Questioning the logic of “Skins”

I remember when I first saw a preview for “Skins”: halfway through a recent episode of Jersey Shore. (Yes, I’m a fan, proceed to judge).

I took one look at it and said, “That may be the stupidest show I’ve ever seen!” Little did I know it was a smash hit in the U.K., and the latest television import from the country.

“Skins,” MTV’s newest “real life” drama, centers around a group of teens who do nothing but party with alcohol and drugs and have sex. Apparently, there’s more to the show than just that, but no one would know from the publicity the show has been getting.

"Skins" causes a stir on and off the camera. Photo via

With “Skins” being described as a “realistic” look at high school, it’s hard for me not to look back on my experience and wonder, “Where was this happening at my high school?” The only answer I can come up with: It wasn’t.

Sure, there have to be a few realistic aspects, but it’s hard for me to accept that anything more than 20 percent of the episodes’ content is real.

I’m not alone in this feeling. Companies who have run ads during the show’s time slot, like Wrigley, have removed their spots — resulting in a humorous SNL spoof on the subject a few weeks ago.

Family groups feel the episodes are a little too real for comfort and have demanded the cancellation of the show after a mere single episode. Their argument is that the show portrays child pornography, since some of the cast members are as young as 15.

Regardless of how the show ends up, I’m still left with one question. It’s not, “Is ‘Skins’ really that idiotic?,” because I know from experience it is.

What I still want an answer to is this: “What difference between the U.S. and BBC version led the BBC version to success while the U.S. version seems to be sinking?”