Janet was almost 30 and was always afraid to kiss a guy if they was alone

[TVFactFan]

She invited the guy Bill back to her place he met at the Flowershop and as soon as he wanted to kiss she starts getting all defensive like he was a rapist. The man just wanted to make out a little not rip her clothes off

Plus did Janet forget that Jack and Chrissy was in Jack's room so how could any sex happen if they was in the living room?

[JSP]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

She invited the guy Bill back to her place he met at the Flowershop and as soon as he wanted to kiss she starts getting all defensive like he was a rapist. The man just wanted to make out a little not rip her clothes off

Plus did Janet forget that Jack and Chrissy was in Jack's room so how could any sex happen if they was in the living room?

So is that the one where she meets the guy at the flower shop? Yeah, it is weird that Janet went from hot to cold immediately with him. They were trying to sell us on this sexual connection between the two in the flower shop, then when the guy makes a move? Janet changes her mind immediately. Any guy on the planet would have made a move on her based on what was going on in the flower shop.

I chalk it up to just bad writing. The writers were just hell bent on making sure Janet stayed a "good girl". We can't show on TV a woman might have casual sex outside of a committed relationship now can we? Never mind that it was the 70s.

That's why I usually think when the show focuses on the dating lives of the girls, that's when it's at its lamest. It's as if we're supposed to root for the girls to NOT get laid. No thanks.

I get it, a man is not supposed to force himself on a woman. It's never acceptable. But I don't think Janet and Chrissy/Cindy/Terri are always immune from criticism each time they refuse to have sex. Sometimes they are too prudish. I don't always understand them when they refuse to have sex. Sometimes for me it really is hard to root for the girls. Jack is often easier for me to root for.

It's bad writing when you can't side with the protagonists because their case isn't made clearly enough, and Three's Company's writing did that often.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by JSP

So is that the one where she meets the guy at the flower shop? Yeah, it is weird that Janet went from hot to cold immediately with him. They were trying to sell us on this sexual connection between the two in the flower shop, then when the guy makes a move? Janet changes her mind immediately. Any guy on the planet would have made a move on her based on what was going on in the flower shop.

I chalk it up to just bad writing. The writers were just hell bent on making sure Janet stayed a "good girl". We can't show on TV a woman might have casual sex outside of a committed relationship now can we? Never mind that it was the 70s.

That's why I usually think when the show focuses on the dating lives of the girls, that's when it's at its lamest. It's as if we're supposed to root for the girls to NOT get laid. No thanks.

I get it, a man is not supposed to force himself on a woman. It's never acceptable. But I don't think Janet and Chrissy/Cindy/Terri are always immune from criticism each time they refuse to have sex. Sometimes they are too prudish. I don't always understand them when they refuse to have sex. Sometimes for me it really is hard to root for the girls. Jack is often easier for me to root for.

It's bad writing when you can't side with the protagonists because their case isn't made clearly enough, and Three's Company's writing did that often.

They had Janet acting like she was 13. Damm she was afraid if fully clothed kissing?

[JackJanetChrissy]

Originally Posted by JSP

Yeah, it is weird that Janet went from hot to cold immediately with him. They were trying to sell us on this sexual connection between the two in the flower shop, then when the guy makes a move? Janet changes her mind immediately. Any guy on the planet would have made a move on her based on what was going on in the flower shop.

Okay. Okay.

Janet "went from hot to cold immediately" because the guy ASSUMED that she wanted to boink him just because she asked him over to look at the ferns. And his assumptions/expectations increased 3x when he learned that she lived with a guy and a girl.

Yes, Janet liked him a lot, but I think she honestly invited him over to only look at ferns (which he was supposedly interested in) and to get to know each other.

When men EXPECT sex like they are OWED sex, that's a problem. And when they throw a little bitch fit revealing their true intentions (he said he hated ferns at the end, so he obviously was only there for one thing) when they are denied, that's a problem. When a man then blames the woman for ruining expectations HE created in his mind, that's a problem. This was the usual gripe of the girls about their boyfriends---men often treated them as if they owed them sex.

I feel like I needed to explain this to both of you, because apparently you guys are no strangers to male entitlement.

Originally Posted by JSP

Sometimes they are too prudish. I don't always understand them when they refuse to have sex. Sometimes for me it really is hard to root for the girls.

You are partly right in that the no-sex rule of the girls was imposed by the writers/censors. But within the construct of the show, if the girls don't want to have sex with every dude they dated, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE.

The fact that you feel like the degree of their "prudishness" makes it difficult for you to "root for the girls" speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by JSP

We can't show on TV a woman might have casual sex outside of a committed relationship now can we? Never mind that it was the 70s.

Again, yeah, the censors were a factors. But what did you want? The girls throwing themselves at every guy and jumping into bed with all of them? Then you'd probably call them sluts, and they'd be equally "hard to root for." Such bull****.

