It’s not a new thing to see scantily clad teenage television characters taking control of their sexuality and doing the nasty. After all, an episode of Gossip Girl or Glee is hardly complete without seeing some onscreen action between high school classmates. You’d assume, then, that there’s no reason for all of the uproar over MTV’s new show Skins, which prominently depicts its high school characters doing drugs and hooking up.
The difference between Skins and those other shows, however, is that on the other shows, almost without exception, the actors are 20-somethings. On Skins, a remake of the wildly popular British series by the same name, the actors are all teenagers in real life, too, with the ages of the 10 stars ranging from 15 to 19.
That’s why MTV is afraid it may be dancing around a pool of hot, lawsuit-filled water. In the past week, The New York Times reports, the network has been trying to figure out what to do with some of the show’s content, which could risk garnering accusations of breaking child pornography laws.
According to the newspaper, official U.S. law says that child pornography is a depiction of a minor involved with sexually explicit activities in images or films. Even a picture of a naked minor could be deemed child porn if it’s deemed “sexually suggestive.” Although, like most laws regarding indecency or obscenity, the line of what’s “normal” nudity and what’s “sexually suggestive” is hazy at best.
MTV executives are reportedly pushing for consideration of additional editing on some of the episodes that haven’t aired yet, and they’ve already rated the program TV-MA for mature audiences. Apparently, the network is particularly concerned about the third episode, which airs next week and features a scene with a bare-assed 17-year-old actor running down the street.
If the original is any indication, the rest of the series will likely feature similarly racy content. The first episode alone features a pot deal that would make Nancy Botwin jealous, a 16-year-old who’s belittled for still being a virgin, a girl going down on a guy in a tent, and a girl nicknamed “Nips.”
Predictably, the Parents Television Council was one of the first to light the torches. In an action alert, the conservative watchdog organization condemned the series, calling it “the most dangerous program ever,” and later it requested an investigation.
Regarding the cries of child pornography, James Poniewozik over at Time asks some good questions that I’d love to see answers for:
I have to wonder, if MTV’s executives are suddenly concerned about the legal liability, how could it not have occurred to them earlier in the process—especially since the use of teen actors has been one of the show’s best-publicized aspects, and since the show was very directly adapted from a British show that already exists for comparison? For that matter, since the British Skins was also cast with teen actors, why would it not have already constituted child pornography when it aired on BBC America?
In spite of—or, more likely, as a result of—the controversies surrounding the series, the premiere of Skins debuted to a huge audience of 3.3 million. I guess everyone wanted to be able to gauge how close to kiddie porn the show really is.
I don’t know if Skins is breaking laws, but if it’s not, I think it merits a few viewings. The original series is a really engaging look into teen life. It shows how teenagers often turn to sex and drugs to deal with problems in their lives or because they’re being pressured into it or because they’re simply curious and want to experiment or because, you know, they’re just horny. Seeing how the first few episodes are almost literal shot-for-shot duplications of the British episodes (future U.S. episodes will reportedly diverge from the U.K. version), I have hope that the U.S. Skins will provide a similar forum for discussion and exploration.
And in the meantime, while MTV executives scramble to play the “Let’s Not Get Arrested” game, are a few naked butt shots from a 17-year-old really hurting anyone? What are your thoughts?
I have no problem with the content. Kids need fiction that grapples with the tough stuff. And I’m not normally into siding with conservative whackadoos. But I’m not going to decide an issue based on who its champions are. But yes, it’s hurting someone. It’s hurting those child actors. As a survivor of teen sexual abuse, my own experience with my father’s late night groping happened maybe once when he was drunk. That very haziness is what leads to all the questions. Was it my fault? Did it really happen? He didn’t mean it and so on. And now, when… Read more »
I’m sure the show is not crossing any terrible boundaries. This whole child pornography scandal is a grab for attention and publicity, exactly like the outcry during the premier of Jersey Shore from Italian interest groups against their use of the term Guido. I’m sure MTV tipped off whatever groups are causing the stir up over the “racy” content.
Blah. False controversy stewed up by bigots who want to pretend sex doesn’t exist. There is a difference between acting & reality.
It’s more like things like this that I’m worried about. (I know it’s eBaums, but I originally found it somewhere else.)
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80780469/