‘Gossip Girl,’ CW Network and Entertainment Media Engage in Threesome
by Billy HallowellThreesomes are Hollywood’s latest obsession. Within weeks of the release of Britney Spears’ asinine “Ballad” about engaging in a menagerie, CW leaked details about a threesome they were planning on the hit show Gossip Girl. In what could easily be confused as part of a massive Hollywood-led campaign in support of teen pregnancy and a wide array of sexually transmitted diseases, CW decided that exploiting filth for a heavy cash flow was more important that exercising common sense and decency. Surprise!
If you’re thinking, “Threesome?! That’s news to me,” be sure to read John P. Hanlon’s article.” Hanlon explains the whole debacle in detail. However, I’m here to delve further into the insanity surrounding CW’s latest scheme to nab viewer appreciation.
The only thing more grotesque than CW’s exploitation of a threesome for ratings is the media’s coverage of the menage a trois. In a recent article, Michael Ausiello (Entertainment Weekly) was ecstatic over the impending sex scene – so excited that he taunted readers with his foreknowledge telling them, “Though my Gossip mole has asked that I not ID the threesome (on the grounds that it would ruin a major upcoming storyline, or some such nonsense), I can confirm that the kinky tryst will involve one of the following combos…” Ausiello then proceeds to list possible character combos.
Then – no joke – readers (many of whom were not at all phased by the show’s indecency) began commenting about who they thought would be involved! Insanity. Are these really the values our society has adopted as “the norm”? In 2006, alone, teen pregnancy increased significantly in 26 states. Liberals would blame this on “abstinence-only education,” while I’d blame a sizable portion of it on a society that continues to exploit sex for financial gain. Can we really expect people, young and old alike, to respect or even understand sex when threesomes and other unrealistic sexual messaging invade our lives at every corner? Let’s get real.
In the GG case, some media have chosen to downplay the threesome. E! Online’s Joal Ryan had this to say:
“So, was that threesome good for GG? It wasn’t bad, especially considering the event was nothing more explicit than three people (Penn Badgley, Jessica Szhor and Disney grad Hilary Duff) not kissing at the same time.”
Not bad? This dismissal is disturbing. The intensity of the footage shouldn’t be the only issue of concern. CW used a sexually-explicit concept to flavor advertising leading up to the Nov. 9 episode. Plus, the menage a trois isn’t out of GG’s storyline. If people were outraged by the Nov. 9 episode, E! Online reports even more nasty content is coming:
“The dirty deed goes down on this Monday’s episode, but will be recounted with flashbacks the following week, Nov. 16, where we will learn–and see–even more about it.”
So, the debauchery hasn’t ended and will continue on a subsequent episode. Parent’s Television Council president Tim Winter had this to say in response to the Nov. 9 episode:
“Though there was no explicit sex scene on last night’s episode, the CW Network’s behavior was grossly irresponsible by adding a story line where a sexual threesome was to be celebrated as some sort of ‘rite of passage’ for teenagers. The network inserted this story line into a program that they themselves deem to be appropriate for 14-year-old children based on its content rating,”
Many GG enthusiasts have cited the show’s older target demographic (18 to 34) to stake the claim that viewers are old enough to handle the subject matter. Let’s be realistic. Even if women comprise the core viewership, young girls are surely watching the show. Back in September, a CW press release touted GG’s win in the 9 p.m. timeslot among women 12 to 34. Yes, 9 p.m. – a time when one would assume that a sizable proportion of teenagers are channel surfing.
Furthermore, the median age of CW’s viewers is 33; GG’s average viewer age is 27. While the mean age is relatively high, it still points to the fact that young people are tuning in. Plus, this doesn’t take into consideration online viewership, which would likely skew younger.
Let’s remember, too, that this tactic was used for the sake of a potential ratings hike. Last week, Brent Bozell wrote, “There is absolutely no barrier of sexual behavior that TV network executives aren’t willing to cross in a desperate gambit for ratings” and he couldn’t be more on target. He’s right. The entire premise of using a threesome to drive ratings came full circle when E! Online reported CW’s reward for exploiting sexual incongruence for the sake of the almighty dollar:
“The series was up 20 percent from last week: 2.4 million viewers versus 1.95 million, per Nielsen stats. The math worked out even better for the CW: It enjoyed its most-watched Monday of the season.”
