Prime-time Threesome: ‘Gossip Girl’ Hits New Low?
by John P. HanlonThe CW program “Gossip Girl” has often found itself in the glare of the political spotlight. It has often relished that position and used it to garner more attention from conservative critics and groups that are opposed to the salacious content of the program. With that in mind, the show, now in its third season, has once again grabbed the spotlight with a recent sexual threesome featuring three young adults on the program.
If you are not familiar with the show that was famously once called “every parent’s nightmare,” it revolves around a group of elitist and predominantly rich young people in New York City who often spend their time manipulating and betraying each other while being observed by an anonymous online author named “gossip girl.” The show is escapist fare for young people and adults who may envy the lives of the rich and outrageous. I have seen a couple of episodes of the program since its premiere several years ago. Although its ratings are not great, the program has shown a keen ability to grab a lot of attention and make headlines with some of its racier storylines. For instance, the media attention for the threesome episode came only a few short weeks after the show received a lot of attention for a kiss between two guys, one of whom is the show’s resident bad boy, Chuck Bass.
The particular episode about the threesome revolves around one of the lead characters, Dan Humphrey, trying to convince his girlfriend Olivia, played by Hillary Duff from the kid-friendly ”Lizzie McGuire” series and “Cheaper by the Dozen” films, to stay in college instead of going to work on a new movie. In trying to convince her, he and a friend go through a list of fun things that students ”must do” in college. At the end of the show, after the majority of the list has been accomplished, Olivia realizes that they have have not done the threesome yet so without much talk, discussion or debate, the three friends casually jump into bed together. This is an awkward and lazy plot development, to say the least, one that can be argued is solely for the sake of getting more publicity for the show.
The problem, though, for a program such as this, is that it cannot survive on media headlines and parental outrage all of the time. The show has previously used parental outrage to as a media tool to get buzz and young people to watch the show because it is “bad” for them, so the show’s interest in attracting attention and pushing the envelope is not surprising. However, such outrage will eventually run itself out and the show will have to survive on its own merits and content.
That content is often solely for adults, but the show does not only target adults, it has a lot of young fans who may imitate the behavior on the program. As an article from Entertainment Weekly stated a few years ago, “In Los Angeles, some students — apparently inspired by Gossip Girl — created an anonymous, trash-talking blog about the goings-on at several tony schools.” With stories like that, it is the targeting of young people that’s most offensive about this program. The criticism of the show would be much milder if it solely targeted more mature adults. However, “GG” does target teens and one article about the program even quoted a fourteen year old fan of the program who stated that the show is ”like ‘Sex and the City’ with more drama and for younger kids.”
Admittedly,”GG” can be fun, brainless, escapist entertainment. It is easy to see how viewers could be enthralled by the lives and the scandals of the characters on the show, but that does not overshadow the negative effects of the program. In the same article quoting the fourteen year old, conservative Carol Platt Liebeau (who blogs with me at Townhall.com) was quoted as saying that the show “glamorizes and normalizes the kinds of behaviour that may seem charmingly risque and sophisticated when little girls see them on TV, but which, if emulated in real life, can result in emotional and psychological distress for them.”
It will likely only be a matter of time before “Gossip Girl” presents another controversial storyline and receives a lot of media attention and criticism because of it. With that in mind, parents should be increasingly vigilant about what their children are watching and what they are being exposed to in the media.
“Gossip Girl” may have a knack for getting attention, marketing to teenagers and getting the critics buzzing, but it is parents who should be the ones telling their children that shows like “Gossip Girl” are for adults only.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
119 Comments
When you have no substance you have to rely on controversy.
Well, guess what? It worked. You wrote an article about it, and now more people may check it out. I wish conservative groups would stop complaining about this or that on tv. Its a free country. If you don't like it, don't watch it. When did we conservatives become proponents of a nanny state?
When are they going to have a permanent set of characters that are into bestiality as a sexual orientation? We sure don't want to be speciesists, do we? Fortunately, the new bill the president signed will protect pedophiles as a bona fide sexual orientation. So we're waiting for Gossip Girl to introduce both of these new sexual orientations. Or can't the Gossip Girl producers get that Judeo-Christian repression completely out of their heads?
