going to study and she goes to some even that looks like it's drenched in sex AND illegal drugs. What super viewing for American teens Alternet.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantJan 26, 2011
"Showing underage kids nude is kiddie porn."
Where to begin, even with just that one sentence alone . . . . .
(1) That's incorrect; it takes more than just simple nudity for an image to meet the criteria for "kiddie porn."
(2) You're assuming that the cast are actually minors, rather than just playing minors on TV. We don't know that. I just took a quick look at IMDB, but they're all newcomers with very little info in their profiles, no birthdates.
(3) Given that this is a basic cable show, there won't *be* any actual nudity.
Looks to me like the show is a piece of crap, so I have no plans to bother watching it. But as for all the rest of this, it's the same hand-wringing social conservatives have been doing over the arts since day one. Ginsberg, Nabokov, Lawrence, even Shakespeare. MTV went through the same s**t storm for their now-quaint-looking "Undressed" a few years back. Or FOX when they dared to do an episode about a character losing her virginity back on the original "90210." All for basically the same reason - writing about the world as it *actually is,* the savory and the unsavory - rather than sanitizing it for the easily-offended busybodies among us.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
bookant -
There are apparently nude minors being depicted on the show. THAT was the largest issue.
There have been stories about "Teen Mom". We're finding out that teens are getting pregnant because they are attracted to the show.
MTV is a network GEARED towards teens.
"...rather than sanitizing it for the easily-offended busybodies among us."
I believe that portraying underage actors nude and engaging in risky and dangerous behavior is prohibited by law.
bookantJan 26, 2011
"I believe that portraying underage actors nude and engaging in risky and dangerous behavior is prohibited by law."
You believe incorrectly. If they were doing *actual* nudity that may be enough to get there; if they're just being "portrayed" as nude even though they aren't, not so much.
And TV and film is chock full of examples that back up my point. Hell, even back when you and I were kids 12-year-old Brooke Shields was "portrayed as" nude in "The Blue Lagoon." Wasn't illegal, because the actual nudity was filmed using an over-eighteen body double.
As far as "dangerous behavior" take your pick. What show about teenagers *doesn't* show dangerous behavior at some point or another? Even single teen soap ever done has done drug/alcohol story lines at one time or another. Or all those little kid drug dealers in "The Wire." (Which actually works as a great example of what I've been saying here - just because "The Wire" realistically depicts those things doesn't mean they're "encouraging" kids to join gangs or deal drugs. Nor should their right to depict those things be censured just because some people might think so or be offended.)
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
It's my understanding that the underage actor was actually nude.
My issue is with the glorification of bad behavior and portraying it as normal. Also, my issue is with potential illegal behavior.
JustSayNoPartyJan 28, 2011
I'm really torn on this one, quirk. Part of me says that not making sex and nudity 'so taboo' is actually better. If children grow up 'not thinking' sex is evil, we'll be better off. In fact, the repressive approach makes the alure only that much greater. But, you have a point about glorifying bad behavior. This is not exactly the way I want sex 'role modeled'. Then again, it apparently isn't too far off from reality (at least the British version). As for being illegal? There are a lot of 'purity laws' that I'm not fond of (i.e. The Romeo and Juliet Cases).
Closed AccountJan 28, 2011
It's not an easy issue...but it's not as simple as "get over it" either.
We have rules about what we allow in different contexts. In this context, it's a show directed at teens.
Children shouldn't think that sex is evil, but what do we want? Do we want teens engaging in sex? How young is too young? Is it wise for teens to do drugs?
I mean...I think we cal all agree that sex is risky for teens and not advised. Ditto on drugs.
Does "get over it" mean that you, as a parent, should provide a place for your teens to do what they are "going to do anyway?"
Does it mean that we ignore the objections of society about what is acceptable to show on MTV?
anomaly100Jan 27, 2011
@Bookant:
From Quirk's response, you can see the title is fitting. She is indeed A Conservative/bagger/Republican, who is freaking out.
Closed AccountJan 28, 2011
LOL. From the person with a blog called "Freak Out Nation". You said you're not responding to me.... looks like you are childishly going to respond *at* me.
alyxvanceJan 26, 2011
Actually most of the actors are in fact underage. But to me, thats not the issue here. It would bother me the same way whether the actors were 15 or if they were 20.
While it is true that many teenagers have sex, it is also true that sex at such a young age can be very harmful. Kids that young just are not prepared for the emotional consequences of sex.
The premise of this article is that the show is not a big deal because kids have sex anyway, but does that mean we should encourage and idealize it? Kids do lots of stupid things, does that mean we should encourage everything bad they do?