So, in this case the ratings battle was somewhat won, but at what cost? This stretches beyond the search for mere ratings hikes. Bozell points to another factor driving CW’s insatiable lust for GG-centered controversy:
“But the “Gossip Girl” scandal isn’t just about winning the ratings battle. It’s about corporate executives who will try anything to get a rinky-dink network out of the basement, with absolutely no concern for the damage its tawdry story lines will do to the viewer who is 12. The show is rated TV-14, suggesting threesome plots are acceptable for high-schoolers, and that’s an insult by itself.”
And what a disappointment Hilary Duff is. Joining the cast of one of television’s most trash-ridden shows appears to be a half-witted attempt to shed the “good girl” image she’s yielded over the years. Unfortunately, as many – like Bozell – have highlighted, Duff is still a role-model to many young people. It’s an unfortunate effect of Hollywood’s liberal lunacy that even the good girls turn bad – eventually.
The mainstream media did cover the controversy, with CNN holding a discussion of sorts. However, the overall chatter has been confined mostly to sleazy entertainment blogs and outlets. This issue should extend far beyond the vapid toilet reads. Teen sex is a major problem that touches the lives of millions of Americans. At what point to we stop and say, “Enough is enough?” CW, thanks for your classless moral “racketeering.” Keep up the good work!
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
49 Comments
"Threesomes are Hollywood’s latest obsession."
And every man's eternal obsession. I don't get all this complaining about threesome's on TV.
this is more about the destruction of the family unit than anything else…
In other words, an adjunct to the gay marriage debate. The only way a utopian (dystopian? totalitarian?) society can come to fruition is if the State controls everything; not the nuclear family. Advocating libertine behavior such as this just furthers their goals.
Why no plot lines on an actual family? One that is good and correct in their behavior and a benefit to the community?
Oh, that would be 'Leave it to Beaver'.
Never mind…
Who cares? You guys are making this into a big deal when most people didn't even know about the show to begin with. Let the market decide what kind of shows live and die. I don't want the government telling me what to watch.
As for the harping on teenage pregnancy, it's hard not to argue that ignorance about sex isn't the main cause of teenage pregnancies. I realize most people are totally uncomfortable discussing a woman's menstrual cycle, but understanding it is vitally important if we want to keep young girls from getting pregnant and resorting to abortion. Most of the abstinence-only folks I've met are completely clueless about how pregnancy actually occurs, and it stems from parents not discussing (gasp!) periods with their daughters.
Abstinence is a wonderful goal, and it should be promoted by all parents. It's also unrealistic in most cases, which is where having a basic understanding of the human body becomes all the more important. Hollywood does set a bad example when it comes to teenage sex, but parents also set a bad example when they fail to teach their kids about "how it all works."
Wow, threesomes are normal? I am so uncool. Oh well.
Fans of ‘Gossip Girl' can't count to three. No harm no foul.
"Every man's eternal obsession" is a pretty ignorant and sexist generalization to make. So just because it's popular with some people, that means any complaints about its indecency isn't okay? I'm a guy in his late 20s, and it's not my obsession. On the contrary, I don't associate with people that enjoy that lifestyle.
I got married – because I wanted to – to a woman that I deeply love and care about. Sex is something special between the two of us that I wouldn't ever taint by bringing some other person into it. As far as any future children (and I mean teenagers as well), I don't want them watching things like that on tv because they don't need that crap in their lives. Kids should go out and have fun like normal people – go to the beach or a sports game or something that. What the people do on these shows isn't normal, regardless of what anybody in the media says. And if you don't see this as a problem, then you seriously need some help.
before this story line I had never even heard of this show. It is called "Gossip Girl" you think it's going to show values?
the only thing that concerns me is that it is on the CW suposedly a teen oriented station. Ok maybe it once was. I don't watch a solitary thing on this network. and havent for at least 10 years
I see it as a problem solely for PARENTS, not for the State.
Lack of parental responsibility is the root cause of the degrading of morals. It has nothing to do with TV stations or the FCC or Hollywood or whatever, it's all because of how parents raise their kids and what they allow them to think of as acceptable behavior (or, at the least, acceptable music/TV/films/videogames). The market works in entertainment the same way it works in all other areas of commerce. What the public wants will succeed; what it doesn't want will fail.
Some of you sound like you desperately want the nanny state to step in and start dictating story-lines and such, and that's the complete opposite of limited government. I want the government out of my life. I don't want it deciding for me beforehand what I can and cannot watch as entertainment. I'm smart enough to make that decision for myself, and I'll raise my children the way I want them to be raised.