Meh… I was ticked when they took Veronica Mars off the air for this show… :/ I think I have watched all of one whole entire episode since it came on in 2007.
According to the Wikipedia article… it's format is "Teen Drama"… so the producers can go shove it if they really believe that it's marketed for adults… :/ In fact the ONLY show that I know any adult to watch on the CW is America's Next Top Model… and that's because we all like to point and laugh at the train wreck THAT is.
And I was wondering if that was Hilary Duff… That girl is going down hill when it comes to projects… It will be a sad day when the height of her career will be the Lizzy Maguire franchise….
"This is an awkward and lazy plot development, to say the least, one that can be argued is solely for the sake of getting more publicity for the show."
And you played right along with that…well done…
If there was ever a show that can be called an "attention whore." it's Gossip Girl.
They want the nanny state when it comes to watch we watch in our own homes, what we do in our bedrooms in our own homes, and what God we pray to in our own homes. Other than that, the modern conservative is about freedom and individualism……(sarc)
Not sure if it is such a complaint, Axl… Big Hollywood covers films and TV series and celebrity. Commenting on these things are its bread and butter.
You make it sound as if BH just pushed for a major boycott or asked the government to ban it. You made a bigger complaint of the column than the author did of the show.
This IS the site that declared war on Sesame Street, after all.
Actually, the new bill does NOT protect pedophiles as a bona fide sexual orientation. Pedophilia is still illegal, and the Hate Crimes law didn't change that. However, please if you must, find the exact language in the bill that you think bolsters your argument.
I'm kind of with you on this. There are like 5 bazillion channels out there, must be something else on if you don't like what's on the channel you're watching. It's more up to the parents to police what their kids are watching.
The LAST thing I want is anyone telling me I'm not allowed to watch something.
Not really, they just pointed out that a funded TV show is shilling for liberals. Or is no one allowed to point those types of things out?
Frankly, the idea that the FCC can actually censor curse words on TV and radio seems like something conservatives ought to rebel against. Then you let the market fully decide.
New low? New high, you mean! Hotcha!
It was the intensity of the columns that made me wonder if they were trying to pull the show off of the air. Either way, the freakout over a song on a puppet show that said that people really weren't that different from one another seemed disproportionate.
Axl – the article was a critique of the show being devoid of any worthwhile artistic merit more than any proponent of "nanny-statism". Most conservatives wouldn't watch that drivel – so an article like this is a way to stay informed on the popular culture. Hanlon advises that parents who do wish to keep tabs on their children's viewing choices should be aware of Gossip Girl, that's all. Not once did he advocate the "State" or even the network censoring content. If I'm wrong, pull a quote, otherwise put away the strawman, that's the province of mind-numbed Obamatons.
Titov – thanks for a big pile of nothingness. Empty bumper-sticker rhetoric is so tired and boring. Whether it's on an Internet forum or society in general, Lefties are completely incapable of any meaningful contribution. You bore me.
Meh, which is why parents want to boycott it…. because they KNOW that if they forbid their kids from watching than their kids will surely watch it… so in their mind they are nipping the problem in the bud…. I know my parents forbade me to watch the Simpson's as a kid (even though to me it was just a cartoon) and other shows… and I still watched them…
I just wish that tv shows that cater to the children to young adult demographic shows responsibility in their programming as they know they have a decent amount of influence on those demographics… however, I have a feeling our kids won't get much tv time in between my husband and his car shows and cooking shows and me with my style shows and sitcoms with an occasional drama here and there.
Well that's a slippery slope. I'd hate to be driving with my 5 year old in the car and some knucklehead blurt out some F bombs on the radio. It's kind of like the Janet Jackson boob incident at the Superbowl. I have no problem with JJ's boobs, they're quite nice actually. BUT the problem is that if I were watching that with my little son I would have no choice to turn it off before it happened. It was an ambush.