Kids respond to what they see in popular culture. This show is not child porn, but it is very irresponsible and will push kids to be even more irresponsible.
scottphphqJan 26, 2011
Young teens aren't prepared for the emotional consequences of sex because the majority of parents in this country treat it as some sort of taboo. Teens grow up knowing nothing about it because parents only choose to teach abstinence instead of how to be safe and make good choices. That's why America has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the western world.
sattireattireJan 26, 2011
I disagree. With all the shows about cougars, and desperate house wives, sex in the city, it seems to me that the sex is taboo parents are in the minority now.
bookantJan 26, 2011
"The premise of this article is that the show is not a big deal because kids have sex anyway, but does that mean we should encourage and idealize it? Kids do lots of stupid things, does that mean we should encourage everything bad they do?"
The premise of the controversy over this show is the same flawed premise that was behind the outrage over all the other example I cited. (And many, many more that I didn't *) - that depicting the realities of life means that one is "idealizing" or "encouraging" specific behaviors. In fact, that's the exact opposite of reality - removing from depictions of life those things that we don't think someone should see would be "idealizing."
* (Another favorite of mine - when the major US newspapers started the tradition of priting the extra-long Sunday papers with all the now-ubiquitous extras like ads, magazines, and most shocking of all funny pages! this, too, was seen as immoral and corrupting of the youth and sparked major outrage. Sunday belongs to the LORD! People shouldn't engaging in selfish activities like leisurely reading a newspaper!)
Great book on the history of these puritanical censorship movements. Though it's mostly about one specific movement (over comic books), it delves into a lot of the others as well -
http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Cent-Plague-Comic-Book-Changed-America/dp/0312428235/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296055605&sr=8-1
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
LOL yeah like kids need tv shows to be irroesponsible. Believe it or not, teens don't need tv to tell them where their penises and vaginas are, nor do they need tv to make them want to do it. That is what adolescence IS. Discovering sexuality, transitioning to sexual maturity.
Look at it this way, when a young woman begins to ovulate, nature is telling her that she is old enough for sex. Of course, we don't follow such base guidlines to determine what is an appropriate age for sex, but to suggest that this show is somehow going to mess young viewers up is so ridiculous seriously.
I think there is a HUGE difference btween recognizing and putting out in the open the things kids do (sex/drugs/etc) and encouraging them to do those things. I must have missed where this show is "encouraging" kids to do these things.
Maybe if these pathetic christian parents groups put as much effort into actually raising their kids and having open, honest and frank discussions about these issues instead of pointlessly trying to shelter them from everything, just so they can be totally ill-prepared to deal with things in the real world once their parents are no longer standing over their shoulder, shows like this wouldn't pose any risk whatsoever.
A parent who's idea of parenting is blindly stopping their kids from exploring things, particularly controversial things, is no parent. A proper parent guides their child and imparts wisdom while allowing the child to make his or her own discoveries (within reason of course).
A lazy, ignorant and crap-ass parent will try to shield their child, lock them in a bubble, delude themselves into thinking they can control all the influences their children have and only allow them to mature at a pace the parent believes is right. A child raised this way is likely to be at a huge disadvantage to other better adjusted young adults.
simonjester666Jan 26, 2011
Actually the premise of the article is that the show in england is touching and has merit as well as a truthful account of teenage life. MTV took the show and striped out the good parts leaving behind the smut and then relied on people like you to advertise it for them. Way to go!
JustSayNoPartyJan 28, 2011
That was my take as well. I'm not surprised.
linuxpersonJan 27, 2011
According to this logic, taking a picture of your nude infant son or daughter is considered "kiddie porn".
Closed AccountJan 28, 2011
If you take a picture of your underage child nude, and you publish it to millions of people... guess what? It's kiddie porn.
cdw070Jan 26, 2011
liberals are now fans of child porn.
davidtcJan 26, 2011
Hahaha.
shingoexJan 26, 2011
Did the stage of growing up known as "adolescence" disappear all of the sudden?
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
Conservatives don't believe in adolescence. It's too scary for them to imagine. Conservatives think they can control all the influences their children are exposed to. It's really very pathetic. They think they can control the pace of a child's maturity and have it happen on their terms.
Conservative parents don't realize that saying "no sex until you are married" or "don't do drugs because they are bad" are pathetically insufficient answers for a young adult. Kids need guidance, they need to be able to talk to their parents about this stuff but their parents are too busy trying to convince them their penises and vaginas don't exist or simply don't work until their are in their 20s.
Kids are going to do these things, as a parent, it is your responsibility to help guide them to good choices about these things, not pretend they don't exist or that sheltering them will somehow in itself teach them what to do.
sattireattireJan 26, 2011
You are grossly uninformed about conservative parents. With your extreme logic, am i to associate all liberals with jobless hippies who smoke and drug up every hour?
