One Night Stands in Sitcoms...the New Normal?

[Retro4Life]

I don't want to seem like a prude, but I was watching the "Hot in Cleveland" marathon yesterday, and in one of the episodes, Valerie Bertinelli's character was flirting with a cop in a bar in one scene, and in the very next scene they were in the kitchen together the next morning after having obviously spent the night together.

I'm not picking on this show, just using it as an example of something that's bothered me for a while. Ever since we got into the modern age of sitcoms (I'd say late 80's or early 90's to now), it seems like it's just taken for granted that when people meet they have sex on the first date. You see it again and again and as I say, I'm not saying those people are evil or are going to Hell or something, but I wish there was less of a "well, of COURSE they would do that" tone. I mean, EVERYONE doesn't do that, but it seems like Hollywood assumes because that's the way it works out there, that's the way it works everywhere.

Not all characters sleep together on a first date, but it's the RARE couple that actually waits past the third date or so.

Am I being overly sensitive? Old fashioned? It used to be on The Golden Girls that Blanche was kind of the exception to the rule and they commented on it; now if a character actually just DATES for a while without sex they are looked upon as kind of a freak. I don't want to read too much into this, but honestly, it's kind of a disturbing trend to me, especially since a lot of these sitcoms are on in primetime when kids are watching and no doubt identifying with these characters. Worse still, I rarely hear talk of birth control methods or even the fear of the potential of pregnancy or disease transmission.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Mr. Television]

This has been going on since Friends hit it big in the 1990's. I don't particularly care for it either. I do like Hot in Cleveland so I don't want it to seem like I'm bashing this show but it does seem like it's the norm anymore. I think one of the problems is there are less family type sitcoms anymore .

[bencasey]

Another reason why I've watched hardly any sitcoms in the last 30 years. I stick to dramas and older sitcoms from the 50s and 60s. Not to mention they are funnier and every joke isn't either a sex joke or a putdown.

[CrazyTV]

Sitcoms aren't going for realistic - they're going for sensational. That's why there's little continuity on these shows and most episodes operate on their own so they can be played in any order without screwing up the flow or series progression.

[rcbrad]

I do not care much for it either. There is a big difference between a one night stand vs a long term/commited relationship. I do not care for many of today's sitcoms, but even the ones I do, I get a bit tired of constant one night stands along with raunchy subject matter. Much of the humor today is back in your face humor, instead of funny story telling.

[JulieSomoski]

On the new sitcom Mike & Molly, the title couple didn't have sex on the first date, but instead waited many episodes in to have sex. How much time in the real world that was, I don't know, but this is certainly an exception to your one-night stand normality argument. It seems like it does happen on shows a lot nowadays, but usually for humor or entertainment. I don't really see anything wrong with it. If it's funny, it's funny.

[JayTN]

Originally Posted by Retro4Life

I don't want to read too much into this, but honestly, it's kind of a disturbing trend to me, especially since a lot of these sitcoms are on in primetime when kids are watching and no doubt identifying with these characters. Worse still, I rarely hear talk of birth control methods or even the fear of the potential of pregnancy or disease transmission.

Thoughts, anyone?

This has got to be #1 on my list of T.V. Pet Peeves...any phrase that contains the words "kids are watching".

Have you heard of the old saying..."television is for everyone, but not every series". If a kid watches "Criminal Minds" and has bad dreams, is it the fault of the producers or of the parents? I don't have children, but there are many series that I would not let my children watch...even with an adult in the room.

I remember being surprised when my cousin's then-10-year-son came to visit (this was about two years ago) and our TV was tuned to "King of the Hill". He was traveling with his grandmother (my aunt) and said that she would not let him watch "King of the Hill". I've not seen every single episode of "Hill", but those that I have seen are largely tame. Now, "Family Guy" is another story, but I failed to see the problem with "King of the Hill".

It seems like parents are abdicating their roles as parents and are expecting everybody else - including television - to act as babysitters. The burden of parenting needs to be placed back where it belongs...onto the parents.

[Retro4Life]

^ I agree with your last line. I do not expect television producers to raise children, that's not their job. And I deplore parents who abrogate that responsibility to anonymous programming execs whose primary motive is, and should be, profit.

However, I hardly think that championing free expression and having a sense of social responsibility are mutually exclusive propositions. You can be the finest parent in the world but if Friends comes on at 7 pm, a time when it's reasonable to expect that your kids should be able to watch, and you suddenly find yourself having to explain what a "threesome" is, that's a bit beyond your control. Of course there are ratings to help guide you, but if your choices are severely limited by the fact that there are very few primetime sitcoms that don't include some blatantly adult material (or at least behavior you might find a bit objectionable), your hands are a bit tied.

Again, I'm not advocating any kind of censorship, just common sense. I frankly don't care if someone watches hardcore pornography, but I'd prefer it was on at a time that it's reasonable to expect children can't watch (and if you don't know what your kid is watching, that's your fault; no excuses about being too busy or whatever). When I was young I used to purchase comic books from a local drugstore. At that same drugstore, there was a magazine rack that contained several adult men's magazines. These magazines were well out of the reach of kids, and moreoever, were wrapped in concealing plastic covers. Freedom of choice, and yet socially responsible; problem solved. Why is it so bad to expect the same type of responsibility from TV programmers?