Tough call.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Fernando Colon. Fernando Colon said: Prime-time Threesome: ‘Gossip Girl’ Hits New Low? http://bit.ly/17rJVf [...]
Considering no one else was talking about it, I think the response was appropriate. I mean c'mon man, if you don't believe they were taking shots at Fox News then you're being willfully ignorant.
I think the response would be different if it were a privately funded show, but it's not. Too many things have been happening lately with funded organizations openly shilling for one side of the political aisle. What's wrong is wrong, and should be called out.
Actually, how many people REALLY saw something at that Super Bowl, or reacted based on what they thought they saw? Since she was wearing a pasty, no one actually saw anything. I agree it was in poor taste, but it hardly justified the uproar.
When it comes to the FCC, is speech truly free or isn't it? I don't see an asterik next to the First Amendment with a "won't you think of the kids" under it.
A two year old sketch with a tame potshot at Fox? The adult reaction would have been to shrug it off and move on. No matter how you frame the argument, it comes off like people getting angry at a puppet show. When Eminem got mad at a puppet on the MTV Video awards show, he looked like a thin skinned fool. Why go there?
I was going to comment, but that pretty much sums it up for me, also. Hanlon didn't mention the state banning the show, so how is this nanny state protection? If anything he talking responsibility by giving parents a heads up on content.
From the last sentence "but it is parents who should be the ones telling their children that shows like “Gossip Girl” are for adults only."
The responsibility is in the hands of parents, not government.
Awww…the Biz Czar is angry. Seriously though, why do the same people who scream about wanting to be left alone by the government stay remarkably silent when it comes to the government getting involved with people's bedroom activities and or religious opinions? That's not bumper sticker rhetoric, chief. It's a contradiction of modern conservative thought that I've not seen an adequate explanation for.
As for Gossip Girl, don't like it, don't watch. There, not so difficult.
Obviously you don't have kids. The Superbowl was completely inappropriate for that. By your logic, they should have strippers at halftime. Now if they warned viewers before the show that some material may be inappropriate for young kids then whip em out Janet!
But they didn't, and what happened was an ambush that makes being a parent more difficult than it already is. The FCC is useless IMHO. It should be up to the parents, but how can we properly police TV shows for our kids when it's an ambush of something inappropriate?
That the article points out how empty the show is – fine, I get it, that's what BH is about. That the article goes on and on about the gratuitous sexual content contributes to the publicity that the show specifically aimed for, well, what can I say? I don't need to pull a quote. Just read the article again.
When I say conservative groups, I'm talking about Brent Bozell's parental council, etc. referred to in the article. Their "protests" generate the publicity for these shows that money cannot buy. As a conservative, they also give me pause – I don't need them telling me what I can or cannot watch.
The sesame street protest, that I get. Its drivel, but its funded by taxpayers. CW, they can sink on their own dough.
And if you think only "Obamatrons" are capable of strawman arguments, you haven't been listening to your fellow conservatives.
Who and what is Gossip Girl? Never mind, after reading this I don't want to know them.
Poor Hillary Duff…
Your entire Hollywood career is now reduced to a Dana Carvey "Church Lady" schtick…
it doesn't matter how tame or old it was. It's not the place for a one-sided political potshot. It's freakin Sesame Street for chrissakes!!! Show the cookie Monster eating cookies! Gimme The Count…….counting….
Why do any of that crap on what's supposed to be a kids' learning show??
By my logic, if you don't like something, change the channel. Being in bad taste is not nor should it be illegal. I did pointedly say that I thought the JJ thing was in bad taste, but I also pointed out that there was no actual nudity on the part of Miss Jackson in that stunt (frankly, that's why I think this was done on purpose). Obviously, MTV hasn't been asked to do the halftime show since then, but I think the multi-million dollar fines levied over the non-nudity were ridiculous.
By the by, what was your take on the mountain of erectile dysfunction drug ads during the same Super Bowl?
I think this blog post is good, as it's informative for parents who need to make a decision on whether or not their kids can watch this shallow, stupid show.
