I was shocked after watching the third episode of MTV’s controversial new teen series “Skins.”

The shock was over how shocking the episode wasn’t.

After all, the third episode is the one that is supposed to be so shocking that MTV is going to have to censor it before it premieres Monday.

I’m no fan of the series, which revolves around several high school teens that have a casual attitude about drinking, sex and drugs.

It is certainly understandable why the series – based on a popular British series — has gotten under the skin of the conservative Parents Television Council.

But the PTC should have kept quiet because “Skins” is as boring as its characters are bored by life.

All the noise the group has made resulted in a New York Times article that speculated that the show might be breaking laws about the depiction of teens in sexual situations and slightly exaggerated the show’s racy content.

That usually leads to a spike in the ratings but Monday’s second episode reportedly got half the audience of the highly-rated premiere. More importantly, “Skins” has lost several advertisers, who really become the primary censors of racy content.

Controversy usually breeds interest so I imagine the teens who watched the first episode were just too bored to come back.

A few weeks ago, the students in one of my college classes watched the premiere episode of “Skins.”

The reaction to the adventures of Tony (James Newman), Stanley (Daniel Flaherty), Michelle (Rachel Thevenard), Chris (Jesse Carere) and Cadie (Britne Oldford) was interesting.

Half of the class thought the series shot in Toronto (and featuring mostly unknown Canadian teen actors) was a realistic portrayal of teen life. The other half thought it was totally unrealistic.

In other words, “Skins” will be viewed in the prism of who is watching it. It isn’t supposed to illustrate what every teen is doing these days, but how a portion of that demographic behaves.

The primary question is whether the portrayal of drinking, drug use and sex talk (you don’t see any sex in the first three episodes) will influence the behavior of pre-teens, teens and young adults who watch it.

“Skins” isn’t the first show to deal with the influence question. The CW’s popular “Gossip Girl” has had similar story lines that led to similar PTC concerns. The difference is that “Gossip” dealt with rich teens with active social lives, while “Skins” deals more depressingly with the middle or lower classes.

The influence issue led to a discussion between me and my 17-year-old son, who is a high school senior. When he saw the jacket to the “Skins” DVD on a table at home, he told me that he had seen the premiere.

He doubted it would influence his age group, but conceded that it might not be best for younger viewers to see it. Pretty astute for a 17-year-old, huh?

I told him that I’m not so sure that everyone in his age group was secure or smart enough to know it was only TV and that they “should not try this at home.”

But back to the third episode.

The offensive part of the program reportedly is a scene of 7-10 seconds in which a 17-year-old boy’s naked behind was visible as he walked a street after being shut out of his own home by an intruder.

The scene illustrated how lost the character, Chris, is in an episode in which his mother left him $1,000 in cash and disappeared.

MTV can easily edit the scene down or out without losing the symbolism. But that scene isn’t what a viewer should take from this episode, which hardly glorifies the lives of these lost teens. In fact, it makes their lives look very sad and very empty.

The show’s virginal character, Stanley, is involved in a charade with a pretty girl, Cadie. They both falsely say they are having sex with each other to help Stanley’s image with his peers.

The naked boy, Chris, has been abandoned by both his parents.

One could reasonably argue that “Skins” makes drug use, drinking and sex look like empty substitutes for a happy home life.

The overriding message from the controversial third episode is that some teens long for love and a normal life and seek the love of their parents.

Controversial? Hardly.

Unfortunately, it also isn’t very interesting.

In other words, the PTC should have just ignored “Skins” rather than give viewers a reason to watch the controversial third episode.

pergament@msn.com      

Be Sociable, Share!

•