Both liberals and conservatives have extreme examples man. And i think it's safe to say that some kids just straight up needs to be disciplined. Parents need to be a parent FIRST, friends SECOND.
I'm tired of irresponsible parents who think they can just recite a textbook answer. "johnny set the house on fire again? uh oh, the book says increase corner time time from 10-15mins. yeah that hsould work, then we'll go out for icecream!"
norman619Jan 26, 2011
You were either the world's most boring teen, in dienial of your own teenage years, or a troll.
cdw070Jan 26, 2011
Shingoex and norman619 - Be sure to let the Fed's know how you enjoy looking for porn of 14 and 15 year olds. We'll see how far that gets you. sickos.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
generalobviousJan 26, 2011
Nice strawman. Are you really this stupid, or a troll? Blissfully ignorant maybe?
Choose one.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
That would actually be above the age of consent where I come from so no crimes...
shingoexJan 26, 2011
So, let me get this straight...
Pointing out the stage of adolescence means I download porn of it? I sincerely hope you're not as stupid as your statement suggests.
osirus482Jan 26, 2011
from what I hear it's only half as bad as the British version
agmlauncherJan 26, 2011
Yeah because nudity is allowed on TV in Britain. Everything in the US editing needs to be implied.
bestatitJan 26, 2011
i understand that teenagers have sex.. but they do this as a disobedient act.. now for this public display it will eventually be seen as norm and more and more teenagers will feel like its "ohk" to start having sex without knowing anything. going out there getting pregnant, STDS, HPV and doing things that they might down rite regret!!! it if was an adult film COOL, but why sell this to kids? thats like saying hey, kids.. we know you smoke marijuana.. let me show a movie to you about under age kids smoking marijuana!!!
thats promoting bad habits!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dsimonpowerJan 26, 2011
No, its portraying real habbits that YOU believe to always be bad. From watching the original version of this show i'd agree it could be percieved as glamourous by younger teens but its on afte the watershed (9pm) and actually it portrays them both having an amazing time and f**king up / wasting out much like real life. As far as sex goes i've no idea how you can understand it as disobedience, teens have sex because its fun and hardwired into us just like the rest of us.I'd think its a pretty messed up mindset to wish to strongly interfere with or censor that.
bestatitJan 26, 2011
although only 25 myself.. i see this generation has no strong morals.. anything goes as long as its "FUN"
and what does "after 9" mean.. like kids aren't up that late!
dsimonpowerJan 26, 2011
Personally I think we are just shaking off a lot of the old stigma created from the need to control sexuality from the days before contraception. Theres nothing to be ashamed of because theres nothing inherently bad about having sex.
I'm quite happy to live in these times and this country without old and ungrounded superstitions dictating to me what is right and wrong.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
LOL hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!1
How sadly out-dated you are, and only 25!! Do you live in a convent? Do you honestly believe that kids have sex because they are being disobedient???? It is arguably the strongest instinct that we have, are you out of your f**king mind????! How can America be so advanced but have such pathetically antiquated views on sex??
Did you know that teen sex and pregnancy rates are DOWN?? Did you know that? No of course you didn't because to you, sex is some dirty disobedient act. It's something scary and when you see it on tv you assume that means it is everywhere. So not only are you hilariously behind the times but you also can't seem to separate what you see on tv from reality.
Simply having a show about sex and drugs isn't going to make kids want to do it more. You think kids didn't know about this stuff before this show came along? Where on earth have you been? How can you have such twisted ideas about sex?
bookantJan 26, 2011
*Every* generation has always said that about the generation of kids born after them, since at least Plato's time. I posted a quote from saying exactly the same thing you just said in the last thread about this show. Spend five minutes on Google and you'll find pages and pages of people in the 35-40 range saying that same things about you and your generation.
sattireattireJan 26, 2011
so anything "fun" should be free from interference? are you an idiot or something? Because i think it would be fun to smack you in the face, please dont censor or interfere, afterall, that is your principle not mine.
We're also hardwired to have as many children as we can. is that ok?
We're also hardwired to have as many partners as we can. is that ok?
Would you want your daughter to have 5 partners?
Do you think it's morally ok not to interfere with teens getting pregnant with irresponsible behavior?
Hey it's all fun for you though!
bookantJan 26, 2011
"so anything "fun" should be free from interference? are you an idiot or something? Because i think it would be fun to smack you in the face, please dont censor or interfere, afterall, that is your principle not mine."
Familiar with a sport called "boxing"? We are, in fact, perfectly free to smack each other in the fact if we think it's fun. Key word being "WE." It has to be consensual on the part of both of us.
