Schirripa described the show as being, “about a fifteen year old kid that gets pregnant and how it affects everyone’s life, and I mean everyone – everyone at school and the other kids and it really is show that you could watch with your kids.” Gifford touted, “And learn something.” Yep – a great show to learn about sex, promiscuity and contraceptives.
Gifford also praised the show because “it’s got great critical raves because of Brenda Hampton who’s behind it.” Gifford apparently didn’t read CMI’s 2008 article about the show’s reviews. “The Los Angeles Times summed up “Secret Life” by stating, “the tone of the pilot [episode] careens between an after-school special and “American Pie,” with a bit of “Pretty in Pink” grabbed along the way.” The New York Times called it “a parody of an after-school special” and said “‘Secret Life’ doesn’t take the fun out of teenage pregnancy, it takes the fun out of television.” The Hollywood Reporter said ‘it feeds into parental hysteria in ridiculously one-dimensional ways.’”
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
But to Gifford it’s “that great show.” Schirripa also said, “And it’s good stuff. It’s funny; it’s got a lot of drama. It’s got a little bit of everything. You cry. You laugh.” Well, save the laughter for the ridiculousness of the “Today Talk’s” conversation.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
i feel for Kathy Lee. She's
July 23, 2009 - 13:39 ET by mister josephi feel for Kathy Lee. She's got a room-temp IQ and an audience, and i think she simply says things because she's supposed to say them. i sincerely doubt she ever watched the show.
She never shuts her mouth long enough
July 23, 2009 - 14:09 ET by Paul Atreidesto watch anything.
I'm hardly a crusading
July 23, 2009 - 13:40 ET by Chris NormanI'm hardly a crusading prude, but I've noticed, in channel surfing, that some of the shows and movies on the ABC "Family" Channel were questionable as qualifying as "family TV" - as I understand the category. Their slogan: "A Different Kind of Family" seems apt - in an ironic kind of way - maybe intentionally ironic?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Your first mistake would be
July 23, 2009 - 13:40 ET by Scout FinchYour first mistake would be trusting Kathie Lee Gifford's advice on TV viewing.
I have enough common sense to get a bad vibe from this show, just by reading the plot. There's no way network TV can handle the delicacy required of this sensitive subject.
Kathie Lee
July 23, 2009 - 14:22 ET by blazermaniacActually, your first mistake would actually be watching Kathie Lee.
question
July 23, 2009 - 14:09 ET by USAnumber1why did God/nature give humans the ability to pro-create at the age of 13 if that's so immoral?
How's this for an answer...
July 23, 2009 - 14:19 ET by onewiseguy...Why is murder immoral if we have the capability to kill as well?
Please try and think for a few moments before you submit questions....it may very well save you from asking those patently ridiculous questions such as the one you asked.
poor analogy
July 23, 2009 - 14:48 ET by USAnumber1the ability to murder does not just spring in to being at a certain age or time in ones life. the ability to pro-create does, when the body is physically ready to do so. thousands of societies throughout time have done this. Our times and society have deemed it necessary to place an age on when one is READY. don't get me wrong, im not talking about 30 year olds sleeping with 13 year olds, but ive known plently of 14 year old kids way more mature than 18 year olds
Really?
July 23, 2009 - 14:58 ET by onewiseguySo you're telling me that humans have the capacity to murder from birth? Funny, I'm not aware of any instances of infants, toddlers, or children before the age of reasoning having committed murder. You've obviously missed the point of my analogy. Just because we are "capable" of something does not mean that we "should" engage in that activity. Human being were given a special ability that other creatures were not given and that is the ability to "reason". With that ability comes a responsibility to use it wisely which means practicing self-control. Reason dictates that a person or persons who cannot provide for a child should not be engaging in activities that would result in a child. Sorry, but your reasoning is immature.
ahhh
July 23, 2009 - 15:06 ET by USAnumber1so what about the 30 year old who cannot provide for their child? why is that ok?
im not saying every 14 year old should engage in sex, im just saying that some 14 year old couplea are definitely mature enough to handle it. i was. on the flip side, an 18 year old degenerate will be much less responsible, but society sayd its ok because his birth certificate says he's ready.
its ridiculous. you have to judge people for who they are, not how old they are
I have to nominate your post
July 23, 2009 - 14:20 ET by Tim the EnchanterI have to nominate your post for the "can't see the forest for the trees" award. The immorality isn't in the procreation at 13 years old, it's in the adultery and sexual promniscuity portrayed as "normal" behavior.
exactly
July 23, 2009 - 14:40 ET by USAnumber1so why give kids sexual desires at age 14, and then tell them its wrong to act on perfectly natural, Gid-given urges?
