I'm sorry she just is.

Chalk it up to the fact that the writers wanted to exploit Suzanne's sexiness for humor for the show, yet still wanted to portray her character as wholesome in order to not offend too many people.

But seriously, I feel bad for the guys dating her. They're not getting any action from her. :lol:

Seriously, she was fine with Lloyd Cross taking her on a trip to San Francisco and she was still expecting she wasn't going to put out at all? This was before she had the proof he was married too. I get it, he was a bad guy who was cheating on his wife, but Chrissy did this to every guy, because that's the way the writers wrote her.

So if a girl has a nice figure but happens to believe there's no sex before marriage, she's a tease? Maybe it's not the show that sexist, maybe it's you.

The point of the Chrissy character is that she is largely unaware of her sexual appeal and is pretty naive. She probably really believed she was going to be Lloyd's secretary on that trip.

Of course it seems obvious to everyone else that an older man would want to make whoopee on a getaway trip with a hot young thing. But she didn't see herself as a hot young thing, and she probably honestly believed he was a "nice guy" who wouldn't take advantage of a situation like that.

In any case, any person, male or female, ugly or pretty, should be able to choose the amount of sex they want or don't want to "put out." I feel sorry for the women who are dating you, Judgey McJudgerson! :lol:

I feel sorry for the women who are dating you, Judgey McJudgerson! :lol:
^^^ :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, part of Chrissy's appeal was that she wasn't ever even trying to be "sexy." Chrissy was very unaware of her sex appeal. Part of what made her so attractive was her genuine naivety. She wasn't a "tease" at all. There was nothing phony about Chrissy.

So if a girl has a nice figure but happens to believe there's no sex before marriage, she's a tease? Maybe it's not the show that sexist, maybe it's you.

The point of the Chrissy character is that she is largely unaware of her sexual appeal and is pretty naive. She probably really believed she was going to be Lloyd's secretary on that trip.

Of course it seems obvious to everyone else that an older man would want to make whoopee on a getaway trip with a hot young thing. But she didn't see herself as a hot young thing, and she probably honestly believed he was a "nice guy" who wouldn't take advantage of a situation like that.

In any case, any person, male or female, ugly or pretty, should be able to choose the amount of sex they want or don't want to "put out." I feel sorry for the women who are dating you, Judgey McJudgerson! :lol:

If a person isn't getting what they want out of a relationship, they have a right to dump that person and move on, wouldn't you say?

It's ok if people want to wait to have sex until marriage. I'm not knocking anybody that does that. However it's also okay if they don't want to.

This is one of those points about the show that they keep hitting home with which I don't agree with: sex without love is a bad thing.

Some people want to be in relationships where it's just sex. If the two people agree to that, what's wrong with that? If someone doesn't agree to that, then the relationship should end, and it doesn't make someone a bad person if they just want a sexual relationship without a serious commitment.

The show seemed to indicate that yes that was a bad thing and I don't agree with that.

I think the show would have been more fun if Chrissy and Janet were looking to have fun just as much as Jack. It was sexist because they were saying it's ok for men to pursue meaningless sex but women to have to look for serious relationships.

Chrissy was written as wholesome daughter of a minister because a hypocritical conservative audience at the time wouldn't accept her as being a woman who had sexual relationships without marriage.

Anyway I think we can all agree Lloyd Cross was a bad guy for cheating on his wife. But if he wasn't married it would have been okay if he made it known to Chrissy he was looking for action. If she wanted to dump him after that, that's great.

If a person isn't getting what they want out of a relationship, they have a right to dump that person and move on, wouldn't you say?

It's ok if people want to wait to have sex until marriage. I'm not knocking anybody that does that. However it's also okay if they don't want to.

This is one of those points about the show that they keep hitting home with which I don't agree with: sex without love is a bad thing.

Some people want to be in relationships where it's just sex. If the two people agree to that, what's wrong with that? If someone doesn't agree to that, then the relationship should end, and it doesn't make someone a bad person if they just want a sexual relationship without a serious commitment.

The show seemed to indicate that yes that was a bad thing and I don't agree with that.

I think the show would have been more fun if Chrissy and Janet were looking to have fun just as much as Jack. It was sexist because they were saying it's ok for men to pursue meaningless sex but women to have to look for serious relationships.

Chrissy was written as wholesome daughter of a minister because a hypocritical conservative audience at the time wouldn't accept her as being a woman who had sexual relationships without marriage.