[JackJanetChrissy]

In fact, I've seen elsewhere on these boards where ppl have called some of Larry's or Jack's girlfriends "sluts" and "hos" and even "whores" because they wanted exactly what you say Janet/Chrissy/Terri should want---casual sex!

With ppl like you, women can't win.

[JackJanetChrissy]

I would also say that the running jokes on the sex-crazed nature of the girls' boyfriends is exaggerated to be FUNNY....but I guess if you're a loser dude who strikes out with every girl he dates in real life, then those jokes just make you bitter. Hmmm

[JSP]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

Okay. Okay.

Janet "went from hot to cold immediately" because the guy ASSUMED that she wanted to boink him just because she asked him over to look at the ferns. And his assumptions/expectations increased 3x when he learned that she lived with a guy and a girl.

Yes, Janet liked him a lot, but I think she honestly invited him over to only look at ferns (which he was supposedly interested in) and to get to know each other.

When men EXPECT sex like they are OWED sex, that's a problem. And when they throw a little bitch fit revealing their true intentions (he said he hated ferns at the end, so he obviously was only there for one thing) when they are denied, that's a problem. When a man then blames the woman for ruining expectations HE created in his mind, that's a problem. This was the usual gripe of the girls about their boyfriends---men often treated them as if they owed them sex.

I feel like I needed to explain this to both of you, because apparently you guys are no strangers to male entitlement.



You are partly right in that the no-sex rule of the girls was imposed by the writers/censors. But within the construct of the show, if the girls don't want to have sex with every dude they dated, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE.

The fact that you feel like the degree of their "prudishness" makes it difficult for you to "root for the girls" speaks volumes.



Again, yeah, the censors were a factors. But what did you want? The girls throwing themselves at every guy and jumping into bed with all of them? Then you'd probably call them sluts, and they'd be equally "hard to root for." Such bull****.

I've never called a girl a "slut" before in my life. I think women should be as free to explore sex as a man does.

I'm not taking responsibility for the fact that people call women sluts sometimes. I don't.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

Okay. Okay.

Janet "went from hot to cold immediately" because the guy ASSUMED that she wanted to boink him just because she asked him over to look at the ferns. And his assumptions/expectations increased 3x when he learned that she lived with a guy and a girl.

Yes, Janet liked him a lot, but I think she honestly invited him over to only look at ferns (which he was supposedly interested in) and to get to know each other.

When men EXPECT sex like they are OWED sex, that's a problem. And when they throw a little bitch fit revealing their true intentions (he said he hated ferns at the end, so he obviously was only there for one thing) when they are denied, that's a problem. When a man then blames the woman for ruining expectations HE created in his mind, that's a problem. This was the usual gripe of the girls about their boyfriends---men often treated them as if they owed them sex.

I feel like I needed to explain this to both of you, because apparently you guys are no strangers to male entitlement.



You are partly right in that the no-sex rule of the girls was imposed by the writers/censors. But within the construct of the show, if the girls don't want to have sex with every dude they dated, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE.

The fact that you feel like the degree of their "prudishness" makes it difficult for you to "root for the girls" speaks volumes.

If a woman doesn't like a guy who just wants sex, she is free to reject said guy, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong for a guy to just want sex. I have an issue with you calling that a problem.

It's sexist to assume that a woman's desired goals in a relationship are more important than a man's.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

You are partly right in that the no-sex rule of the girls was imposed by the writers/censors. But within the construct of the show, if the girls don't want to have sex with every dude they dated, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE.

The fact that you feel like the degree of their "prudishness" makes it difficult for you to "root for the girls" speaks volumes.

It most definitely is their choice and always should be, but it doesn't mean I have to support them in said choice.

[JackJanetChrissy]

A person doesn't have to name-call to get an attitude across.

I didn't say it was wrong for a man to want sex. A person can want anything they want. It's their actions that matter.

It's important to note that Janet did not reject the guy for wanting sex. She rejected him because he had made unfair assumptions based on general stereotypes. For example---he thought that if a woman invited him to her place, she was "easy." And if she lives with someone of the opposite gender, she's really "easy."

I think Janet was fairly innocent in her invitation and vibes. The man interpreted incorrectly, then blamed her for his incorrect interpretation.

I also did not say one person's goals are more important than another person's. These are all ridiculous straw man arguments you are using.

"I don't have to support them in said choice"

Your attitude implies that a woman is more "complete" and likeable if she is open to having casual sex, and if a woman character doesn't fit with your opinion of what a so-called real woman says or does, then she is automatically less of a likeable character.

As altruistic as you may want to seem toward women, the fact that you find a female character more or only likeable if they do XYZ (even if XYZ is a positive, progressive thing) is really telling. And it's kind of a crappy attitude.

A great example is Larry. I think the way he treats women is bad, but I still root for him (as you say). Because male characters who don't fit my vision of how a man should act or be can still be likeable.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

A person doesn't have to name-call to get an attitude across.

I didn't say it was wrong for a man to want sex. A person can want anything they want. It's their actions that matter.

