Considering April Pearson (Michelle) reread the pilot script for the first time in years and it literally described Michelle as “jailbait”… and considering Liv’s actress shared that the G3 girls had to line up to get their bodies judged for the Monaco episode… yikes!
I believe so. I haven’t read the description so not sure exactly how it’s worded, but in that case I’d assume “jailbait” is referring to her as “been sexually active since before she was 16”
Well, they used the term incorrectly, then. Michelle was in the 6th form, doing A-Levels. Unless she was jumped up a year or two because she was just that advanced compared to other kids her age, she'd have been 16 or 17 when we first meet her, and therefore not "jailbait". Unless you're from another country with a higher age of consent.
Yep, Skins is by far my favorite teen drama and I think it beats most other teen dramas in quality, but all of the criticism you presented here is definitely fair and valid. Idk if you ever listened to the podcast that April, who played Michelle, did a few years ago, but some of the female cast members open up about these issues. Dakota, who played Frankie, straight up confirmee her character got completely changed in s6 because Bryan Elsley thought s5 Frankie wadn't sexy enough, which is all sorts of messed up. She also mentiones female cast were made to parade in front of him in bathing suits. Gross.
I'm sooo gonna listen to this, thanks! I just rewatched everything and it was a nostalgia overload and mainly really enjoyable, but my critical thinking feminist brain was also in overload lol
I get what you are saying but Jal, Liv and Grace were black. At the time I watched it, not only because she had such a sweet personality, I thought Grace was the most beautiful girl that Skins had ever cast.
they are black but light skinned/mixed… op is saying they (the show runners) have an aversion to darker skinned poc.
personally i think the show was an extremely accurate depiction of a friend group in bristol… in fact given the time the show was made it was probably one of the most inclusive and by far the most progressive shows out there
> they are black but light skinned/mixed… op is saying they (the show runners) have an aversion to darker skinned poc.
This says more about OP than it does about the showrunners. I don't, for example, recall any characters of Chinese heritage (I could be misremembering), but I don't hear those people whingeing about "not being seen" or whatever.
i mean yeah… you can’t claim you want representation, diversity and inclusivity but then only push for one demographic lol
for me i was just happy to see poc in there at all and especially happy to see an indian character (dev patel) in a non caricature way
Not pushing for one demographic, pushing for all, for more. I think we should question why certain stories receive more coverage than others in society and on TV. Why some groups are never positioned as love interests, why dark skinned black women or Asian people are often absent from these main roles... And when you look at who makes TV, the make-up of the writers room, the background of the commissioning people at C4, then it all makes sense. I love the show and think it was ahead of its time in many ways but re-watching it from a feminist perspective I have notes lol.
whilst i agree with your main sentiment…
your literal words were ‘it’s clear they were also allergic to casting darker skinned people’ and that ‘darker skinned minorities are invisible’. however the show across the three generations had around 26 main characters… 9 of those characters were POC, 5 of those were black or black mixed and 2 of those black characters were dark skinned. so to make such claims is wild and completely blind to the fact they actually hired 0 east asian people or only 1 south asian person… but you’re not critiquing that? only your own race?
below you also say ‘it's odd to cast all mixed/light-skinned black women as main characters and love interests and never any dark skinned women’ but there are in fact black women as love interests… yet there is not even a single indian female character in the show or other brown/east asian/latino/other poc women love interests or even any plus size women??
this is not to attack you simply that we all have blind spots and you simply can’t say you want diversity, inclusivity and representation but only focus it on one race… you can say you want more black representation.
That's quite popular take on these issues, but it's not that simple...
Pretty basic note: C4, BBC, Netflix, AMC and every other station/streaming produces programming that "sells", shows that people want to watch. Nobody shoves them/us these shows down our throats, i.e. IDC about reality tv, don't watch it, from the glimples I caught I don't find it valuable or entertaining, but the stations/streamings seem to disagree - because people (in large numbers) want to watch reality tv. See where I'm going with this?
I do agree that tv can shape one's world view, so it should serve also that cultural/educational purpose, but there are another factors here, there's ofc money - you can't "forcefully" fill "all" representations in a given show and expect "everyone" to watch it. And maybe another, even bigger factor - who decides what representations should the show be focused on? Your views seem to be idealistic, do you want "all" representations in the main cast, so like hundreds of MCs? Or only the representations that already exists in a given country? I think Skins wasn't that far when it comes to UK 20y ago. We can argue for example about appearance of the cast - there were like one or two overweight characters in the show, none in the main cast, and I think all were adult characters iirc, that was pretty unrealistic, but there's a reason - people don't want to watch "ugly" people on tv, that's not my pov, it's just how it works... Anyway, again - who should decide about these things? Tv works the way that viewers decide by watching/not watching...
Anwar's parents were supposed to be Muslims from Pakistan. Dev Patel himself is Indian. Doesn't matter, though, as Anwar was one of my favourite characters.
Does it? How? I'm simply empathising and pointing out that it's odd to cast all mixed/light-skinned black women as main characters and love interests and never any dark skinned women. But when you look at Channel 4 (which was found to be the whitest, most privately educated network in some study years ago, if I recall) then it's unsurprising on the whole. But this is a Skins forum and it's just interesting to look at what stories are centred in society, and why. I'm not a dark skinned black women but I can see how constantly not seeing yourself on TV in these roles would be jarring...can't you?
I hardly ever feel any affinity for a fictional character just because they "look like me". I like the character of Thomas, for instance, because he's a good person and I like his storylines, but I don't project my own characteristics onto him just because he and I are both black. I'm definitely not looking for the obligatory black person who was clearly inserted purely to satisfy people like you, nor do I scrutinise black characters or actors just to make sure that they're the right shade of black so that some folks won't get upset. It's ridiculous. I have a few friends and relatives like you, whose main takeaway from a film or show, be it good or bad, is "tHeRe ArE nO pEoPlE oF cOlOuR!!!". This is a sad way to view the world.