The author didn't call for it to be taken off the air, nor did the author call for a boycott. I am sick and tired of people like you acting like we can't criticize shows like this. If you don't like the commentary, then take your own advice and just don't read it.
But this ISN'T Brent Bozell's parental council, so if you have a problem, go complain to them.
Idiot.
You call it Sesame Street… others suggest it is progressive propoganda. Disagree if you must, but surely you can see there's more too it than "they want to kill Big Bird!"
My point would be to let it roll. I didn't see CNN freaking out that they were made fun of. Or Dan Rather. Or anyone else in that sketch. Just Fox. If Fox is truly an impartial news network, then they really shouldn't give a rat's patootie that a puppet show took a shot at them.
By the way, I'd feel exactly the same way if they were mocking Olbermann or that Mad Money guy on CNBC or Andy Rooney or whoever. A person has to be able to take some gentle ribbing,especially from puppets.
By the by…cool nickname.
Again, who is calling for the government to deal with this show, Axl? You're arguing against something that no one said.
A substantial number of people would see this as "they want to kill Big Bird". Only in the Eliminationist mindset is a puppet show "propoganda".
But what if you can't change the channel in time? The Superbowl is a prime example of that. I'd gladly change the channel if I knew ahead of time that someone would be flashing a boob then I'd have problem.
Make sure you tell Brent Bozell's group to remember that.
Don't get me started on the boner pill ads…..
So then it would be ok for network television (or even basic cable) to show soft core porn? I'm not saying that this is what GG is doing, since I didn't watch the episode, primarily because there are better things to watch…. but under the premise of "if you don't like it than change the channel" it's ok to show porn during the evening hours, because after all we can change the channel… and then what, hard core? There has to be a line somewhere otherwise we should be free to show whatever we want, including porn, during the primetime hours.
Take Axl's "f you don't like it, don't watch it" advice and apply it here. I you don't like criticism of Sesame Street, then don't read it.
As an aside kids, if you're really into this kind of thing, there's a whole internet full of porn with all the annoying story parts taken out. Kind of makes this sort of thing obsolete.
Prime-time Threesome: ‘Gossip Girl’ Hits New Low?
Yes, I'm a bit strange…my "Prime-Time" hours are spent with family, not in front of the TV. Does anyone remember the old saying, "Garbage In, Garbage Out". If the statement is true, why do people assume that it doesn't apply to what we see or hear?
Of course, in this case, no boob was actually really flashed. Hey, but there's now a six second delay, so such a non-outrage would neve happen again.
I still think the notion that the government can dicate the content of entertainment through the FCC is somewhat problematic.
Because, Titov, as you well know the full story includes a group that packages puppets and propoganda to our children.
Triumph the Insult Comic Dog does not.
You might want to substantiate your comment, Titov.
Teaching sustainability to our children is propoganda. They carry water for the left-of-center (and beyond) school of thought.
See, we agree on something…
Make sure you identify Brent Bozell in this comment section.
Heh – yeah, I was just positively boiling over there wasn't I, Chief? Especially the part about being bored, nothing says rage like a verbal yawn. Let's stick to the subject of this silly show. Your contention that the gub'mint is getting involved in bedroom activities and religious opinions is, of course, absurd and illustrates my point beautifully. That's the kind of nonsense you see pasted to a Prius parked in a Berkley faculty partking lot. The law is only concerned with the bedroom if you have someone underage or a goat in there with you.
And my point is to leave that crap off of a kids' learning show. It's not the place for it. Kids that watch SS don't need to know the world sucks yet.
So why do conservatives get so bent out of shape about sexual orientation then? If you truly believe in privacy, then you shouldn't care, no?
Who is saying it doesn't apply to what we see or hear? Most people I hear saying Garbage In/Garbage Out are specifically speaking about music, film, television, etc.
"A person has to be able to take some gentle ribbing, especially from puppets"
…in particular, puppets who get tax payer money, right?
And only in the hysterical reactionist is it considered "they want to kill Big Bird".
Muchos Gracias….