On the other hand, both smacking someone in the face and sexual contact are crimes if one of the parties doesn't consent.
"We're also hardwired to have as many children as we can. is that ok?"
Are you suggesting Chinese-style limits on the number we're allowed to have? Because, currently, there are none.
"We're also hardwired to have as many partners as we can. is that ok?"
Sure. More importantly, that's for individuals (adults) to decide for themselves, not for you or anyone else to decide for them.
norman619Jan 26, 2011
Get real. When I had sex as a teen, as I do today, it wasn't with the idea of "Sticking it to the man." I had sex because it felt REALLY good.
kellyJan 26, 2011
You did it because you felt you were an adult and thought you were capable of making adult decisions. You weren't consciously trying to "stick it to the man", but you were doing it otherwise as you felt like you were an adult and thought that anyone who considered otherwise was wrong. But in fact, you were wrong. Sex is something for adults... realistically married adults but society has already corrupted that notion.
generalobviousJan 26, 2011
You put way too much thought into sex.
Every lifeform does it and is genetically designed to do it. There's no, "I had sex because I'm an adult making adult decisions."
It's, "I had sex because that's what all lifeforms on this planet do."
sattireattireJan 26, 2011
All? uh oh, someone skipped a few biology classes.
kellyJan 26, 2011
Every life form does it... when they reach maturity.
bookantJan 26, 2011
" . . .when they reach maturity."
Which in the case of any non-human animal would mean *physical* maturity. Only in humanity do we have the social construct of "adolescence" lying between childhood and adulthood. Hell, it's even a *recent* social construct dating to the mid-twentieth century. Roll back even 100 years and most of these "kids" that you think are going to scared for life by a TV show would've been in the workforce, married, and raising their own kids.
kellyJan 26, 2011
>"Only in humanity do we have the social construct of "adolescence" lying between childhood and adulthood."
The reason we've built that social construct is because we have an increased sense of self that animals do not have. It's that increased sense of self that causes us to react much differently to things like sex.
>"Hell, it's even a *recent* social construct dating to the mid-twentieth century."
Source?
I ask because I believe that this "social construct" has been around since the dawn of man.
>"Roll back even 100 years and most of these "kids" that you think are going to scared for life by a TV show would've been in the workforce, married, and raising their own kids."
You think that most kids under 18 years old were married and having kids? Sure it happened... much like today it happens that does not mean it was the norm nor does it mean that kids were prepared then anymore than they were now.
Regarding tv.... kids weren't pre-sexualized by popular culture then like tv, movies and advertising does today.
bookantJan 26, 2011
Source?
My source in claiming it was simply my own knowledge of our cultural history, quite honestly. The problem with asking "source" online is . . . . I work in a university library. I could pull any number of books off the shelf and find a source, but you can't see them online. So for the lack of anything better right now - here's a CUNY course descritpion for their "Culrual History of Adolescence" class - http://www.sps.cuny.edu/programs/spscourses/coursedescription.aspx?cid=YS%20600%20%20%20&sid=YS
The first line pretty much covers what I was saying -
"This course traces the cultural history of youth and the development of the modern concept of adolescence at the turn of the twentieth century."
Here's an entry from the Infoplease almanac of median age at the time of first marriage going back to 1890.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html
As you can see, on that point I was wrong. The age of marriage got older than I'd thought earlier than I'd thought.
bookantJan 26, 2011
Sorry for the double post.
Here's a better source for the first claim. It cites a specfic 1890 book for the *creation* of the concept of adolescence. Add in the time it would've taken for a concept in an academic writing like that to become integrated into the culture at large and my generalization of "the mid-twentieth century" is right on the money.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/202846
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
Uh, sex isn't something just for adults you hilariously out-of-touch goon. I mean, if you want to get technical, when a woman begins to ovulate, nature is saying she is ready for sex. You only think what you do about sex because of how you were raised but guess what? How you were raised doesn't really mean jack squat. Your personal ideas about morality and adulthood can't trump nature.
Sexual reproduction is arguably the strongest urge/instinct we have. You think your pathetic ideas about when the right time is has any sway over that instinct?
Oh boy it is so sad to see you people who still think sex has anything to do with marriage. It's such an antiquated perspective, it's just really pathetic.
Back when human life spans were significantly shorter men and women would have children around the ages of 14-16. And this was completely normal and it was practical. This is when a normal healthy human female is able to produce offspring.
I love how you use the word "realistically" when you talk about sex should be for married adults. You must be like 65 years old.
You know why humans have sex? Believe it or not, it isn't some kind of rebellious phase people go through. It is probably the most imporant thing we do next to eating and sleeping. It is an incredibly powerful urge because it has to be. For any life form to propagate it's species, it has to really want to have sex. That urge must trump all others or else there is no future for that life form or it's species.