For Pete's sake, put the
July 23, 2009 - 14:45 ET by Chris NormanFor Pete's sake, put the shovel down!
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
im just trying to make
July 23, 2009 - 14:50 ET by USAnumber1im just trying to make people think instead of just reacting. seems to be a lot of that going on around here.
btw - - i dont get the shovel joke..
It wasn't a joke. You are
July 23, 2009 - 14:57 ET by Chris NormanIt wasn't a joke. You are digging a grave for yourself here. You are coming off as saying it's okay for thirteen year olds to have sex and get pregnant because they are physically suited for it. It really sounds perverted.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
hey, i didn't give 13 year
July 23, 2009 - 15:01 ET by USAnumber1hey, i didn't give 13 year olds the ability to pro-create. take that up with smoeone else.
why is pro-creation perverted? seems like you're the one with your mind in the gutter.
millions of 13 year olds over time have been great mothers, so why is it so wrong? why is 17 wrong, and 18 right? it's government mandated BS
I can't believe I am having
July 23, 2009 - 15:06 ET by Chris NormanI can't believe I am having this vile discussion with someone on this site. As for my mind being in the gutter, it's only because I foolishly allowed you to lead me there. I am getting out now before the stench makes me physically sick.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
next time maybe you'll try
July 23, 2009 - 15:08 ET by USAnumber1next time maybe you'll try answering my questions and think a little instead of running
Your questions are
July 23, 2009 - 15:15 ET by Chris NormanYour questions are so outrageous that to "answer" them would be to wallow in the muck. I'm surprised this whole thread hasn't been deleted. It should be.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
why?
July 23, 2009 - 15:24 ET by USAnumber1why is it so wrong for two 14 year olds to have sex.
hate to break it to you, but it's happening all around you.
Just because something goes
July 23, 2009 - 15:55 ET by Chris NormanJust because something goes on doesn't mean it should advocated and defended - especially by an adult (?). Do you even realize that you sound like a dirty old man?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
why is it so wrong?
July 23, 2009 - 18:53 ET by jdlybrandIt's happening all around you. So by your logic; that make's it OK? Say that to yourself and see if it makes sense.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
I don't think there are any Gid worshippers here
July 23, 2009 - 15:17 ET by SickofLibsI don't think there are any Gid worshippers here, but I may be wrong.
Gid worshippers
July 23, 2009 - 15:55 ET by RukusThere are some Giddy Barry worshippers, but not Gid worshippers. Not yet anyway. ; )
Gary
Hey, Jimmah Che Obama! I want my country back!
I really hope you're asking
July 23, 2009 - 14:24 ET by Chris NormanI really hope you're asking that question philosophically, rather than as a defense of the idea of thirteen year olds getting pregnant.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
"Idiotic Post of the Year"
July 23, 2009 - 14:38 ET by SickofLibs... and we have a LOT to choose from.
edit: oops, didn't notice Tim above had nominated you for a different award.
why?
July 23, 2009 - 14:44 ET by USAnumber1so let me see if i got this straight.....
it's perfect ok to allow 8 year olds to hunt with GUNS, but it's wrong for a 14 year old teenager to have sex with another 14 year old.
btw - where does it say in any religious teaching that it's wrong form sexual ready teenagers to have sex?
In a word, yes.
July 23, 2009 - 15:01 ET by onewiseguySheesh, are you really that obtuse? Does using a gun for hunting result in the formation of a new life to which that person ultimately has responsibility for? Of course not. A 14 year cannot properly care for a child. Bringing a child into this world is one of the biggest responsibilities we face...hunting most assuredly is not. Giv it up...your argument on this subject is immature and contrary to what you state in one of your replies, people here are not just reacting without thinking.
really that obtuse?