If it had been her shoe that was ripped off then I'd agree. But it wasn't, was it….
I read it again and there is still nothing in there calling for government intervention. Nothing. At all. Neither Brent Bozell nor the PRC are government entities, nor do they call for legislation to prohibit production of entertainment product that some deem questionable. They, like BH, merely shine a light on popular culture. We're all free to make up our own minds.
I listen to a great many conservatives. Occasionally they're guilty of constructing a strawman or two, sure but I honestly don't encounter that tact from the right very often. I didn't say that only Obamatons are perveyors of strawmen – but I suggest that's their primary rhetorical tool. Their ideas are devoid of any defensible logic. Cap and Trade is the ultimate example of a strawman run amock!
you know, if you don't like conservative commentary on the culture, you don't have to read it. hypocrisy is so unbecoming, don't you think? (the last part of the question is rhetorical, just rearrange the words for the appropriate answer)
Think how bad it would have been if there had been an actual nipple, instead of what we saw…
It's problematic when funded TV shows show a political bias, surely you can agree with that.
There has to be some way of making sure that parents are given the right opportunity to make the decision. How that gets done without resorting to something like the FCC is beyond me.
yeah, last week my friend was telling me how this is her daughter's fave show. i'd never heard of it before, now i really wish i still was clueless…blech.
Probably not only with hysterial reactionists… some of them are government shills.
Except in the case where the vast majority of said puppet show's budget comes from private underwriting, as well as the pledges collected by the member stations. I've always felt that the taxpayer "burden" for PBS has always been wildly overstated.
Still, a person really does need to be able to take ribbing, even when puppets do it.
So SS is teaching kids that the world sucks? Huh? I thought the whole freakout over the Bert and Ernie song was that kids were being taught that all people are basically the same.
because people are trained in the gov't schools to be consumers. a friend of mine who had no tv when his children were young was once reprimanded by his son's school teacher for not allowing his kids to watch popular tv 'cuz his son apparently had nothing to talk to the other kids about….novel idea, though, spending any time with family period.
I think you meant to address this to Titov…
Ok, let's think about that. Are you ok with that type of display on a show that millions of kids were probably watching? Can you imagine being a parent of one of those kids and then having to explain what just happened?
It's not right dude….
A similar question would be, Why do liberals insist on everyone accepting alternate lifestyles? If they are all about diversity, then why go after people that don't think like they do?
This conservative couldn't care less what goes on in private. I just wish more leftists shared my view and respected their own privacy. Straight or gay. It's the Kevin Jennings' of the world with their "Queering Elementary Education" agenda that draw justifiable fire from the right. It's teachers in tax-payer funded government schools lecturing students on "fisting" that cause we on the right take issue.
That's not what I meant dude…..
I meant that kids don't need to be fed any political crap at that age. teach them how to count, how to use manners. Not which network to root for….
So even if, as you say, only a *small* amount of money comes from the government… then it's okay?
Oh… and if the target is to the right of Che and Mao.
More people watch MSNBC than this show…since thats the case, who cares?
No, we want parents to be well-informed of what is on TV so that they can make the best choices FOR THEIR CHILDREN. Conservatives vote with their remote, their pocket books and their feet.
As for what you do in your bedroom, name a mainstream Conservative, including those in office, that call for laws that dictate what you do in your bedroom.
As for what God you pray to (or don't pray to), name a mainstream Conservative, including those in office, that call for laws setting up a theocracy in this country.
What Conservatives want is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and taking ownership of your own mistakes and stop asking people to take up the slack for your stupid or misguided decisions.
Clear it up any, skippy.
Check out my response to you above – the explanation is that it is made up by YOU. Just because conservatives don't think that gays should get "married" doesn't mean we care about them having sex. Just because conservatives tend to support abstinence education or think that morally speaking, people should wait until they are married to have sex does not mean they want to legislate it or care about what positions you and your lover like to use in bed. It's an immature way to reason.