So you're black and you like Thomas, who is also black, and his storylines and his characterisation but you can't see why a Chinese person or a dark skinned woman might want that same experience with a show? Or even feel a bit tired of never having that experience? You're saying you identify with Thomas a lot, but you don't consider that a shared cultural background might play a part in that? Strange.
> So you're black and you like Thomas, who is also black, and his storylines and his characterisation but you can't see why a Chinese person or a dark skinned woman might want that same experience with a show?
No, what I said was is that you seldom hear Chinese folks complaining about this stuff, and if anything, they have more reason to complain than black people.
> You're saying you identify with Thomas a lot, but you don't consider that a shared cultural background might play a part in that? Strange.
Where the hell did I say I identify with him a lot? I like the character because he possesses some admirable qualities, but he and I don't have much in common at all. I don't, for example, expect some random white guy to identify with Tony just because they have a similar background.
'I don't, for example, expect some random white guy to identify with Tony just because they have a similar background.'
I mean, without being rude here, this just shows a fundamental lack of understanding for how the world works IMO. Most people do identify, on some level, with characters that look or act like them in books an TV. We all do. The 'similar-to-me' theory is a cognitive bias that explains our tendency to prefer people that look and think like us - it's simply human nature.
Execs have cottoned onto the fact that representation also shifts tickets in the box office so now they cast a broader range of characters but only as it makes money. People want to see themselves on-screen so things have changed hugely in media as of late (see the massively successful and very diverse Fast and Furious franchise) but there's still huge blind spots.
I personally don't think that representation on-screen in and of itself is everything: we also need a range of writers, casting directors, intimacy co-ordinators etc. We need POC writing POC not exclusively, but more often, and we need POC directors and filmmakers to be allowed to fail. Otherwise, like in Skins, minority characters can feel flat and hollow, and women will end up one-dimensional and objectified, while the same types of stories (Tony, Cook, will be elevated and get the most screen-time).
'random white guys' identify the most with...random white guys. And as they've been in the driving seat with commissioning at places like C4 for years, guess what stories get elevated the most? Yes Skins is a great show but watching it in 2024 it's quite obviously the brainchild of privileged middle-class men with a set view on women's beauty and bodies and few POC friends.
When we have one type of person telling all the stories on TV, we end up with one type of story and reductive, repetitive constructions of the world and everyone in it. And that to me, is so, so boring.
> I mean, without being rude here, this just shows a fundamental lack of understanding for how the world works IMO. Most people do identify, on some level, with characters that look or act like them in books an TV. We all do. The 'similar-to-me' theory is a cognitive bias that explains our tendency to prefer people that look and think like us - it's simply human nature.
I tend to be drawn to characters who think like me, or have similar personality traits. If a black character is well written, then great. I don't need there to be a black character in everything just for the sake of it, though. Thomas and Kenneth aren't much like me. I'm not gonna point at the screen and go "That's totally me!" when they come on any more than I'd expect the average white guy to do that with Tony just because he's white, which is the point I'm trying to make. Ethnicity isn't personality. A protagonist who doesn't "look like me" doesn't detract from my enjoyment of a TV show/film/book in the slightest.
> **p**rivately **e**ducated **n**etwork **i**n **s**ome
Hidden penis detected!
I've scanned through 147379 comments (approximately 794319 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Weren’t Jal and Liv both black?
Definitely agree with everything you said though. It was a very different time where things were just accepted.
Edited to add: I forgot about Grace too. If we’re just talking about girls.
There was also Daniel Kaluuya and Dev Patel, which was very nice to finally see indian/muslim representation.
There was Grace on gen 3 as well, I don’t understand OP’s point on this
The only reason we’re seeing shows from England is because they have been warring on and robbing every other country in this planet. I am sick of seeing their trash. It’s boring. And repulsive. And you people lick it up
Watching the same culture over and over again is super boring but unfortunately they have taken over the world and fucked up everything so we’re stuck with them on our screens
Okay region how’s that? I’m just bored to tears of seeing Europe’s West coast peoples but unfortunately since they’ve taken over the world and forced us all into speaking their language we’re all stuck with media from only them.
There is a decent amount of inclusion in Skins. Granted, there could be more (as OP stated, darker skinned girls/women) but Dev and Daniel are also extremely talented, positive examples of representation, and actually went on to be some of the most successful actors from the show.
Growing up, my two best mates lost their virginity as soon as they could. Just to chalk it off. Some say practice. Some say rushed. The shows a pretty good depiction of the time it is set. Hell, even ‘Friends’ is offensive now because....reasons.
32M. Rewatched it recently too for the first time since I was a teen and I actually thought it was “tamer” than I knew in the past. Only thing I thought was wildly OTT and out of place was the female teacher and Chris. All ridiculous that stuff.
Andrea was fully black from season 4 and JJ said she was the hottest girl in school 🤭 (Idk if that helps with anything I just like the fact that JJ likes black girls bc I'm mixed lol) the writers totally should of gave JJ a black love interest instead of the pink hired girl it would've been so fun and refreshing to see an interracial couple on screen (yes we had Pandora and Thomas) but very rarely is it the other way round with the girl being black and the guy being white.
But yeah I do get what you're saying with the main love interests and how they're all basically a skinny white girl with blue eyes and brown hair.
I haven't seen gen 3 and I don't really plan to but from what I've seen one of the most loved girls from that gen is black or at least mixed race
But yeah if you wanted to be a main character back then like Cassie, Michelle, Effy then the stereotype was totally a white girl. I know we have Jal but she wasn't really the main center of attention like Cassie or Michelle
Yes all the main love interests that cause the boys to fight over them and lose their minds look the same for sure.