It's important to note that Janet did not reject the guy for wanting sex. She rejected him because he had made unfair assumptions based on general stereotypes. For example---he thought that if a woman invited him to her place, she was "easy." And if she lives with someone of the opposite gender, she's really "easy."

I think Janet was fairly innocent in her invitation and vibes. The man interpreted incorrectly, then blamed her for his incorrect interpretation.

I also did not say one person's goals are more important than another person's. These are all ridiculous straw man arguments you are using.

"I don't have to support them in said choice"

Your attitude implies that a woman is more "complete" and likeable if she is open to having casual sex, and if a woman character doesn't fit with your opinion of what a so-called real woman says or does, then she is automatically less of a likeable character.

As altruistic as you may want to seem toward women, the fact that you find a female character more or only likeable if they do XYZ (even if XYZ is a positive, progressive thing) is really telling. And it's kind of a crappy attitude.

A great example is Larry. I think the way he treats women is bad, but I still root for him (as you say). Because male characters who don't fit my vision of how a man should act or be can still be likeable.

One of the messages throughout the series of Three's was that Janet and Chrissy (or the other blondes) were special girls and were somehow noble in their endeavors to look for meaningful relationships, while Larry was a scumbag for looking for one night stands. That was always so judgmental about the series and I didn't like that tone. And if Janet and Chrissy, etc. were somehow noble for never having sex outside of a committed relationship, it implied that the women Jack and Larry dated were somehow "less" because they had casual sex. I don't agree with that.

It was just a whole bunch of mixed messages. Why are Janet and Chrissy better than the women Jack and Larry go out with? I don't see it.

I mean clearly there were times Jack went out with a rude woman, and that's not acceptable. Janet and Chrissy are better than those women. But there's plenty of women Jack and Larry dated that were MORE interesting than Janet and Chrissy. The biggest problem with the show is, it's just automatically assumed we're supposed to have sympathy for Janet and Chrissy without always giving good reasons.

[JSP]

To me, as an example, I'd rather be with Lana than Janet and Chrissy. She's rich, good looking, and wanted to have a good time! Sounds like a big win. It was dumb for Jack to reject her advances. Made no sense at all. Just like it made no sense to me for Janet to turn down the guy at the flower shop. I think it would have been more empowering for the women if they got to have the fun Jack and Larry did. The fact is, Janet and Chrissy had no sex because the writers were afraid of going too far. It was a concession to more Conservative attitudes of the audience. Unfortunately the times Janet and Chrissy, etc. refused to have sex, it added an unnecessary amount of seriousness to a show that was a light-hearted laugh riot the rest of the time.

Yes, rape is horrible. A man forcing himself on a woman is a detestable thing. Any guy that does it needs to, at the least, be in prison. But did we have to be reminded of that seemingly every time Janet or Chrissy was on a date? Why did it seem like a lot of the guys the girls went out with had to be a creep, a monster, or a schlub? Couldn't we have seen a time where Chrissy or Janet just had a good time dating? Would it have been so bad for Janet to see a guy and say "I'm just going to have a night of meaningless sex." Were audiences that unwilling to see such a thing in the 1970s/80s?

[Torgo]

Originally Posted by JSP

To me, as an example, I'd rather be with Lana than Janet and Chrissy. She's rich, good looking, and wanted to have a good time! Sounds like a big win. It was dumb for Jack to reject her advances. Made no sense at all.

Yeah, that crazy Jack for not being shallow.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by Torgo

Yeah, that crazy Jack for not being shallow.

Oh come on, now, if Lana were 30 instead of 45 I'm sure he'd of had no problem dating her. He probably rejected her for being too old. Rejecting her made him shallow. Then again, that may not have been the reason. That was another case of bad writing. It was never really explained why Jack should not be interested in Lana.

[JackJanetChrissy]

So I guess being educated, funny, responsible, the manager of a business, and an otherwise well-rounded person did not make Janet "empowered" enough for you. Mmkay. I think I've stated my case.

But to answer your question as to why Janet/Chrissy's boyfriends were often painted as caricatures, and Larry seemed to be a caricature, etc, it's because the show was a farce, which relies on broad, stereotypical characters. This isn't a feelings sitcom that delves deeply into the motives and authenticity of characters.

I don't see how any of the ancillary guest stars were more interesting than Janet and Chrissy. Often the girlfriends/boyfriends were just there to advance the plot. None of the boys' girlfriends were on screen long enough to be particularly "interesting" (maybe with the exception of Linda, and that's only because we saw her more than once, and even then it's a stretch to call her "interesting").

I also think you're missing the boat on how Jack's girlfriends somehow seemed "less" than the roommates. Have you seen the show? Often Jack gets rejected because HE acts a fool and ruins things.

"It made no sense for Janet to reject the guy from the flower shop"

Hmm, I guess the fact that he was a total d-bag for assuming she was like every other girl he knew and drawing false conclusions wasn't enough to get rejected? You are a piece of work.