Anyway I think we can all agree Lloyd Cross was a bad guy for cheating on his wife. But if he wasn't married it would have been okay if he made it known to Chrissy he was looking for action. If she wanted to dump him after that, that's great.
I'm not really sure about that. Soap which aired at the same time as TC and followed it on the Tuesday night schedule that first year had women who pursued sexual relationships without marriage. That show was targeted even more than TC was but it was still a big hit. I think the only 2 women on TC that didn't pursue meaningless sex were the female roommates. The women that Jack and Larry went out with seemed willing.

Yea I agree about Lloyd.

I'm not really sure about that. Soap which aired at the same time as TC and followed it on the Tuesday night schedule that first year had women who pursued sexual relationships without marriage. That show was targeted even more than TC was but it was still a big hit. I think the only 2 women on TC that didn't pursue meaningless sex were the female roommates. The women that Jack and Larry went out with seemed willing.
I still think Janet and Chrissy being wholesome was a concession by the producers because they were afraid of going too far and offending people.

It wasn't a case of where that just happened to be their characters. They were afraid if Janet and Chrissy were having sex that would make them unlikeable.

I still think Janet and Chrissy being wholesome was a concession by the producers because they were afraid of going too far and offending people.

It wasn't a case of where that just happened to be their characters. They were afraid if Janet and Chrissy were having sex that would make them unlikeable.
You might have a point there. That's part of the reason I didn't like Friends. I think TC was more talk then anything. I don't even think Jack got much action. I'm not too sure about Larry though. lol

Yeah, JSP, I agree with you that the girls were sort of relegated to sexlessness. Part of that was the era and part of that was the whole concept of the show. If Janet and Chrissy were shown to be sexually available, then the whole platonic ideal of the trio was out the window. Even Jack, who was allowed to show interest in sex, had to pay the price---for every girl he succeeded with there were ten who shut him down in grand fashion. That's what made him safe.

There's also the question of whether there can honestly be sex without consequences, at least in TV. Larry, for example, was the embodiment of sex-without-consequences. And as a result he comes across as a sleazeball (although likeable from a distance).

The confident and carefree person, in sex matters or otherwise, is automatically not as funny. It's just another happy person making sound decisions, and who wants to watch that?

If the girls were like Jack, allowed to be sexually available, there's no nice way to give them a good "comeuppance" to keep their ego in line. With men, it's easy to give them a good ribbing and forget about it. But culturally we already think women get short-shrifted in casual sex for some reason, like she's "giving something away" or degrading herself. So there's just no delicate way to handle that in a comedy, other than have a woman either be portrayed as a complete "slut" with endless one-note jokes, or be confident and sexual with no comment. And how could a character having sex go without comment or notice in Three's Company?

And I must say, I always got the impression that Janet's love life was discreet but perhaps not entirely sexless. We never saw any of them making sexytime, so who knows what they were doing during the commercials.

Yeah, JSP, I agree with you that the girls were sort of relegated to sexlessness. Part of that was the era and part of that was the whole concept of the show. If Janet and Chrissy were shown to be sexually available, then the whole platonic ideal of the trio was out the window. Even Jack, who was allowed to show interest in sex, had to pay the price---for every girl he succeeded with there were ten who shut him down in grand fashion. That's what made him safe.

There's also the question of whether there can honestly be sex without consequences, at least in TV. Larry, for example, was the embodiment of sex-without-consequences. And as a result he comes across as a sleazeball (although likeable from a distance).

The confident and carefree person, in sex matters or otherwise, is automatically not as funny. It's just another happy person making sound decisions, and who wants to watch that?

If the girls were like Jack, allowed to be sexually available, there's no nice way to give them a good "comeuppance" to keep their ego in line. With men, it's easy to give them a good ribbing and forget about it. But culturally we already think women get short-shrifted in casual sex for some reason, like she's "giving something away" or degrading herself. So there's just no delicate way to handle that in a comedy, other than have a woman either be portrayed as a complete "slut" with endless one-note jokes, or be confident and sexual with no comment. And how could a character having sex go without comment or notice in Three's Company?

And I must say, I always got the impression that Janet's love life was discreet but perhaps not entirely sexless. We never saw any of them making sexytime, so who knows what they were doing during the commercials.

Yeah when I posted that I guess I can understand the point of the show was that three people of different sex could live together platonically. I don't know why Janet and Chrissy had to be sexless in order to make that point though. They just had to not have sex with Jack.

Still....maybe the whole show is just one big tease and not just Chrissy. And that can get frustrating at times.

Like I said in a past post, this was more an anti-sex show than a sex show.

I just think a little sex wouldn't have hurt. ;)

But those were the times.

I enjoy the show the best when it doesn't involve Chrissy or Janet dating as a plot. When it's about their love life, that's when the fun goes away and the seriousness and annoying necessary gestures to morality kick in. They could have found ways to make it more fun by not having Janet and Chrissy be "good girls".