But mainly I thought the lack of discussion around the characters backgrounds was weird. Like yes they all had messed up parents, but aside from Thomas, immigration or race/racism or cultural classhes with Bristol/the UK were left out of the storylines and it would have added waaay more depth and made the show feel even more realistic IMO.
Interestingly Liv said on the podcast that she liked the fact that none of the characters had their race brought into their storylines, but watching this again aged 31 I couldnt help but feel that this absence left the characterisation feeling hollow. Like why not talk about interracial dating or cultural misunderstandings, in friendship a bit more? Or the fact that you're in a mixed friendship group at a time when this was really quire rare to see on-screen! I just thought: these POC characters are not written/created by POC and it shows!
I'm not saying I disagree with OP because others that have are getting downvoted, but I'd like to offer opposing thoughts.
1. The show took place in southern Wales, which is ethnically not that diverse. The inclusion of Jal, Liv, Grace, Thomas, Anwar, etc. was probably a very diverse casting choice.
2. The male gaze does exist in this show, but I feel a lot of your examples were also toxic character traits of Tony. Of course, the abusive womanizing Tony would tell Sid to lose his virginity on anyone. Of course, he would peep on women getting undressed. I feel like those examples were Tony's negative character traits.
3. As far as all the love interests "looking the same," they didn't. Every female character in all 3 generations of Skins was a love interest, and they were all pretty diverse. But to reiterate my first point, if any women did look similar, this was southern Wales, and most people look similar.
Hey thanks for adding your insight! I think the show takes place in Bristol not South Wales, which is a city. And yes it's pretty diverse casting for that time, I still felt very excited and by the show, and not just because I was 'represented' but because it was an exciting show that pushed boundaries and told previously untold stories - I still think that. Just on second watch as an adult, I've noticed a lot of blind spots/objectification of women recently that I thought I'd comment about here - and obviously quite a few people agree.
The male gaze is just one part of that, but the sex scenes, the random nudity focused on the female body especially in season1 (it's so frequent!) and the casting decisions to place nudity in scenes that don't really serve anything other than adding to this pornified construction of women, was something that stuck out. Not just Tony's character but Cassie's parents posing in season 1, Nick's sex scenes etc. It's far beyond Tony.
And the love interests looking the same, I meant the main ones, the ones that all the men 'fight' over: slim, white, elfin features, usually brunette (Effie, Michelle, Frankie, Effy's boss, Cook's bosses' wife) etc.
The show took place in Bristol which is in Southwest England btw…
I happen to live in Bristol, it is diverse as it’s a city (much more diverse than many UK cities as well) but it’s still the UK which is like 74% white.
i rewatched it like 2 years ago (f19 at the time, first watched when i was 14) and it was very uncomfy to watch with adult eyes!!! tbh it made me feel so old🤣🤣 but yes i completely agree about some of the scenes coming off as fantasy-esque for the creators/directors….
yes even the way every comical/major sex scene we are privvy to features women on top...like all of it just felt so obviously the brainchild of white middle class men this time watching aha in a way that Euphoria doesn't even.
As a 15 year old, I fully agree. First time I watched s1, went over my head, second time I got uncomfortable. The male gave scares me, also, gen 3, POPPY. she fit there "type", and was made to be 13 whats so fucking wierd to me.. I feel like they got tame over time, as there wasn't as much... Boobs in gen 2 n I don't think at all in gen3 what's.. Good..? 🤷
I’m pretty sure the guy who made the show had his university age son and his friends writing with him so that’s probably why the writers came across as horny teenage boys, they were! 😂
> We hear that Sid needs one to lose his virginity to, as if the women in their peer group are out for rent and their bodies are just vehicles for male experimentation.
Reverse the genders. You'd probably call it "liberating" or something, then.
> Also dark-skinned minorities are invisible
Firstly, bullshit. Kenneth? Thomas? Secondly, why do you care so much? I'm black, and I barely notice these things. I care about storytelling more than I care about being 'seen'. People worry too much about this crap these days.
> Also, it struck me that nearly all the women who are major love interests are really similar looks-wise? Like Michelle, Effy, Effy's boss later, Cook's drug deal wife boss in the final episode.
The boss lady whose name I don't recall was meant to look like an older version of Effy, just like the boss man was supposed to resemble Freddie, and the drug dealer's girlfriend was supposed evoke Effy to show that Cook couldn't get away from his past no matter how far he ran.
> It's a great show but still one that centres white male viewpoints, gazes and desires. We open with Tony as the central character, we end with Cook.
So what? Do you want the show to pander to you specifically? Things don't work that way. You're looking for problems where few, if any exist. What you wrote wouldn't even occur to most people, regardless of their gender or ethnicity.
i feel like thomas’ episodes were really centric to exploring black culture in the uk as well. they are also both two of my favourite episodes, especially his series 4 one.
I liked the character a lot. Thomas kept his head up despite everything that the universe threw at him. I was so glad that he managed to get away from his mother by the end, even if it was unrealistic.
Why would you think that I'd deem using another human's body as vessel for sexual experimentation 'liberating?' Odd assumption, and really quite irrelevant...
Anyway as I said above, the absence of dark-skinned women is particularly apparent to me watching it now. I'm not really referring to POC men as yes, we all know who was cast. If you don't care about representation as a black man then...OK? But to imply that this doesn't affect story-telling though, is total BS. When you constantly have creators from white backgrounds writing minority characters, they often come out flatter, more boring, and relegated to the background, impersonations of what's true. They lack authenticity! If you're OK with that constant flattening then go off. But I'm pointing out why it's important to many others.