Human's aren't somehow apart from their nature. It's the other way around. Our nature is the truest part of us, no our clothes or culture or any of that. You couldn't BE more wrong.
el_jefeJan 26, 2011
@kelly.
Actually sex is something that is necessary for procreation or continuing our species. It has nothing to do with adults or marriage. The adult and marriage is a concept that Man has come up with, but as far as nature goes they do not figure into the equation at all. Nor does love. Sorry to say but sex can happen and does happen without love, marriage, or adults. The fact that the human body procreate at a young age should tell you that Man's idea of procreation and nature's idea are not the same. The world is bigger than us, we should really stop trying to force it to live like we think it should and try to live within nature not try to control it.
kellyJan 26, 2011
>"sex is something that is necessary for procreation or continuing our species"
Correct.
>"The adult and marriage is a concept that Man has come up with, but as far as nature goes they do not figure into the equation at all."
Correct. Man is a more advanced species. With that comes emotional response to these types of stimuli that also affect our minds... factors that don't come into play for animals.
>"Sorry to say but sex can happen and does happen without love, marriage, or adults."
I never said otherwise. I said that it should only happen with love, marriage and adults.
>"The fact that the human body procreate at a young age should tell you that Man's idea of procreation and nature's idea are not the same."
A 12 year old child is capable of procreation. However he or she is neither emotionally capable of the ramifications of such an event without seriously damaging his or her perspective on sexuality. Equally if not more so, he or she is not capable of financially supporting this offspring.
>"The world is bigger than us, we should really stop trying to force it to live like we think it should and try to live within nature not try to control it."
Maybe you're right. 12 year old kids should be having babies. To heck with the consequences. We can always kill the babies like the abortionists would prefer.
Closed AccountFeb 5, 2011
@kelly
" But in fact, you were wrong. Sex is something for adults... realistically married adults but society has already corrupted that notion."
HA! Is that what you were taught in Sunday School? Did you abstain until you were married, too?
Of course you did. You're like Marty's mom from back to the future. *winky* *winky**blinky*
generalobviousJan 26, 2011
You did it because that's what you're genetically programmed to do :)
Just like all of human history prior to you.
davidtcJan 26, 2011
Yum! Brands (Taco Bell), Mars, Incorporated (Wrigley), General Motors, Doctor's Associates (Subway), H&R Block and Schick have all opted to pull their advertising from the program.
Meanwhile, Novenator and Alternet wonder why people have a problem with child pornography.
clippclopJan 26, 2011
There's a huge difference between seeing younger people naked and actively attempting to see them naked for your own arousal.
As for this post. There is no actual nudity. It's an MTV show for f**k sakes. There are movies with younger children baring more skin and are rated 14+.
I guess I also have to take in to account that being a righty asshat basically requires being a complete retard that overlooks facts in favor of delusional opinions portrayed as facts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidtcJan 26, 2011
You mention facts, but completely jump over this fact, which was also stated in the article.
"over whether it's violating federal child pornography laws by an upcoming scene featuring a naked 17-year-old with an erection running down the street."
How is that for facts?
"(Not that we’ll see it.)"
Of course we wont, but they still filmed the content they are being accused of filming.
So how is that for facts? How is that for child pornography that you are trying to defend.
agmlauncherJan 26, 2011
Ok, after watching the sneak peak on MTV's website, the nature of this show is completely blown out of proportion.
This is like a TV version of American Pie. It's literally no different. I thought this was going to be a reality TV show, which is a totally different ballgame in terms of its psychological impact.
This is your standard scripted, run of the mill show. If this concept was fine in American Pie, it's fine Skins. There's really nothing wrong with this.
tre03Jan 26, 2011
Only American Pie was rated R and wouldn't be on basic cable television. If they showed this program on HBO or Showtime I think the reaction would be vastly different.
agmlauncherJan 26, 2011
So you've never seen American Pie on basic cable TV? That's funny, because I have. It's censored of course, but it's not like Skins is going to show any nudity. It's not allowed by the FCC.
reaper527Jan 26, 2011
"It's not allowed by the sponsors."
there you go. fixed that for you. this is a cable show, not an over the air show.
tre03Jan 27, 2011
It's funny that I've never seen American Pie on basic cable? How is that funny? I guess we just have a different sense of humor.
The post to which I replied said that the show is "like a TV version of American Pie. It's literally no different." If it's literally no different, then that's going to be an issue with a LOT of people. If it's like the censored version of American Pie, that's a different story...but that's not what you said.
shingoexJan 26, 2011
"This is like a TV version of American Pie. It's literally no different."