Who decides what's "good" and "correct?" The State? Or the people via the free market?
The problem with this is kids are no longer able to be kids. WIth all of this kind of crap thrown in little one's eyes and all of the sex education kids younger and younger are being taught, its no wonder young folks are becoming parents. Let the kids be kids just a little longer!! They can worry about this shit later.
"menagerie"
Hey there Billy I think you meant "Ménage à trois"
But someone engaging in a sexual "menagerie" would be pretty extreme too….Lions, Giraffes, Hippos etc.
The more taboo you make sex, the more likely you are to have teen dramas featuring threesomes. The more adults say "this is outrageous!" the more you can GUARANTEE teens will tune in. Didn't you guys learn anything from the 1960s?
Still, no show does threesomes better than Three's Company. There's no actual threesomes, but they are always suggested, and it's one of the best shows ever made.
Media is always propagandistic. It is impossible not to be.
Everything it does is suggestive to it audience. This is potentially problematic for the young, who are working through what is the best lifestyle for them for the rest of their lives.
Our testosterone driven nervous systems between 13 and 33 induce conclusions that can work against happiness between 34 and 94. In other words, it is easy to hype young folks into behavior that will never make them happy later in life.
We could argue to let the market decide so long as the consequences of acting out on perverted actions are balanced against the emotional hype turning your bedroom into a pole dance. Since that is not the case, complaint followed by action is necessary.
I'm not a fan of the show, but it is time for some reality checking. First, the show did poorly (and has always done poorly) among males. A lascivious plotline involving a a threesome with two attractive young women, one a former squeaky clean Disney star, managed to draw no appreciable male viewers whatsover. Reality: GG's sex-laden plotlines appeal to the show's young female (12-24) and gay audience. Or as I've blogged about 10% of the potential audience which is about 21 million and change or so.
Second, the fan of "envelope pushing" sex and relationships is and always has been female. Men are visually oriented, they don't get into relationship/boundary pushing as much, which can be good and bad (as any cardboard cut-out female role in a male action movie can attest). Girls/women by contrast care deeply about "boundary pushing" and relationships and will flock to those that push their emotional buttons (see "Twilight"). Girls and women are no more pure, ethereal, pedestal dwelling creatures than men are part of the gutter, both are flawed, subject to lusts and desires, but react different according to gender.
Bottom line, Broadcast TV is almost entirely a female-gay ghetto, with Gossip Girl fighting over the same female audience that watches "Fattest Loser" (fat people have gay guys and diva-esque female fitness trainers yelling at them) or tawdry reality shows "Sex Addiction with Dr. Drew" (yes, there is such a show) or American Idol and Desperate Housewives. Men watch sports or USA Network. [Even Sci-Fi channel changed its name to Sy-Fy to attract women and became a soap opera haven with cheesy special effects, witness "Battlestar Stargate Universe Housewives."]
Easy prediction: the "flashbacks" will be more emotionally and relationship oriented than visual. Porn for girls instead of boys, in other words. Sadly the condom, pill, anonymous urban living, vastly improved social and economic status for women guarantee stuff like Gossip Girl. Every silver lining has a cloud, no free lunch, everything even good things have their prices.
I don't think getting upset is the answer, merely understanding that relationships are going to be fraught with promiscuity, and thus short-lived. To quote the great Paul Anka "that's just the way it is."
They know how it all works – they are not idiots. They just don't care, because like death and car accidents, they don't believe it will actually happen to them.
well if our schools (the State) would stop promoting condom life styles, 'getting tested' as a form of control, yet nothing on abstinence or celibacy. And btw, of the four methods only 2, if used properly, are 100% effective. if our schools, the state, would stop promoting hedonism, and start promoting marriage, then i'd say… free market would be more about marriage, right? but since schools promote condoms & geting tested, then your free market of hedonism is the winner.
What is shocking to me is that all these so-called teen dramas take for granted that all kids have fake ids and drink in bars as if it were no big deal. Even in shows like the old Beverly Hills 90210, a kid drinking was a big deal – it usually meant that they were headed for an alcoholic storyline, and perhaps rehab. Now, the drinking and drug taking are just a part of their normal daily life.