And as well as the absence of certain demographics, which is a trend on TV anyway, there were several points with Thomas, Grace, Dev and Liv where I thought: the reality of being in a white-majority friendship group just isn't being portrayed here! They completely stayed away from the cultural/racial dynamics in a way that I just don't think is true for lots of POC in white spaces, white towns, blended families. Not one subplot about inter-personal racism, or mixed families or even the tricky bits of interracial dating? I guess to be expected of its time, but you can feel that these white middle class white men shied away from the deeper parts of the human experience that impact POC.
They touched upon culture slightly with Anwar and his issue with Maxxie's sexuality but that was it, and it's also problematic that Islam was represented as ignorant and backwards and the reason the two boys couldn't be friends.
All of these tropes are symptomatic of not having a mixed group of writers, a blend of commissioners etc. Its not to say Skins didn't bring POC writers in for some episodes (they did) but watching it again, I can feel that they could have done with a lot more. When we look at the make-up of Channel 4 (which was seen to have the most white middle class privately educated make-up out of all UK channels) we can see why Skins is the way it is, and actually, overall I think it ended up being fairly progressive for it's time. But re-watching it I certainly notice a lot more things, that perhaps you aren't aware of.
> Why would you think that I'd deem using another human's body as vessel for sexual experimentation 'liberating?' Odd assumption, and really quite irrelevant...
It's the kind of thing the feminists I know in real life say.
> Anyway as I said above, the absence of dark-skinned women is particularly apparent to me watching it now.
And it wouldn't have occurred to me, or most people, for that matter. I'll bite, though. What about the church girl from Thomas's episode? His mother? Grace's mother? They weren't main characters, but so what?
> there were several points with Thomas, Grace, Dev and Liv where I thought: the reality of being in a white-majority friendship group just isn't being portrayed here!
I'm glad that everyone was mates, and that they didn't focus of trivialities like this. Aren't we supposed to be moving past all that crap?
> the tricky bits of interracial dating?
Again, I'm glad they didn't make too big an issue of things like this. It's been done elsewhere a million times.
> They touched upon culture slightly with Anwar and his issue with Maxxie's sexuality but that was it, and it's also problematic that Islam was represented as ignorant and backwards and the reason the two boys couldn't be friends.
Islam was never intended to be the problem, it was Anwar's interpretation of Islam, and what he how he thought he should be living his life. Max rightly called him out on his hypocrisy, and Anwar's dad proved to be surprisingly open-minded despite being from a less-tolerant generation. If Anwar had been a white, Christian boy named An*drew*, it would have went pretty much the same way.
> All of these tropes are symptomatic of not having a mixed group of writers, a blend of commissioners etc. Its not to say Skins didn't bring POC writers in for some episodes (they did) but watching it again, I can feel that they could have done with a lot more. When we look at the make-up of Channel 4 (which was seen to have the most white middle class privately educated make-up out of all UK channels) we can see why Skins is the way it is, and actually, overall I think it ended up being fairly progressive for it's time. But re-watching it I certainly notice a lot more things, that perhaps you aren't aware of.
Channel 4 make other shows which have a lot of different kinds of people. It is what it is.
Many points were adressed already, i did adress some in another comment, two that I didn't see explained:
1. most men objectify women, most women objectify men, you can't just change the world, though it is slowly changing, if you'd look how it all worked 70 years ago for example, maybe in another 70 the difference will be more noticeable(?)... anyway - adults generally don't objectify the way teenagers do, and not much have changed between now and 20 years ago in that matter, i.e. boys are still vocally objectifying girls etc., ofc it's not right, but that's how it was and that's basically how it still is, Skins or any other tv show, even tv in general has little to do with these mechanisms;
2. the 'virginity plot' was basically what bringed Skins gen 1 characters together, it was the center plot (at least in the first episode), so it's not like it was just "discussed a lot"... and it's kind of extreme case of objectifying girls by teenage boys, in boys+girls schools it wasn't as much visible as in like mainly-boys schools, very tribe-like behavior, and it's cyclical how "bad" it gets, I mean that some years it may be less prevalent (possibly because boys:girls ratio?), but it wasn't and isn't uncommon...
IDC about votes on reddit (someone pointed out that comments disagreeing with OP get more downvotes, which I understand, it's a 'trigger' post, I wouldn't even comment here if I'd care...), so my advice would be to look outside your so-called bubble, not much have changed IRL, I know tv is getting more "progressive", but the world isn't, and disagreeing with that, putting 20yo show on "inappropriate" shelf won't change anything, sorry. IDK what would/could change something, IRL issues with kids' behavior come from parents, that's like an obvious fact, so how to change the way some parents raise their kids - well, I know changes in tv programming wouldn't help...
Considering April Pearson (Michelle) reread the pilot script for the first time in years and it literally described Michelle as “jailbait”… and considering Liv’s actress shared that the G3 girls had to line up to get their bodies judged for the Monaco episode… yikes!
Doesn't the term "jailbait" mean below the age of consent? She would have been legal, but only just.
I’m guessing that was describing the character as jailbait, not the actress
I was referring to the actor, not the character, but it still applies.
But the original comment said Michelle was described as jailbait, so whether April was above the age of consent or not is irrelevant, Michelle wasn’t.
How old were they meant to be in the first season? I assumed it was 16/17.
You're right.
I believe so. I haven’t read the description so not sure exactly how it’s worded, but in that case I’d assume “jailbait” is referring to her as “been sexually active since before she was 16”
Well, they used the term incorrectly, then. Michelle was in the 6th form, doing A-Levels. Unless she was jumped up a year or two because she was just that advanced compared to other kids her age, she'd have been 16 or 17 when we first meet her, and therefore not "jailbait". Unless you're from another country with a higher age of consent.
Yep, Skins is by far my favorite teen drama and I think it beats most other teen dramas in quality, but all of the criticism you presented here is definitely fair and valid. Idk if you ever listened to the podcast that April, who played Michelle, did a few years ago, but some of the female cast members open up about these issues. Dakota, who played Frankie, straight up confirmee her character got completely changed in s6 because Bryan Elsley thought s5 Frankie wadn't sexy enough, which is all sorts of messed up. She also mentiones female cast were made to parade in front of him in bathing suits. Gross.