Skins isn't a comedy.
kellyJan 26, 2011
Ya cuz if it were a comedy THEN the left would agree that its inappropriate but because its not, the right is just over reacting.
agmlauncherJan 26, 2011
Whether it's a drama or a comedy is irrelevant. The content and nature of it is the same: underage drinking, and teenagers trying to get laid.
shingoexJan 26, 2011
It is relevant when you say it's no different and I point out the error of your statement.
charlotte_webJan 26, 2011
The headline should really read, "Liberals are Useful Idiots to the Viacom Corporation".
tre03Jan 26, 2011
Don't fool yourselves into thinking it's just conservatives that are "freaking out" over this show. It's actually the mirror image of what the article suggests with only the Liberal Left defending the show.
tre03Jan 26, 2011
It's ridiculous to think that because kids are "already doing it" that it's OK to glamorize it.
generalobviousJan 26, 2011
It's ridiculous to think that because kids are "already doing it" that it's okay to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist and that they don't already know about it.
tre03Jan 26, 2011
Who said that it was OK to ignore it? It's a pretty big leap to equate not agreeing with a show about it on basic cable to ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
In what universe is it better to ignore an issue and pretend it doesn't exist than to have a frank and honest discussion about it and actually become educated about the issue(s)? Have you actually watched the show? Who said anything about galmorizing it? So in your mind simply having it out in the open at all automatically qualifies as glamorizing? What century are you from? How can you be so hilariously out of touch?
"Only the liberal left defending the show" LOL, this is nonsense hahahhahahhaa. It happens all the time, some pathetic christian family organization makes a big stink about something that nobody else sees as wrong and suddenly that means everyone is against it except those godless liberals. LOL.
Let me ask you this, if youa re so concerned with glamorizing sex and objectification, where is all the moral outrage over those dispicable child pageant shows that are so popular in the south hmmmm? What is worse, a show that depicts teens acting out the lives most teens live in an open forum to be talked about, discussed and learned from? Or a show that depicts girls as young as 3 painted up like prostitutes and then paraded around on stage? Exploited and objectified and then wrapped in an innocent "reality tv show" bow.
You people are the living embodiment of hypocrisy and ignorance. Truly.
tre03Jan 27, 2011
Well first of all...let me defuse your first argument by pointing you to my other post in this mini-thread. It's right above yours, it's hard to miss. Oh well...I guess I'll spell it out for you. No one said it was OK or better or that anyone was to ignore any issue. If you can show me were I explicitly said that, Ill retract.
To your second point...don't fool yourself into thinking this show has anything to do with education. Are you seriously trying to say that MTV is airing this show as a jumping off point for parents to talk to their kids? You MUST be joking...
Of course it's glamorizing it. It's on TV...look how much fun those kids are having doing drugs and drinking and having sex with each other. WOO HOO!!! You have to be a fool to not see it. Otherwise you're admitting that it's not glamorous and the show will have no appeal, so the protests against it are OK with you.
You say that my comment is nonsense but you offer nothing to back that up except to perpetuate a myth about conservative or Christian groups. Are all of the major news network Christian conservative groups?...because they are running stories questioning the content of the show as well.
"where is all the moral outrage..." Uh...you know outrage isn't a tangible item, right? I mean...I can't take a picture of my moral outrage and post it for all to see. I guess along those same lines, it's impossible for you to know if it does or does not exist. I absolutely HATE those pageant shows and I've posted plenty about it. You're preaching to the choir on that one. Red herring exposed. Nice try. =/
ogletreeJan 26, 2011
I'm by no means a conservative and I think it is bad for MTV to air this. I don't think I'm alone either. That is some rough stuff. Not to mention the kids are doing illegal things. It is one thing for adults to do a show like this but it just does not seem right to do it with teenagers. Why can't they do it with college students?
tre03Jan 26, 2011
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The article says that it was written about college students. Maybe there's a difference in terminology in England and college there is the same as high school here...I don't know...but that makes a pretty big difference in my book.
gkiltzJan 26, 2011
Look at the bright side, MTV COULD always actually PLAY MUSIC!!
That happens and there simply won't be enough priests available for all those debriefings.
rblancarteJan 26, 2011
I feel the attack on conservatives in this case is pretty misplaced. I agree that the Parents TV Council has a conservative slant, but they are not the only group upset about this show.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
It is a fundamentally conservative stance to be in support of this kind of censorship in opposing the show. Therefore, I don't see the problem with calling it a conservative issue. Anyone who supports the position that we need more government to legislate our morality is conservative.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
To be concerned about what is shown on television is neither liberal nor conservative. Nobody is talking about getting the govt to step in and take it off the air. Most of the people in this comment board probably have no idea how censorship on television works. there is no cable television censorship by the govt. NONE. Everything is self censored by the different cable stations' parent company as to not offend their advertisers. Which usually pisses me off to no end since I hate it when cable censors swear words and nudity/action. But Skins bothers me because the actors are minors playing minors. Any adult that would watch this show needs to reevaluate their life, and any parent shouldn't let their kid watch it.
atomic1fireJan 26, 2011
Not to mention the Parents TV council wants Ala carte cable.