What is interesting though, is that no characters that are likable have abortions.
i agree that parents & the church have failed miserable. we have accepted and allowed State schools to take over our children's well being. i hope a strong component of the conservative movement is to take our children back from public schools.
a real free market: give us back our taxes or give us tax vouchers or what have you, LET US DECIDE WHERE OUR KIDS GO TO SCHOOL & THE MONEY TOO. BAM!!! The public school system will die. Churches & private schools will rise, accountability, parental involvement, our money, our children, our schools.
I didnt see the show but did they show the timing of the guys ejaculation with the perfect crescendo of the girls moment? Was there any "too much" lighting on pores & pimples & hair follicles? how about the odd clothes getting stuck on this or that limb or button? or the out of place joke or two? or the odd sounds, odd quips and misplaced chuckles & giggles? or the huff of impatience or the overly done fake pleasure sounds? or the waking up to the uncertainty of focus or importance? or the weighted siding of one to one other and not the third? just wondering…. since i didn't see it?
oh who had to sleep in the wetspot? who got the towel? oohhh so many questions!!! STDS? oh i gotta stop!
then surely you won't mind if we decide what we want to be allowed on the airwaves WE OWN!
remember – we're talking about Brittany Spears here……..
How do you explain that some girls are pregnant for months before they even know it? That's a failure on the part of the parents.
"And every man's eternal obsession…"
Talk about a generalization! Quite a few guys I know find the idea disgusting. Not every male on the planet is perverted you know. To say nothing of a single guy's ability to… Well let's not go there.
You make a good point here. Anyone who watches this tripe must already be a dope. So no real harm done to society.
You own CW?
Of course this show is morally corrupt. Hollywood is morally corrupt. The American family is about non-existent. (Meaning divorces and broken homes are now common.) While it's great to finger one area and say: "You're to blame!", we really can't. It's a myriad of different factors that contribute to the problem. We've got Hollywood glorifying wrong. We've got a media glorifying wrong. We've got schools in some cases glorifying wrong. (Universities do it extensively.) And on top of it all, we've got broken families that can't instill a shred of decency into their children. It's a big fat mess to be sure. If anyone truly wants to get back on the right track, they have to say "Enough!" That can start with a TV show. Turn off the TV! Quit seeing raunchy films! That's the way out.
With kids being constantly plastered with images of glorified sex without their parents to counter it, are we really surprised by the amount of teen pregnancy? While the media & hollywood loves to think it's really important, it's the family that is the stronger force. (That of course leads one to the conclusion that hollywood wants these sorts of values but that's another story.) By removing family out of the equation where are kids supposed to go?
I agree with the "let kids be kids" thing that someone else said. Let them have fun while they can. The window of opportunity for a threesome closes rapidly with age.
If adults want to do that filth that is their business. This show is geared toward TEENAGERS.
The CW has always been a big joke. Are you really that surprised that they would stoop to this?
And… PARENTS can make sure their teenagers don't watch it. I realize it's a shocking solution since it completely takes the government out of the equation, but there it is.
I haven't mentioned anything about government, so I don't even know what you're talking about.
"Quite a few guys I know find the idea disgusting."
I have a funny feeling that it's the same ratio of guys *I* know who looooove watching Gray's Anatomy with the missus, and who "hated" that one rowdy bachelor party and "couldn't wait to leave but had to stay to make sure so-and-so didn't party too hard."
"To say nothing of a single guy's ability to… Well let's not go there.
"
I don't think you're quite grasping the mechanics of this procedure. Just sayin'.
You've got it backwards. "Kids" have ALWAYS been fascinated by anything that they aren't supposed to know about. Stuff like this doesn't "tell" kids and young teenagers anything they don't already know or at least have a clumsily-deduced rough idea of – the only innocence being destroyed is that of adults rendered unable to pretend that "their" kids DON'T think about/know about such things.
I remember being, oh… 11. "Good Catholic Boy" no less. And when I was with my buddies, yeah, we played war, and built forts and all that good old fashioned stuff… we ALSO stole Playboys (or whatever) from whoever had the least-responsible dad and/or older brother – in fact, hiding those was what the fort was FOR – and nearly-electrocuted ourselves trying to unscramble certain Pay-Per-View channels. I'm rather certain that my father and his father could tell a lot of the same stories – just with different technology and proper nouns.
