Forget Jersey Shore: MTV is making moves to be the hottest and most scandalous channel out there, with their new show Skins, adapted from the British show by the same name. Hot, young, fresh-faced stars? Check. Lots of sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll? Check. Facing huge criticism from the Parents Television Council? Check. They are the new CW, and this is their Gossip Girl. But have they gone too far? MTV is now facing potential charges that their show might fall under the category of child pornography, due to the sexually explicit scenes it features with underage actors. This week, top executives have been scrambling to deal with the potential fallout of this claim, and wondering “who could possibly face criminal prosecution and jail time if the episodes were broadcast without changes.” Taco Bell, Wrigley, GM, and H&R Block have …
… pulled their advertising, and the channel plans to edit the show to remove some of the sexual content in future episodes.
What categorizes child pornography? Any image of a minor participating in sexual activities, with a minor being someone under the age of 18 (in America). It is not, however, inherently illegal for a minor to be shown nude in a film. Thora Birch is one famous actress to have done so, in the 1999 film American Beauty. Because the scene was approved by the California Child Labor Board, and Birch’s parents were on set when the filming occurred, everything was done to insure her comfort and safety. But has Skins taken the same precautions? And would it matter if they had? It’s likely that there’s nothing they could do, short of canceling the show, would make the Parents Television Council happy (as we’ve discussed before). In their original condemnation of the show, the PTC said, “MTV is one of the most widely-viewed cable and satellite networks, not only among older teens but children as well. By producing its own version of Skins – as well as its ongoing glorification of drinking and sex in shows like The Real World – MTV is exposing millions of youngsters to images and content that cannot help but warp their perceptions of life, and encourage negative behavior that youngsters may one day regret.”
Are these charges valid? It would be one thing if Skins was glorifying teens engaging in dangerous activities, and never letting them face the consequences. But if the British version is any indication, that is not the case for this particular television show (for more on the difference between the two versions, check out New York Magazine’s comparison charts). If the American Skins has lost some of the nuance of the critically-acclaimed British version, that’s the fault of MTV and the new showrunners. In the British Skins, teens may have sex and do drugs, but they tend to participate in these activities out of interest in experimentation, not addiction. They have negligent parents and hard home lives. The show depicts actual adolescent issues without the melodrama associated with soap operas; abortion, anorexia, and the confusion of youth are featured either occasionally or prominently. Critics are not condemning the American Skins across the board; Jessica Bennett of Newsweek wrote that it, “may be the most realistic show on television.”
Of course, there are still the dissenters. Professor of law at NYU Amy M. Adler says that “There are times when I look at mainstream culture and think it is skirting up against the edge of child pornography law.” There are times when I look at the controversy over television shoes for teens and wonder how much of it stems from our feelings and worries about teen sexuality, and how much actually comes from our desire to protect them. We’re more scared than protective of our teenagers, and maybe it’s time those two impulses switch places.
The last sentence of the article is spot on. We’ve allowed everything to be permissible in society,then stand back with shock when we see the results. You reap what you sow.
Disclaimer: I have not seen the American version of the show.
The BBC version of Skins was a really great show. I thought it progressed through the lives of the students quite realistically, and it didn’t leave a lot to the imagination. Yes, it started out glorifying sex, drinking, and drugs. However, as the story progressed, it became very clear that these teens were really struggling. It wasn’t just the sex, drugs, and drinking – it was far more than that. It went deep into the relationships that teens have with each other and the various adults in their lives.
It was very raw, but not once did I think the BBC version was exaggerated.
I hope the MTV version can hold true to the original.
UK Skins was a Channel 4 production – way to racy to be allowed on the BBC! I know BBC America tends to show programs from other English channels, but they would never have made Skins.
Also, I think the main problem with the MTV version is not the possibility of child nudity, it’s the fact that it’s just not very good. UK Skins (first generation) was not fantastic, but it was innovative and had heart. The US version is prettier and soulless.
Did the advertisers not bother to actually ask what the program was about?
Ha! No kidding. I don’t get MTV (or most channels, really) and haven’t seen this show, but it sounds pretty poorly done. And the advertisers are dropping like flies, so I doubt it will make it to a second season.
I hadn’t watched Skins for years, but recently started rewatching the first two series. The first two are pretty legendary. I think if the American version is any good (which I doubt) then perhaps that will direct what I think of how they use nudity in the show. If it is exploitative, then it is exploitative. If a show sucks balls and has no real content or is just a rehash of every other tired American coming-of-age show, then I might find the nudity bothersome. If the show means something, then not so much. From what it seems though, the media is clearly over reacting regardless. A butt. wow. I seem to remember butts in The Road to El Darado, a 2000 Dreamwork’s cartoon. I have an ass. You have an ass. We all have asses. Some even have an extra for head accessory purposes.
Pingback: Dan Savage To Get His Own MTV Show; Give Dr. Drew A Run For His Money – Zelda Lily, Feminism in a Bra
I can’t say I’ve ever seen either version of this show, but I’m going to stick my oar in anyway.
It’s worth considering the cultural differences between the US and the UK. Given that the age of consent here in the UK is 16, two 17-yr-olds having sex is not paedophilia. Two 15-yr-olds would be a grey area. Similar goes for the depiction, given that in this show it is simulated, not real.
The problem is that our cultures are so similar in some ways that we tend to ignore the differences, when they ought to be one of the first considerations when trying to remake shows this way. It works in both directions, too – I think that’s why the UK remake of The Golden Girls was a flop.
Ah but then in the US they set their ages of consent anywhere between 16-18 depending on state law. Most are actually at 16. Only 12 of 50 states are set at 18, and many of those have an age gap allowance (where as long as the person they had sex with is a around the same age then it is fine). It is really murky with state laws being different, it does cause real issues sometimes.
Here is a propagated difference I’ve come across a few times in the UK: Americans don’t get irony. This I have heard multiple times and without any basis… Damn you Alanis Morissette and your catchy canadian tunes!
Pingback: Zelda Lily Zingers: The Week’s Best Comments – Zelda Lily, Feminism in a Bra
I think parent’s misgivings about the show are understandable if you look at the context that kids are now growing up in – p*rn saturation spreading into the popular culture, the disturbing trend of depicting grown women as children in sexualised poses, not only in material like ‘barely legal’ but also in mainstream fashion shoots etc., the exploitation of young, often intoxicated girls in shows like Girls Gone Wild, the very real threat of internet predators and pedophiles etc. I think if there wasn’t such an oversaturation of this kind of material and behaviour, then there would be a lot less anxiety amongst parents and they would be more open to legitimate art dealing realistically with teen sexuality and other issues pertaining to kids.
As it stands, it seems to be getting harder and harder to separate the legitimate art from the exploitative trash. There is a fine line and I think more than ever commercial imperatives are compelling producers to cross it – profits, ratings, publicity, tittilation and controversy seem to be more important than artistic merit and authenticity. I think these are reasonable, legitimate concern for any parent who gives a crap about their kid and the society that they’re growing up in.