Basically meaning being able to choose what channels you pay for.
I actually think that if a cable company did this, People would go for it.
How many Sports people are going to want Home shopping network, or oxygen.
The only issue is it would give government the ability to interfere with cable, and that could have some consequences (at-least if it was mandated).
larceniiiJan 26, 2011
This article is dumb, and the show is stupid. What does it have to do with music?
And for Gods sake, we ran away from Britain, Do we really want to emulate ANYthing they do? If I lived there maybe as a kid I'd have to take lots of drugs to cope too. Here in the "Real" world, I see what drugs do, they ruin lives. Glorifying this makes you a naive, sad little person. To churn a topic like this is born from a lack of creativity and uninspiring.
Not to even mention, that what MTV is doing is called "Exploitation of a Minor"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crimsonengageJan 26, 2011
Good, now maybe MTV will go back to being MUSIC TELEVISION and stop showing Reality TV show's no one f**king cares about.
jhourcleJan 26, 2011
Don't worry -- it's a BBC show that they tried to bring over to the US. Odds are, it'll suck like Coupling or Being Human, and not go the route of Golden Girls or The Office. (although, in the case of The Office, they went with the general idea of the show, rather than trying to change existing characters)
larceniiiJan 26, 2011
While we're at it, lets make a reality show of Dexter. Fiction to reality show conversion comparison is about the same...
davidnivenJan 26, 2011
When you stop believing in God, the danger is that you'll start believing in anything...and your moral compass will spin wildly.
Case in point - MTV.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
generalobviousJan 26, 2011
Get the f**k out of here with that bulls**t. Seriously.
Go play moral crusader with your own family; let people make up their minds and mind your own business.
trscheelJan 26, 2011
Ok, Catholic here, and the above statement is pretty retarded. If you cant see how dumb it is, let me put it into context... Its much the same as saying:
When you stop believing in chocolate, the danger is that you'll start believing in anything...and your moral compass will spin wildly.
When you stop believing in the color white, the danger is that you'll start believing in anything...and your moral compass will spin wildly.
When you stop believing in the tooth fairy, the danger is that you'll start believing in anything...and your moral compass will spin wildly.
God and religion is a guide yes, but its not the ONLY way either. Catholics (and I dare say every other religion) have done their fair share of immoral things throughout history. That's not to say atheists are perfect either, its just saying some people are moral, others are not.
To judge the many by the actions of a few is immoral in of itself
kylereJan 26, 2011
While I think people stupid enough to have an invisible friend in the sky need serious help I have to say that this show is moronic but I defend their right to show what they wish and then it is the responsibility of the parents. However, the concept of teens are all having sex so no big deal brought forward by the poster is woefully ignorant. Just because his slutty kids were poorly raised does not mean everyone failed as a parent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jan 26, 2011
I believe more research is needed into this. Please submit to me these sex scenes.
texaskozJan 26, 2011
Conservatives Freak Out Over MTV’s Skins" -- Teenagers Have Sex. The title of your submission is factually incorrect. I have plenty of liberal friends who are equally disgusted with the show.
worldgate989Jan 26, 2011
I didn't know teens had sex, I thought they all waited for marrige or something.
/s
frombeyondJan 26, 2011
This is payback for liberals making a big deal about conservative "violent" rhetoric (Palin's map, Tea Party signs...).
To them MTV and Hollywood... is liberal. They are essentially correct.
It makes hypocrites of BOTH sides though. Liberals want to blame conservative speech for society's problems (violence, Arizona shooting..) and conservatives want to blame liberal speech.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
I try very hard not to be too prudish about anything. But this show looks like garbage and is marketed at the people who definitely shouldn't be watching it. I understand kids have sex I sure as hell did, but I highly doubt this does anything but create characters that naive teens want to emulate. And while MTV can show anything they want within the law I think it is irresponsible. Also, the fact that many of their actors/actresses are underage definitely could mean that child pornography is an issue. Any responsible parent would not allow their teenager to watch this and any adult shouldn't want to.
touchmypenguinJan 26, 2011
maybe they should just stop remaking our shows then...
digitaldeadstarJan 26, 2011
This show is a remake of another... and it's not that big of a deal there. And from what I gather, it isn't watered down as much, either.
