Threesome, Anyone?

Kate Gosselin's Hair | Millionaire Mom Murder | Sexist Super Bowl Ads

Sunday, October 11, 2009

filed under: celebs & entertainment

One mom is less than thrilled about the upcoming threesome on "Gossip Girl." Here's why.

Beth Falkenstein: It sounds like something Gilda Radner as Emily Litella might have said on SNL's Weekend Update: "What's this I hear about a threesome on 'Gossip Girl'?" She might then go on to extol the virtues of girlfriends doing things in threes, until Chevy Chase whispered the real meaning of the term in her ear. Her face would register shock -- "Oh, that's very different!" she would exclaim -- then finally end with her trademark "Never mind."

Unfortunately, I do mind.

This may come as a surprise to my friends, who know me as a left-wing, hippie liberal. I'm supposed to be all for sexual freedom. And I am, between consenting adults ... in private. So when I heard that "Gossip Girl" would be featuring a threesome on their November 9 episode, I put my fringe-moccasin'ed foot down.

(I'll wait while you all scramble to program your TiVos).

As a hippie, I believe that sex is a natural expression of being human. As an adult, I understand that sex is a complex subject -- far too complex for any human still going through puberty. And as mother, I know that my daughters are too young to understand the insidious power of television to manipulate pubescent humans. In other words, I want my children to listen to their hearts when discovering their own sexuality and not some slickly-produced, cynical piece of pop culture.

Of course, the lefty in me will defend to the death the right of the producers of "Gossip Girl" to make a show that is guaranteed to grab ratings. And of course I have the right to forbid my children to watch it. But my concern isn't only for my own children. I care about the teenage girl whose parents may not be so involved, the naïve girl who figures that if it was hot for Blair, or Serena -- or whichever Gossip Girl gets it on next month -- then it will be hot for her, too. What happens to her when she finds out, too late, it wasn't? That's a psychic scar that won't go away before the next commercial break.

And by the way, if you think it's only kids who can be manipulated by television, I've got a drug I'd like to sell you that will cure your restless leg syndrome.

Beth Falkenstein was a sitcom writer and freelance contributor to "Self," "Redbook," and "YM" magazines before taking a full time job in her kitchen. She loves her new bosses (ages 13 and 10), and is grateful that they approve of inter-office romance, because Beth thinks her co-worker (Jim, age 45) is really hot.

filed under: celebs & entertainment

| Bookmark | Permalink |

Email | Comments (5)

5 comments so far | Post a comment now >>

I find this a little disturbing considering they have a 15 year old {Taylor Momsen} working on the show.Are we not suppose to teach kids about waiting and I know in this day and age forget it but what are we teaching our kids….that threesomes are ok and I’m sure that Taylor Momsen has young followers that do watch the show.Yes I have seen the show and no I don’t have any urge to watch it ever again….clearly this is a ratings ploy cause maybe the shows going for a dump….one can only hope….this won’t be watched in our home!

- N.B.

Posted 10/11/09 05:08 PM

See, this is the problem w/being liberal. It all sounds good in theory…until you have to deal w/it in your own family. I personally think that you are a hypocite Beth, if free love was good enough for you in your hayday then why not with your children??? Again, it’s all good when it’s in theory but not real life.

- Anonymous

Posted 10/11/09 05:23 PM

Hey, Anonymous. She said free love was okay for consenting adults — which doesn’t appear to describe her kids. See, that’s the problem with being a conservative… you see everything in black and white and cannot deal with the gray areas.

- Another Liberal

Posted 10/11/09 06:10 PM

Ummm…another liberal, in case you and Beth don’t realize but these girls are actors and they get paid to “play pretend”. And it’s the liberals in hollywood who keep pushing back the line of decency in our shows. My point being is that every liberal wants to defend it’s right to expose everyone to such stuff but they don’t want it to affect thier own family. I find that hypocitial.

- Anonymous

Posted 10/12/09 04:05 AM

Isn’t it also hypocritical to call one self a conservative & want government out of all areas of your life except a woman’s uterus, the television, & the bedroom? See, the problem with being a conservative is that when things do happen, like a televised threesome, it’s someone else’s fault & absolutely should not be on TV and when it does happen there is no preparation for it except by telling a child “That’s naughty” or “It’s a sin!”. It’s not that liberals don’t want freedom affecting their own family it’s that they know all freedoms will affect their families & they can choose how to respond to it in a way that is best for their family. Shielding children from a televised threesome doesn’t mean that the threesome doesn’t exist, it means that the parents can decide when the best time to introduce the topic of sex & bisexuality to their children. Her children (they are only 13 & 10, mind you) might not be mature enough to handle such a topic, whereas another child in the same age groups might be able to understand. I applaud the author for understanding & realizing the maturity and basic acceptance levels of her children, because most parent’s i have dealt with do not.

- Abbey

Posted 10/13/09 02:49 PM