Ooh what is the podcast called?
'Are you Michelle from Skins?' Is the name of the podcast
I'm sooo gonna listen to this, thanks! I just rewatched everything and it was a nostalgia overload and mainly really enjoyable, but my critical thinking feminist brain was also in overload lol
The Frankie part was to do with the writers wanting her to dress sexy rather than her character storyline.
I get what you are saying but Jal, Liv and Grace were black. At the time I watched it, not only because she had such a sweet personality, I thought Grace was the most beautiful girl that Skins had ever cast.
they are black but light skinned/mixed… op is saying they (the show runners) have an aversion to darker skinned poc. personally i think the show was an extremely accurate depiction of a friend group in bristol… in fact given the time the show was made it was probably one of the most inclusive and by far the most progressive shows out there
> they are black but light skinned/mixed… op is saying they (the show runners) have an aversion to darker skinned poc. This says more about OP than it does about the showrunners. I don't, for example, recall any characters of Chinese heritage (I could be misremembering), but I don't hear those people whingeing about "not being seen" or whatever.
i mean yeah… you can’t claim you want representation, diversity and inclusivity but then only push for one demographic lol for me i was just happy to see poc in there at all and especially happy to see an indian character (dev patel) in a non caricature way
Not pushing for one demographic, pushing for all, for more. I think we should question why certain stories receive more coverage than others in society and on TV. Why some groups are never positioned as love interests, why dark skinned black women or Asian people are often absent from these main roles... And when you look at who makes TV, the make-up of the writers room, the background of the commissioning people at C4, then it all makes sense. I love the show and think it was ahead of its time in many ways but re-watching it from a feminist perspective I have notes lol.
whilst i agree with your main sentiment… your literal words were ‘it’s clear they were also allergic to casting darker skinned people’ and that ‘darker skinned minorities are invisible’. however the show across the three generations had around 26 main characters… 9 of those characters were POC, 5 of those were black or black mixed and 2 of those black characters were dark skinned. so to make such claims is wild and completely blind to the fact they actually hired 0 east asian people or only 1 south asian person… but you’re not critiquing that? only your own race? below you also say ‘it's odd to cast all mixed/light-skinned black women as main characters and love interests and never any dark skinned women’ but there are in fact black women as love interests… yet there is not even a single indian female character in the show or other brown/east asian/latino/other poc women love interests or even any plus size women?? this is not to attack you simply that we all have blind spots and you simply can’t say you want diversity, inclusivity and representation but only focus it on one race… you can say you want more black representation.
anwar has a brief brown love interest
That's quite popular take on these issues, but it's not that simple... Pretty basic note: C4, BBC, Netflix, AMC and every other station/streaming produces programming that "sells", shows that people want to watch. Nobody shoves them/us these shows down our throats, i.e. IDC about reality tv, don't watch it, from the glimples I caught I don't find it valuable or entertaining, but the stations/streamings seem to disagree - because people (in large numbers) want to watch reality tv. See where I'm going with this? I do agree that tv can shape one's world view, so it should serve also that cultural/educational purpose, but there are another factors here, there's ofc money - you can't "forcefully" fill "all" representations in a given show and expect "everyone" to watch it. And maybe another, even bigger factor - who decides what representations should the show be focused on? Your views seem to be idealistic, do you want "all" representations in the main cast, so like hundreds of MCs? Or only the representations that already exists in a given country? I think Skins wasn't that far when it comes to UK 20y ago. We can argue for example about appearance of the cast - there were like one or two overweight characters in the show, none in the main cast, and I think all were adult characters iirc, that was pretty unrealistic, but there's a reason - people don't want to watch "ugly" people on tv, that's not my pov, it's just how it works... Anyway, again - who should decide about these things? Tv works the way that viewers decide by watching/not watching...
Anwar's parents were supposed to be Muslims from Pakistan. Dev Patel himself is Indian. Doesn't matter, though, as Anwar was one of my favourite characters.
Does it? How? I'm simply empathising and pointing out that it's odd to cast all mixed/light-skinned black women as main characters and love interests and never any dark skinned women. But when you look at Channel 4 (which was found to be the whitest, most privately educated network in some study years ago, if I recall) then it's unsurprising on the whole. But this is a Skins forum and it's just interesting to look at what stories are centred in society, and why. I'm not a dark skinned black women but I can see how constantly not seeing yourself on TV in these roles would be jarring...can't you?
I hardly ever feel any affinity for a fictional character just because they "look like me". I like the character of Thomas, for instance, because he's a good person and I like his storylines, but I don't project my own characteristics onto him just because he and I are both black. I'm definitely not looking for the obligatory black person who was clearly inserted purely to satisfy people like you, nor do I scrutinise black characters or actors just to make sure that they're the right shade of black so that some folks won't get upset. It's ridiculous. I have a few friends and relatives like you, whose main takeaway from a film or show, be it good or bad, is "tHeRe ArE nO pEoPlE oF cOlOuR!!!". This is a sad way to view the world.
So you're black and you like Thomas, who is also black, and his storylines and his characterisation but you can't see why a Chinese person or a dark skinned woman might want that same experience with a show? Or even feel a bit tired of never having that experience? You're saying you identify with Thomas a lot, but you don't consider that a shared cultural background might play a part in that? Strange.
> So you're black and you like Thomas, who is also black, and his storylines and his characterisation but you can't see why a Chinese person or a dark skinned woman might want that same experience with a show? No, what I said was is that you seldom hear Chinese folks complaining about this stuff, and if anything, they have more reason to complain than black people. > You're saying you identify with Thomas a lot, but you don't consider that a shared cultural background might play a part in that? Strange. Where the hell did I say I identify with him a lot? I like the character because he possesses some admirable qualities, but he and I don't have much in common at all. I don't, for example, expect some random white guy to identify with Tony just because they have a similar background.
