The PTC (what? I’m busy) released a Chicken Little-esque statement claiming:

“The ‘b-word’ is toxic and is used to degrade, abuse, harass, bully and humiliate women. And the ‘Christian’ element only adds insult to injury. Regardless of whether the title ultimately makes it to broadcast, ABC has publicly proclaimed its values and it has tarnished the Disney brand.”

The b-word is also offensive to people of all genders and faiths that often act like little bitches, which is perhaps why the PTC is making such a stink about this. Further, does the qualifier “good” in the title not count for anything? If anything, ABC is singing the praises of Christian bitches. The PTC has also taken aim at ABC earlier for a pilot titled “Don’t Trust the Bitch in Apartment 23,” which they only saw as a profane collection of words, rather than possibly life-saving advice.

The PTC then goes on and on and on to say:

“Would ABC even consider another faith to denigrate?  Would they even consider a program title or a plot line based on ‘Bitches’ who were Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist?” asked Winter. “I suspect not, and I certainly hope not  So why the double standard?”

Congratulations, Parents Television Council. You just filled out ABC’s entire fall schedule. (THR)

However, many have accused creator Bryan Elsley of making child pornography and would like to see him arrested. Yikes Magikes. Well, Elsley and MTV are sticking to their fully exposed teenage guns, and Elsley had this to say to the Los Angeles Times:

“The show is the opposite of pornography. It isn’t us who are being provocative. I think that some of the people who object to the show are being provocative in the use of that word.”

Yeah, I agree that the “child porn” label is a little harsh. How about “softcore child porn?” That what the old 90′s MTV series “Undressed” was: a bunch of teens pretending to have sex, and I think there was also a stupid story about sock puppet sex. “Undressed” didn’t scar me for life, though I do get a hard-on every time I put my socks on in the morning. Actually, that really sucks for me, so maybe “Skins” should be cancelled? I’m as conflicted as Tony’s friends after his accident… (Hollywood Reporter)

“Every single advertiser who sponsored the premiere episode of Skins is not only endorsing, but glorifying teen drug and alcohol abuse, not to mention a plethora of baseless sexual content”

In addition to the advertising witch hunt, the PTC contacted the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees AND the Department of Justice, requesting they open an investigation for child pornography and exploitation. The reason given was that the cast is between the ages of 15-19. because of the ages of its cast, 15-19. Personally, I think the show should be banned too. Not because it’s profane, and not because it boasts a frank depiction of teenage sexuality, but because it’s not a good television show. I’m outraged! My imaginary children aren’t going anywhere near this show! I will shield their young eyes and ears from bad acting and annoying faux-edgy posturing until they’re 35!

(Deadline)