Not all males (and yes I'm using that in a derogatory feminist sort of way) are of such low quality as you indicate. No, they don't all drink beer and have large stomachs. I rather think you have a low opinion of your own gender. Or perhaps share your time with men of less than desirable quality. >:D
"I don't think you're quite grasping the mechanics of this procedure. Just sayin'. "
Actually I was inferring that the party of the first party cannot quite manage in such a circumstance to the satisfaction of the parties of the second and third. If you need any further explanation beyond that I can't help you.
Hell, it's pretty much over with twosomes at 40
Nice to see that while our country is being flushed down the toilet by dirty socialist muppets that the moralizing nitwits are still wasting our time and their energy with idiotic nonsense like this. This isn't some nuanced art film awash in moral relativism and deranged rationalizations for bad or foolish behavior. It is a soap opera predicated on being voyeurs into the lives of a bunch of train wrecks. There are always consequences for the icky things people do on the show, and for all but the most obtuse that is a moral lesson in itself. Who watches this show thinking it projects any kind of virtues at all?
"I rather think you have a low opinion of your own gender. Or perhaps share your time with men of less than desirable quality?"
I don't care about their "desirable quality"… they're MEN! I care that they have my back in a fight, might let me crash on their couch and maybe help me avoid an unhappy woman and/or law enforcement under the proper circumstances
(continued)
(continued)
"Actually I was inferring that the party of the first party cannot quite manage in such a circumstance to the satisfaction of the parties of the second and third."
Like I said, you're misunderstanding (mis-imagining?) the mechanics of this scenario – the practical innability of the party of the first party to satisfy the parties of the second and the third are compensated/complimented by the parties of the second and third.
The party of the first party's main function in this is… um.. what's a good euphemism for this? "Air support?" "Tactical centralization?" "Communications hub?" Whatever. Basically, in this particular scenario, "threesome" is the politically-correct term for "lesbianism with a referee." (copyright: ME.)
"I don't care about their "desirable quality"…"
That says enough about your viewpoint right there. QED
I'll leave you with a lovely quote from Washington. (Whom I'm assuming was a man.) "Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputation; for t'is better to be alone than in bad Company."
It’s an unfortunate effect of Hollywood’s liberal lunacy that even the good girls turn bad – eventually. Isn't that the truth New comer's are used abused and flaunted. I could name a few names but i won't but this proves hollywood can change you if you are not strong. It will chew you up,break your heart and spite you back out all messed up.
Why are some people saying stupid things like 'I don't want the government telling me what to watch' in response to criticism of GG?
Get a clue; criticizing the show, it's motives, etc. is not a call for government to step in.
Then we have someone calling people "moralizing nitwits" and "wasting our time and their energy with idiotic nonsense like this" while the "country is being flushed down the toilet by dirty socialist muppets."
How ridiculous. Don't go to a ballgame. Don't go to a movie. Don't criticize your neighbor turning his home into a junkyard. Don't criticize dog owners for using your yard as a dumping ground. Don't you know? Every waking moment, every action, every word, every post must be about stopping the dirty socialists. GIVE ME A BREAK!
"Who watches this show thinking it projects any kind of virtues at all?" You seem to be assuming everyone values virtues and live their lives accordingly. BTW, socialism is sold as virtuous.
True, but the wonder was also the insulation. You wondered and stole playboys to get sneak peeks and laugh and giggle about doing something you knew your parents would KILL you for. Now, it's accepted behavior. With pornography (soft or otherwise) so prevalent and the news media seizing any risque story they can about who slept with who or who popped out of who's top, that wonder is gone.
Haha, that's too bad.
Moviebob just posts garbage like this to make himself feel better. His is a shallow, meaningless and desolate existence.
What are you talking about? Nobody's said anything about the state at all. All we said is that networks shouldn't put this on tv, that's all. Nothing about the government, nothing about parents, just that it has no place on tv….sheesh.
Articles like these give parents the information to make such decisions.
the people, naturally. The state can only approve that which the clear majority approves- and what passes constitutional muster…
This is for guys. The didactic point is, as the didactic point of the sexual revolution with the pill and abortion rights, was: Open up women as sex objects for the benefit of men. How many men in this menage? One. Just so. The point is to suggest to women, "Wouldn't this maybe be fun? Why are you so uptight? You should try this with him." And it's for the benefit of him–the one man who gets the two women.
[...] Hallowell’s latest piece on Big Hollywood is notable for 1) the sheer level of outrage he’s able to reach over [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.