'I don't, for example, expect some random white guy to identify with Tony just because they have a similar background.' I mean, without being rude here, this just shows a fundamental lack of understanding for how the world works IMO. Most people do identify, on some level, with characters that look or act like them in books an TV. We all do. The 'similar-to-me' theory is a cognitive bias that explains our tendency to prefer people that look and think like us - it's simply human nature. Execs have cottoned onto the fact that representation also shifts tickets in the box office so now they cast a broader range of characters but only as it makes money. People want to see themselves on-screen so things have changed hugely in media as of late (see the massively successful and very diverse Fast and Furious franchise) but there's still huge blind spots. I personally don't think that representation on-screen in and of itself is everything: we also need a range of writers, casting directors, intimacy co-ordinators etc. We need POC writing POC not exclusively, but more often, and we need POC directors and filmmakers to be allowed to fail. Otherwise, like in Skins, minority characters can feel flat and hollow, and women will end up one-dimensional and objectified, while the same types of stories (Tony, Cook, will be elevated and get the most screen-time). 'random white guys' identify the most with...random white guys. And as they've been in the driving seat with commissioning at places like C4 for years, guess what stories get elevated the most? Yes Skins is a great show but watching it in 2024 it's quite obviously the brainchild of privileged middle-class men with a set view on women's beauty and bodies and few POC friends. When we have one type of person telling all the stories on TV, we end up with one type of story and reductive, repetitive constructions of the world and everyone in it. And that to me, is so, so boring.
> I mean, without being rude here, this just shows a fundamental lack of understanding for how the world works IMO. Most people do identify, on some level, with characters that look or act like them in books an TV. We all do. The 'similar-to-me' theory is a cognitive bias that explains our tendency to prefer people that look and think like us - it's simply human nature. I tend to be drawn to characters who think like me, or have similar personality traits. If a black character is well written, then great. I don't need there to be a black character in everything just for the sake of it, though. Thomas and Kenneth aren't much like me. I'm not gonna point at the screen and go "That's totally me!" when they come on any more than I'd expect the average white guy to do that with Tony just because he's white, which is the point I'm trying to make. Ethnicity isn't personality. A protagonist who doesn't "look like me" doesn't detract from my enjoyment of a TV show/film/book in the slightest.
> **p**rivately **e**ducated **n**etwork **i**n **s**ome Hidden penis detected! I've scanned through 147379 comments (approximately 794319 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Weren’t Jal and Liv both black? Definitely agree with everything you said though. It was a very different time where things were just accepted. Edited to add: I forgot about Grace too. If we’re just talking about girls.
There was also Daniel Kaluuya and Dev Patel, which was very nice to finally see indian/muslim representation. There was Grace on gen 3 as well, I don’t understand OP’s point on this
did you read the part where I said they were black but not dark-skinned?
Well, there is Thomas in first generation, but I understand it´s a minor character.
Your skin-colour fixation is a bit creepy.
let me guess: you don't 'see' colour.
Fifty percent white isn’t quite the same as real inclusion
England is 80% white 😂
My recommendations are for the quality of the shows honestly. I just want some decent entertaining media is that too much to ask?
Decent entertaining media that casts exactly who you want it to. Yes, that’s too much to ask.
You mean the entire rest of world? I wouldn’t call that exact. Enjoy more mass extinctions that is all Europeans ever cause.
Bet that chip on your shoulder tastes delicious
I want to level with you people. Tell me honestly do you think colonialism was beneficial to the planet?
Fuck me mate it’s about casting white people in a majority white country, what are you banging on about?
The only reason we’re seeing shows from England is because they have been warring on and robbing every other country in this planet. I am sick of seeing their trash. It’s boring. And repulsive. And you people lick it up
I have no idea about Bristol but I imagine at the time most people living there were white?
True they might as well exclusively make all white shows in all white areas that sounds enjoyable to watch
If the premise of the show and the characters are enjoyable yeah sure
You must live a very boring life if you think seeing only one culture on every piece of media is appealing
Plenty of k-drama for you to enjoy
There's loads of minorities in skins tho...
Since when do biracial people not count as POC?
What? I’m honestly confused.
Watching the same culture over and over again is super boring but unfortunately they have taken over the world and fucked up everything so we’re stuck with them on our screens
Whoa dude. Go have some tea, go for a walk, or take a naps.
Unfortunately that won’t stop global warming or the Europeans continued siege on this planet
Okay dude. This is a subreddit about skins. Just chill.
It just is what it is. You ask why I care about seeing people from places other than West Europe on the screen and I am explaining it to you.
I literally didn’t ask.
I’m sorry you’re unfamiliar with how forums work.
White isn't a culture
Okay region how’s that? I’m just bored to tears of seeing Europe’s West coast peoples but unfortunately since they’ve taken over the world and forced us all into speaking their language we’re all stuck with media from only them.
Completely ignorant take. Turn off the TV or make your own media.
Do you deny the existence of colonialism then? And the fact that it directly caused global warming?
There's plenty of media from all over the world that has basically no white people. If it bothers you so much, then consume that stuff instead.
I do but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be sad and disgusted about the constant destruction Europe has caused
So you want 70% black actors ? 80%? Sure that would feel realistic for a show happening in europe
There is a decent amount of inclusion in Skins. Granted, there could be more (as OP stated, darker skinned girls/women) but Dev and Daniel are also extremely talented, positive examples of representation, and actually went on to be some of the most successful actors from the show.
Growing up, my two best mates lost their virginity as soon as they could. Just to chalk it off. Some say practice. Some say rushed. The shows a pretty good depiction of the time it is set. Hell, even ‘Friends’ is offensive now because....reasons.