It's basically a show for teenagers depicting teenage life. The reality is teens have sex, do drugs or whatever. And it's been that way for a long, long time. It's just more open and talked about these days, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It promotes awareness and education of the subject.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2011
Teens should NOT have sex and do drugs.
anachronusJan 26, 2011
Excellent review!
skywiseJan 26, 2011
Showing teenagers smoking... EVIL. BAD. PORTRAYING BAD HABITS. MUST STOP THAT BEHAVIOR. PEOPLE LEARN BAD HABITS FROM WATCHING TOO MUCH TV.
Showing teenagers having sex. Heeey, everybody's doin' it. Stop bein' a prude, besides this is all about free speech man!
Closed AccountJan 27, 2011
Such a great point.
erohenJan 26, 2011
Do yourself a favor and get the original Skins on NetFlix Streaming, much better series. So far the MTV remake fails in comparison.
feverhostJan 26, 2011
As a parent of an 18 year old, here is my grip with the show. It glorifies behavior for a certain group of kids, and projects their actions as acceptable. I don't think any decent moral person would think that inexperienced children, who most do not know about real consequences, should be watching a show like this. Doesn't matter if it's real, or actors.. like on the show.
My guess would be their demographic of viewers (which bombed, the 2nd night mind you) is around 12 - 17 year olds. Which are the most impressionable, unexperienced, demographic there is. This is the same demographic that watches Jersey Shore, and thinks "I wish I could be like Snookie!"... very sad.
With lack of parenting in this country... do you really think young teenagers having sex, then getting pregnant is a good thing? If so.. do everyone a favor, and immediately starting paying 50% taxes.. might as well blow the whole thing up now.
phillymozartJan 26, 2011
How did conservatism enter the conversation of MTV's problem with their advertisers? The MTV target audience would vote Obama dictator for life if they were given the chance.
reaper527Jan 26, 2011
this would be a moot point if we had a la carte cable subscriptions. those who were that offended could simply not subscribe to mtv, and still have access to whatever cable channels they want.
problem solved.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2011
Food for thought, from a conservative:
People point to things that were "sensational" years ago. Like 90210. I have to ask...are we BETTER as a society now?
When it's on MTV, it's glamorized. Does it simply reflect reality? Or does it send a message to a teenager, if he or she goes to a party and sees this behavior..."cool, it's just like 'Skins'."
Entertainment will always try to push the envelope...that doesn't make it good entertainment...it just makes it sensational.
We have teens getting pregnant because of "Teen Mom."
Now we have a show where one character tells another that it's a shame to be a virgin. Kids romping around. A possibly underage actor nude. Drugs. And people say, "It's just reflecting reality."
Or is it reinforcing bad behavior?
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/article_96d0ee57-e3dc-59d7-a5ec-e5cbc5b71ffc.html
"Sexually transmitted diseases are reaching epidemic levels in Wisconsin and across the country. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are 253,500 new cases of sexually transmitted infections in Wisconsin each year. A key reason: a surge in infections among teens, according to a Capital Times analysis of state health reports and interviews with local experts."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0311/Teens-and-drugs-After-long-decline-drug-use-climbs
"Among the findings released this week regarding teens between the ninth and 12th grades:
• Yearly and monthly marijuana use increased to 38 and 25 percent, respectively.
• Teen alcohol use grew to 39 percent from the previous year, an 11 percent rise.
• Thirteen percent of teens say they tried Ecstasy last year, a 30 percent increase from 2008.
• Seventy-five percent of teenagers say they have friends who get high at parties, a 9 percent increase from 2008."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503957.html
"The pregnancy rate among teenage girls in the United States has jumped for the first time in more than a decade, raising alarm that the long campaign to reduce motherhood among adolescents is faltering, according to a report released Tuesday."
So...congratulations America!
And what's worse? If you are taken aback by the idea of this show and you think that perhaps it has crossed a line... then look forward to having people attacking you for being a prude and a puritan or perhaps having some repressed sexual issues.
I'd prefer to call myself a realist.
atomic1fireJan 26, 2011
Not to mention hearing about the Horrible N word, and how it's going to be abolished, then hearing lil wayne use the N word.
Then hearing about how horrible it is for all this violent rhetoric.
Gangsta rap has talked about shooting cops for years, and whats even better is most of them are all democrats.
I generally don't watch MTV because in general most of the shows are stupid.
Jersey shore is more like Jersey Snore.
atleast with something like USA network, it's actually interesting.
roguegeniusFeb 5, 2011
As happy as I am that conservatives are annoyed... Skins, and pretty much everything else on MTV sucks.