I know, because I used to do the same thing . . . in my youth. Until I matured and realized that conservatives believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. That's all. We shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes. PERIOD. And while I'm hardly as socially conservative as most of my brothers and sisters here, I agree with them wholeheartedly on that account.
And the article said just that – watch it or don't – but PARENTS BE AWARE OF IT. What is so wrong with that?
The legislators repeatedly and specifically refused to adopt amendments to the bill that were offered to exempt pedophiles from using any portion of the law as a defense. Majority Democrats repeatedly refused to adopt those measures. That's how it came about that one of the opposing lawmakers dubbed the act the "pedophile protection act.'
When any issue like that arises later – during the application of the law – if there is an issue that isn't specifically stated, the lawmakers' intent is analyzed. In this case, if a pedophile were to claim protection under the law, since that isn't specifically stated, a judge would review the fact that lawmakers had multiple opportunities to make it clear that pedophiles were exempt from claiming protections, and deliberately refused to do so. The judge would conclude they had expressed their intent through that action. Thus federal law would be on the side of pedophilia. Or bestiality. Or necrophilia.
The most interesting aspect of this is the refusal of the democrats to include the exceptions. I would like to see the transcripts of the debates, the relevant amendments exceptionalizing pedophilia, and the names of those objecting to such amendments.
At any rate, it makes for great conversation when scamming liberals' daughters at the bars! Equal sexual opportunity for all!
"Thank you, relativism!" –Charles Manson
A threesome, I would never watch such trash. What time is it on?
"For adults only"? If we adults are supposed to make mature decisions, why would we choose to watch such garbage. This show is fit for no one of any age.
If the airwaves were functioning in a free market, you might have a point.
But when the airwaves and media are controlled by a leftist monopoly we have every right to stand up to it.
When I first saw John P. Hanlon's article, I thought the title read ‘Gossip Girl’ Threesome: Prime-time Hits New Low…because that's what's happening.
A Continuous Wave of crap is propagating to the Lowest Common Denominator's TV…and it's in High Death.
Shrug it off and move on?
Kind of like what happens if someone says they don't believe in irgender marriage at a beauty contest?
Kind of like the way jews react to "Passion Plays"?
It's just a play. no biggie.
TV is not a free market. It's a government controlled monopoly. It has been since the last Communist President, FDR created the FCC.
They canceled Reaper, a show got got higher ratings then GG. And yet this is all GG can do to try to get any ratings. I'd be embarrassed for the CW or whatever they are calling themselves nowadays.
Actually, the syndicated re-runs of Two and a Half Men are on all over this country at 7pm M-F.
There are references to three-ways about every 10 minutes on that show.
…a permanent set of characters that are into bestiality as a sexual orientation..
Wasn't that "Roseanne"?
The point of this show is not simply controversy most of the plots have been borrowed by famous literature. War and Peace, Anna Karena, Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, Dangerous Liaisons, and the Age of Innocence; in which, social class, money and the pit falls of social hierarchy are examined in all. The majority of these themes and plots are borrowed from these novels. You have clearly never watched the show or perhaps you have never actually read any classic literature. There are always repercussions on this show. Perhaps you simply upset that this is in fact how social society works in NYC in the past and in today as well. It seems to me your arguments rely on idea that a threesome was shown on tv and that this is socially unacceptable, which would be the point of the show.
Really, how did it show that it was socially unacceptable? And would you let your 14 or 15 or even 16 year old watch that scene? I think that is the real point of the article. Not just that perhaps the author finds it morally unacceptable, but that it's put on a show that, you know darn well, could be and probably is, being watched by people too young to really understand what is going on and how it can impact their life morally speaking.
I don't see why that is such a problem. Again, no one is saying to ban it or censor it in anyway. Just making parents aware of it so that they can act accordingly. It's called being informed.
Next storyline: orgy
A new low?
Oh please.
It's an empty-headed program that is best enjoyed when embracing the absurdity of the writing and 'acting.'
As for the controversy over this episode, Hanlon has it completely wrong.
The presence of a threesome is not a "new low."
No, it's the fact that they managed to make a threesome look boring.
And that, is what is truly shocking.