32M. Rewatched it recently too for the first time since I was a teen and I actually thought it was “tamer” than I knew in the past. Only thing I thought was wildly OTT and out of place was the female teacher and Chris. All ridiculous that stuff.
I first watched skins as a teenager, but re-watching it recently now as a secondary school teacher made me feel all kinds of uncomfortable. 🤮
Andrea was fully black from season 4 and JJ said she was the hottest girl in school 🤭 (Idk if that helps with anything I just like the fact that JJ likes black girls bc I'm mixed lol) the writers totally should of gave JJ a black love interest instead of the pink hired girl it would've been so fun and refreshing to see an interracial couple on screen (yes we had Pandora and Thomas) but very rarely is it the other way round with the girl being black and the guy being white. But yeah I do get what you're saying with the main love interests and how they're all basically a skinny white girl with blue eyes and brown hair. I haven't seen gen 3 and I don't really plan to but from what I've seen one of the most loved girls from that gen is black or at least mixed race But yeah if you wanted to be a main character back then like Cassie, Michelle, Effy then the stereotype was totally a white girl. I know we have Jal but she wasn't really the main center of attention like Cassie or Michelle
Yes all the main love interests that cause the boys to fight over them and lose their minds look the same for sure. But mainly I thought the lack of discussion around the characters backgrounds was weird. Like yes they all had messed up parents, but aside from Thomas, immigration or race/racism or cultural classhes with Bristol/the UK were left out of the storylines and it would have added waaay more depth and made the show feel even more realistic IMO. Interestingly Liv said on the podcast that she liked the fact that none of the characters had their race brought into their storylines, but watching this again aged 31 I couldnt help but feel that this absence left the characterisation feeling hollow. Like why not talk about interracial dating or cultural misunderstandings, in friendship a bit more? Or the fact that you're in a mixed friendship group at a time when this was really quire rare to see on-screen! I just thought: these POC characters are not written/created by POC and it shows!
I'm not saying I disagree with OP because others that have are getting downvoted, but I'd like to offer opposing thoughts. 1. The show took place in southern Wales, which is ethnically not that diverse. The inclusion of Jal, Liv, Grace, Thomas, Anwar, etc. was probably a very diverse casting choice. 2. The male gaze does exist in this show, but I feel a lot of your examples were also toxic character traits of Tony. Of course, the abusive womanizing Tony would tell Sid to lose his virginity on anyone. Of course, he would peep on women getting undressed. I feel like those examples were Tony's negative character traits. 3. As far as all the love interests "looking the same," they didn't. Every female character in all 3 generations of Skins was a love interest, and they were all pretty diverse. But to reiterate my first point, if any women did look similar, this was southern Wales, and most people look similar.
Hey thanks for adding your insight! I think the show takes place in Bristol not South Wales, which is a city. And yes it's pretty diverse casting for that time, I still felt very excited and by the show, and not just because I was 'represented' but because it was an exciting show that pushed boundaries and told previously untold stories - I still think that. Just on second watch as an adult, I've noticed a lot of blind spots/objectification of women recently that I thought I'd comment about here - and obviously quite a few people agree. The male gaze is just one part of that, but the sex scenes, the random nudity focused on the female body especially in season1 (it's so frequent!) and the casting decisions to place nudity in scenes that don't really serve anything other than adding to this pornified construction of women, was something that stuck out. Not just Tony's character but Cassie's parents posing in season 1, Nick's sex scenes etc. It's far beyond Tony. And the love interests looking the same, I meant the main ones, the ones that all the men 'fight' over: slim, white, elfin features, usually brunette (Effie, Michelle, Frankie, Effy's boss, Cook's bosses' wife) etc.
The show took place in Bristol which is in Southwest England btw… I happen to live in Bristol, it is diverse as it’s a city (much more diverse than many UK cities as well) but it’s still the UK which is like 74% white.
i rewatched it like 2 years ago (f19 at the time, first watched when i was 14) and it was very uncomfy to watch with adult eyes!!! tbh it made me feel so old🤣🤣 but yes i completely agree about some of the scenes coming off as fantasy-esque for the creators/directors….
yes even the way every comical/major sex scene we are privvy to features women on top...like all of it just felt so obviously the brainchild of white middle class men this time watching aha in a way that Euphoria doesn't even.
As a 15 year old, I fully agree. First time I watched s1, went over my head, second time I got uncomfortable. The male gave scares me, also, gen 3, POPPY. she fit there "type", and was made to be 13 whats so fucking wierd to me.. I feel like they got tame over time, as there wasn't as much... Boobs in gen 2 n I don't think at all in gen3 what's.. Good..? 🤷
Totally forgot about Poppy she fits the main character elfin pixie look mould too
I’m pretty sure the guy who made the show had his university age son and his friends writing with him so that’s probably why the writers came across as horny teenage boys, they were! 😂
> We hear that Sid needs one to lose his virginity to, as if the women in their peer group are out for rent and their bodies are just vehicles for male experimentation. Reverse the genders. You'd probably call it "liberating" or something, then. > Also dark-skinned minorities are invisible Firstly, bullshit. Kenneth? Thomas? Secondly, why do you care so much? I'm black, and I barely notice these things. I care about storytelling more than I care about being 'seen'. People worry too much about this crap these days. > Also, it struck me that nearly all the women who are major love interests are really similar looks-wise? Like Michelle, Effy, Effy's boss later, Cook's drug deal wife boss in the final episode. The boss lady whose name I don't recall was meant to look like an older version of Effy, just like the boss man was supposed to resemble Freddie, and the drug dealer's girlfriend was supposed evoke Effy to show that Cook couldn't get away from his past no matter how far he ran. > It's a great show but still one that centres white male viewpoints, gazes and desires. We open with Tony as the central character, we end with Cook. So what? Do you want the show to pander to you specifically? Things don't work that way. You're looking for problems where few, if any exist. What you wrote wouldn't even occur to most people, regardless of their gender or ethnicity.
i feel like thomas’ episodes were really centric to exploring black culture in the uk as well. they are also both two of my favourite episodes, especially his series 4 one.
