The new SideReel iOS app features a fresh design and improved Tracker. Get the SideReel App!  

'Gossip Girl' Threesome Episode Under PTC Threat - Featured

"Gossip Girl" very special episode of threesome which is scheduled to air on Monday, November 9 is under threat of not being aired. The Parents Television Council (PTC) has released an open letter to The CW that they are objecting to the idea of such scene. They claimed such moves are "reckless and irresponsible".


" 'Gossip Girl' routinely depicts teenage characters engaging in promiscuous and consequence-free sexual behavior, and that's bad enough," PTC president Tim Winter wrote. "But will you now be complicit in establishing a precedent and expectation that teenagers should engage in behaviors heretofore associated primarily with adult films?"


Winter said they will put a fine should the government agree with them about the episode content. The episode called "They Shoot Humphreys, Don't They?" is not yet aired but PTC has heard about it through reports like the one from EW which spilled that there would be three characters engaged in a sex activity on the same bed. "PTC will monitor this episode very closely," the council warned The CW.


On the last few notes, Winter said, "Finally, you must ask yourself, how does airing this program serve your obligation to serve the public interest?" when referring to Federal Communications Commission's rule which can yank any "unsatisfactory or unsuitable or contrary to public interest" program.


The CW has not publicly responded to the letter but has released two clips from the episode instead. They contain no scene of the threesome for sources said the racy tryst will occur in the end of the episode.


Source & Clips

Comments

| 22:13 EST, 05 Nov, 2009
I'd have to say to Mr Winter, isn't it embarassing to misunderstand the idea of the Federal Communications Commission's rule which states, as he so reminds us, that it can yank any "unsatisfactory or unsuitable or contrary to public interest" program? Something which is unsuitable or contrary to public interest is worded that way with the idea that for some obtuse reason the public must be protected from seeing something. As we all know that is meant to be something that can be visually harmful to us, such as actual cadavers, perhaps (are you protesting the tons of shows that try and emulate that as best as possible, CSI, Bones, etc), or certain real violence incidents (does Jerry Springer qualify, or The Wire?), or, as you call it, "adult films", where the entire body is exposed in all of its terrifying reality. Nope, none of us want that, eh? But what strikes me is what happens to the FCC's phrase in your mind. How this becomes twisted into a reverse concept of obliging a program "to serve the public interest" in your phrasings. I wonder, what show would fulfill that requirement? Would any of us really want to watch it? I certainly do not think Gossip Girl ever intended to "serve the public", or its interest--well, outside piquing our interest, that is, which it certainly does. And does it not do so even more by addressing the temptations young people might face? And does it also pique your personal fantasy interest, your own watching of the show keeping the ratings up as you have encouraged all the parents to tune in with the kids, their taking the time to do so justified by a version of monitoring, as you say: "PTC will monitor this episode very closely". I certainly would never defend Gossip Girl as a show promoting good morals on any level, but really, is it all that horrid? Wouldn't you rather your kids see too much loving than death and gore? Gossip Girl has long flirted with a modern day ambiance of Dangerous Liaisons (would you ban projections of that film? Considered a classic both in cinema and certainly of literature) played out in modern times and on the Upper East Side--and as if to confirm that, there is you standing on the sidelines like (or with?) the religious right, trying desperately to control the love of others. Give it up. It always fails! It seems that one key element not being taken into account as you attack the show is that it is simply, or merely, an entirely unrealistic, vapid, silly show. Key on show. It is fantasy--to live a high life where money does not really have to be earned, where school never seems to involve a classroom, where the key to everything is being seen, and where love is the only potential real plot element. Gossip Girl could no more show its characters getting Aids than it could show them failing a class, begging on the street, beating each other up, etc. Gossip Girl is not about reality--but provides us with an escape from it. As such, well, the temptations of the fantasized about threesome just confirm that this is a show which is about the sensual, the exploration of its limits, in an unrealistic, fantasy TVseries. What Gossip Girl perhaps does have to give to the "public" you are so concerned about is to see the fantasy played out with potential consequences on an emotional level for the characters. Aren't you just thrilled to get to partake in that without overstepping your own marital vows? I am sure someone is. That is what good fantasy is for. If we didn't have it, we'd have to go out and try everything ourselves, no? I suppose I have gone far off the mark of where I intended to be when writing this. But you are beating an old drum, and a bit late. If you were concerned about sexuality on Gossip Girl, you should have shut the program down long ago. What you are really saying is that sexuality should be bound within certain norms that you yourself probably fall into a range of. If I had a teenage kid, I would be worried about guns instead.

Post Comment

Want to comment on this post? First, you must log in to your SideReel account!