[JayTN]

I agree with you, in theory. Also, I apologize if my original comment may have seemed heavy handed, but as I mentioned, it's a pet peeve, and pet peeves tend to make people a little hot under the collar.

While I get the message, having a drug store be able to restrict access of "adult" reading material out of the reach of children (even restricting those suggestive images on the cover) is quite different from a network, or local affiliate, airing a series with adult subject matter. Most "adult" magazines are wrapped up and cannot be perused like a tabloid or "TV Guide". Also, just as with age restrictions on the use of tobacco and alcohol, places of business have a large degree of control over who buys those items. If you want to buy "Playboy" or some Bud Lite, be prepared to show some form of ID to prove you meet the legal age required to buy those items. If you fail to do so, you can be stopped from purchasing them. Network executives cannot stay in your home and stop children from seeing things that they should otherwise not be seeing. That is where the parents come into the equation. I've always had my own television and had very little restrictions on what I could and could not watch - of course I also grew up before the explosion of niche cable channels. And if I do say so myself, I seem to be a fairly well adjusted responsible adult.

If a local channel wants to air "Friends" at 7:00 p.m., the parent(s) should be there to either stop their child from watching it or be there to explain the situations to the child. Parents have a lot of weapons available to them, the greatest (and easiest) of which is the V-chip. Obviously, parents cannot be there 24/7 for their kids, but when they are there, they should at least act like parents.

On a personal note, I remember getting upset with my mother when she wouldn't let me go see the movie "Showgirls", which had been slapped with an NC-17 rating. I, more or less, wanted to see what all the fuss was about, not Jessie from "Saved by the Bell" dancing on a pole. When I finally did watch it, after it had been released on home video, I remember thinking "why did I ever want to go see this trash?"

To summarize, parents need to do their job, but the network programmers also shoulder some of the responsibility (such as programming more adult fare at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. when it is presumed that impressionable children should be in bed). Finding the right balance between the two is often difficult and the source of much hand wringing around the country. Such is the price we pay for living in a country that values freedom of speech and expression, I guess.

[cocytus]

People still have one-nighters. That's reality. While it may offend some people that things like that happen, their offense doesn't change the fact that it does.

Valerie Bertinelli is a woman that has traded on her childhood fame and her aura of "innocence" to the detriment of her career. That she is doing "adult" roles at age 50 is not as "shocking" to me as it is just plain sad.

[McFly121]

Very prevelant on Frasier. He'd meet a woman and, if not that night, would be sleeping with her within days. Even with his fame and good living, they would always be entirely out of his league. But I think this is a plot advancement deal, since eps don't have time to invest months of a character's life in a relationship just to get to sex or break up gags.

[sijamo]

I am with you. A lot of the people objecting are of another generation and continue to talk about shows from the fifties and sixties but it just isn't that way anymore. You will have to monitor what you child watches or turn the tv to their favorite DVD or dvr their favorite shows and show them instead of syndicated programming one finds objectionable. The onus is on you not anyone else.

[CommonTater]

I was born in the 1950's. My kids who are grown don't like it either and don't allow their children to watch much TV because you never know what will be said or be seen. We take responsibility in teaching our children/grandchildren value's.

Retro4Life, I don't think anyone is a prude just because they have high value's and morals.
We have free will, we all decide what we believe in and how we live.


My family doesn't like the direction things have taken at all. The networks don't seem to care that nothing is on that the family can sit and enjoy, together as a family.
Not all of us want our children/grandchildren to hear the cussing, see people doing the 'wild monkey dance' or hear them discussing it.

They don't use the TV as a babysitter but let's be honest. How much is really on TV nowadays that is for the entire family? How many shows can you trust to allow your children to just watch without you knowing what may happen on each episode?

My grandchildren watch some older shows that can be trusted and DVD's and there are cartoons they enjoy. We always check out rating at Dove before they watch movies.

[JayTN]

Originally Posted by CommonTater

I was born in the 1950's. My kids who are grown don't like it either and don't allow their children to watch much TV because you never know what will be said or be seen. We take responsibility in teaching our children/grandchildren value's.

Retro4Life, I don't think anyone is a prude just because they have high value's and morals.
We have free will, we all decide what we believe in and how we live.


My family doesn't like the direction things have taken at all. The networks don't seem to care that nothing is on that the family can sit and enjoy, together as a family.
Not all of us want our children/grandchildren to hear the cussing, see people doing the 'wild monkey dance' or hear them discussing it.

They don't use the TV as a babysitter but let's be honest. How much is really on TV nowadays that is for the entire family? How many shows can you trust to allow your children to just watch without you knowing what may happen on each episode?

My grandchildren watch some older shows that can be trusted and DVD's and there are cartoons they enjoy. We always check out rating at Dove before they watch movies.

More verbal diarrhea from the resident sanctimonious prude...you have got to be a Baptist.

[CommonTater]

Jay, you started this and you started it with me.
I feel like you are a computer stalker, you are picking my post to insult and attack. I have done nothing to you. Please leave me alone and stop hurling insults at me.