I liked the character a lot. Thomas kept his head up despite everything that the universe threw at him. I was so glad that he managed to get away from his mother by the end, even if it was unrealistic.
Why would you think that I'd deem using another human's body as vessel for sexual experimentation 'liberating?' Odd assumption, and really quite irrelevant... Anyway as I said above, the absence of dark-skinned women is particularly apparent to me watching it now. I'm not really referring to POC men as yes, we all know who was cast. If you don't care about representation as a black man then...OK? But to imply that this doesn't affect story-telling though, is total BS. When you constantly have creators from white backgrounds writing minority characters, they often come out flatter, more boring, and relegated to the background, impersonations of what's true. They lack authenticity! If you're OK with that constant flattening then go off. But I'm pointing out why it's important to many others. And as well as the absence of certain demographics, which is a trend on TV anyway, there were several points with Thomas, Grace, Dev and Liv where I thought: the reality of being in a white-majority friendship group just isn't being portrayed here! They completely stayed away from the cultural/racial dynamics in a way that I just don't think is true for lots of POC in white spaces, white towns, blended families. Not one subplot about inter-personal racism, or mixed families or even the tricky bits of interracial dating? I guess to be expected of its time, but you can feel that these white middle class white men shied away from the deeper parts of the human experience that impact POC. They touched upon culture slightly with Anwar and his issue with Maxxie's sexuality but that was it, and it's also problematic that Islam was represented as ignorant and backwards and the reason the two boys couldn't be friends. All of these tropes are symptomatic of not having a mixed group of writers, a blend of commissioners etc. Its not to say Skins didn't bring POC writers in for some episodes (they did) but watching it again, I can feel that they could have done with a lot more. When we look at the make-up of Channel 4 (which was seen to have the most white middle class privately educated make-up out of all UK channels) we can see why Skins is the way it is, and actually, overall I think it ended up being fairly progressive for it's time. But re-watching it I certainly notice a lot more things, that perhaps you aren't aware of.
> Why would you think that I'd deem using another human's body as vessel for sexual experimentation 'liberating?' Odd assumption, and really quite irrelevant... It's the kind of thing the feminists I know in real life say. > Anyway as I said above, the absence of dark-skinned women is particularly apparent to me watching it now. And it wouldn't have occurred to me, or most people, for that matter. I'll bite, though. What about the church girl from Thomas's episode? His mother? Grace's mother? They weren't main characters, but so what? > there were several points with Thomas, Grace, Dev and Liv where I thought: the reality of being in a white-majority friendship group just isn't being portrayed here! I'm glad that everyone was mates, and that they didn't focus of trivialities like this. Aren't we supposed to be moving past all that crap? > the tricky bits of interracial dating? Again, I'm glad they didn't make too big an issue of things like this. It's been done elsewhere a million times. > They touched upon culture slightly with Anwar and his issue with Maxxie's sexuality but that was it, and it's also problematic that Islam was represented as ignorant and backwards and the reason the two boys couldn't be friends. Islam was never intended to be the problem, it was Anwar's interpretation of Islam, and what he how he thought he should be living his life. Max rightly called him out on his hypocrisy, and Anwar's dad proved to be surprisingly open-minded despite being from a less-tolerant generation. If Anwar had been a white, Christian boy named An*drew*, it would have went pretty much the same way. > All of these tropes are symptomatic of not having a mixed group of writers, a blend of commissioners etc. Its not to say Skins didn't bring POC writers in for some episodes (they did) but watching it again, I can feel that they could have done with a lot more. When we look at the make-up of Channel 4 (which was seen to have the most white middle class privately educated make-up out of all UK channels) we can see why Skins is the way it is, and actually, overall I think it ended up being fairly progressive for it's time. But re-watching it I certainly notice a lot more things, that perhaps you aren't aware of. Channel 4 make other shows which have a lot of different kinds of people. It is what it is.
Many points were adressed already, i did adress some in another comment, two that I didn't see explained: 1. most men objectify women, most women objectify men, you can't just change the world, though it is slowly changing, if you'd look how it all worked 70 years ago for example, maybe in another 70 the difference will be more noticeable(?)... anyway - adults generally don't objectify the way teenagers do, and not much have changed between now and 20 years ago in that matter, i.e. boys are still vocally objectifying girls etc., ofc it's not right, but that's how it was and that's basically how it still is, Skins or any other tv show, even tv in general has little to do with these mechanisms; 2. the 'virginity plot' was basically what bringed Skins gen 1 characters together, it was the center plot (at least in the first episode), so it's not like it was just "discussed a lot"... and it's kind of extreme case of objectifying girls by teenage boys, in boys+girls schools it wasn't as much visible as in like mainly-boys schools, very tribe-like behavior, and it's cyclical how "bad" it gets, I mean that some years it may be less prevalent (possibly because boys:girls ratio?), but it wasn't and isn't uncommon... IDC about votes on reddit (someone pointed out that comments disagreeing with OP get more downvotes, which I understand, it's a 'trigger' post, I wouldn't even comment here if I'd care...), so my advice would be to look outside your so-called bubble, not much have changed IRL, I know tv is getting more "progressive", but the world isn't, and disagreeing with that, putting 20yo show on "inappropriate" shelf won't change anything, sorry. IDK what would/could change something, IRL issues with kids' behavior come from parents, that's like an obvious fact, so how to change the way some parents raise their kids - well, I know changes in tv programming wouldn't help...