Hey, I went to college and I never got my threesome! If i enroll in night-school can I still qualify?
It's pretty sad when a tv show can make sex boring.
The girls on this show look 40 and the boys look 12, except for one boy who has all the affectations of a James Bond villain, and he's supposed to be in high school? His scenes have made "The Soup" on E several times.
I'm surprised the blonde girl can see anything through her inches of eye makeup. She may not have even known she was having a threesome.
With a Charlie Sheen show, we are lucky that's as far as they go!
The shows shit writers need whatever they can grab onto because they suck. Next will be a special effects extravaganzza with all the "ACTORS" (they suck even worse thats why I watch for a good laugh) morphing into zombies or whatever. Jewish media at it's best!!!
Anyone who rationalizes watching this type of excrement with the excuse: Admittedly,”GG” can be fun, brainless, escapist entertainment.
Nice comment, Rourke. Incomprehensible and anti-semitic to boot.
Ya..but it kills me that kids are watching that crap during the early evening. Charlie Sheen is about 100 times as dangerous as the Gossip Girls.
No, silly, it was "Rosie".
I couldn't agree more. I quit watching TV completely about 5 years ago. My reasoning then were two fold. One, there isn't anything of value to watch. Secondly, it's time I could spend on other activities instead.
I haven't regretted the decision once.
[...] Gossip Girl 3 some? with Lizzie McGuire Yawn [...]
This show cannot be taken seriously.
I have the hits for the delicious Leighton Meester – love her face, figure and voice – but I can't sit through this awful program. Even recording it doesn't help b/c she is interacting with such silly, vapid characters.
I don't know who is watching this 'show', but I wonder about *any* effects on anyone.
Someone really seeking a threesome need not be validated by this dreadful offering. They'll find their way to a threesome on their own.
hits=hots!
I have the hots for the delicious Leighton Meester.
They took Veronica Mars off for this? Ick. Not that I saw more than one episode of VM, but at least that had a feeling of thoughtfulness about it.
I agree with Axl, though – ignore it, as broadcast trollery.
Me neither.
If there's one thing more pathetic than a show trying to drum up ratings via controversy, its a show trying to do just that incompetently. Seriously, at least the more professional outrage meisters can usually manage to make something halfway clever, if still tired and beyond foolish.
Either GG has to grow the hell up (which I have no hope of seeing), or it needs to meet the axe.
ok, we get it – tito, it sucks to be you
you have our sympathy – no go on about your pitiful life and live the Real Americans alone to clean up the mess that people like you and obozo/pelosi are leaving on the American economy and culture
Projection is a common fault among leftists. They wish to control quite a few things for everyone's "own good" so they presume that when a conservative (or any they deem conservative, i.e., not them) complains about something then obviously it must be because those icky conservatives want massive controls over that thing for everyone's "own good" and so on.
It was the intensity of the columns that made me wonder if they were trying to pull the show off of the air.
It's called projection. Try to avoid it.
Indeed!
I was at a baby shower a couple of years ago when the host's eight year old came tearing through the house singing "Vivaaaaa Viagra!" To say the mom was horrified would be an understatement! I feel bad for all of the parents having to contend with the "boner pill ads"
Even though the 3-some sounds fun… Never watched it. Never will.
I was surprised to learn how many onesomes I would have after getting married…..
Yeah, to many married men a threesome is having to use both hands.
Yeah, ok. You've obviously never watched an episode of this show. Which is fine, but don't lie and say you have. There was actually *gasp* subtext in that not-talking moment. Dan and Vanessa (the character you pictured but didn't even mention) have had an unrequited back story for three seasons. This is their first kiss…which happens to also involve his current girlfriend, played by Duff. *I* think that's interesting. Shakespeare, no. But interesting.
Didn't find it boring. There was subtext, if you watch the show.
Every comedy mentions a threesome, anyway. Big deal.
Threesomes are joked about on tv all the time!
At least on this show the characters will be upset next week.
Then why are you commenting on a blog entry about a show?
[...] 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 [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.