July 23, 2009 - 15:15 ET by SickofLibsJust imagine, you're only seeing the TIP of the iceberg.
how the hell do you know
July 23, 2009 - 15:15 ET by USAnumber1how the hell do you know what every 14 year old can or cant do? as i said earlier, millions have raised kids over the history of our civilaztion. i'll bet every one of us comes from a descendant who was well under 18 years of age. it was more common in the past. its not an age that makes someone ready to raise a child.
answer this. would you rather have a 18 year old drug addict have a child, or a 14 year old who is very mature and responsible?
i can wait, although im sure no one will answer
I'll answer
July 23, 2009 - 15:23 ET by SickofLibsGo f*ck yourself, and now go back to sorting your comic book collection.
haha
July 23, 2009 - 15:29 ET by USAnumber1you are a fiesty bunch.
typically answer i get when someone has run out of things to say. i'll take it as a white flag.
Oh ok...
July 23, 2009 - 15:53 ET by onewiseguy"..how the hell do you know what every 14 year old can or cant do?"
I don't. But I do know that 14 is too young to be able to financially support a child on their own in our society. Again, you completely miss the point about this not being an issue of whether or not a 14 year old is physically capbale of having sex and a child but instead it is an issue of whether or not they should be having sex and children.
At some point I realize that I am arguing with a brick wall which is pointless and we have reached that point so if it will make you feel better I'll say, "oh ok"...
well for the 10th time ill
July 23, 2009 - 15:58 ET by USAnumber1well for the 10th time ill respond to that. an extremely large percent of 18 year olds can't support a child either, but thats ok. why?
are you following me now?
signed,
brick wall
I'm sorry...
July 23, 2009 - 16:04 ET by onewiseguy...I somehow missed where I said it was ok for any person incapable of supporting a child to be having a child...can you please clarify where I made that claim? What I DID say was that an underage person does not have the means to support a child....an adult DOES have the means (if they so exercise those means). You made an improper assumption.
If you were what is broadly
July 23, 2009 - 15:13 ET by SickofLibsIf you were what is broadly called "a member of society", you could answer that 1st question yourself, which is, unbelievably, even dumber than your original post.
Here we go, it's two-parter. If you're able to formulate an answer to Part 1, proceed to Part 2....
1) What is the negative impact on society and the family of an 8-year old going hunting with his father? I'm speaking about hunting in the sportsman's sense, not an inner city 8 year old going hunting for rival gang members.
2) What is the negative impact on society and the family of a 13 yr old getting pregnant or contracting an STD?
On your religious teaching query, actually there IS a "religion" that not only allows this, it codifies it. Unfortunately, it is more often a 13 yr old girl with a 40 yr old man, than two 13 yr olds.
ill start at the bottom and
July 23, 2009 - 15:20 ET by USAnumber1ill start at the bottom and work up.
1st off, it doesnt say anywhere in the bible that this is forbidden, so i guess chrisitianity is the "religion" you're talking about (im christian by the way)
2nd, there can be just as much negative impact from an 18 year old drug user as a 13 year old, but one of them is ok in society... so that question needs to be refined. besides, ive known 2 14 year olds who had a child and they didnt really on anyone else except for family (which is what a typical 18 year old will do anyway).
3rd, an 8 year old can accidentally shoot the person they are with becasue they are only 8!!!
any more questions?
Yeah, I have one final question
July 23, 2009 - 15:26 ET by SickofLibsHow can you be 31 and having the writing skills of an eight year old?
Over and out.
"having the writing
July 23, 2009 - 15:31 ET by USAnumber1"having the writing skills?"
maybe you should make sure your grammer is accurate first.
catch you next time
USA
July 23, 2009 - 18:58 ET by jdlybrandTry spell check some time. It's awesome... and any fourteen year old can use it!
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Early breeding
July 23, 2009 - 15:47 ET by petitjeanpetitjean
Speaking from experience as a human and a farmer I can say a couple of things. A heifer may be able to conceive a calf at nine months of age. Any stockman knows that doing so will risk mother and calf and stunt the growth of the mother.
Turning from agriculture to humans, I would say when a person is able to support and care for a child they are perhaps ready to be a parent. Biological capability to breed doesn't translate to an ability to support and care for a child.
I put off having children until age 30 when my wife was 29 and it was still a financial struggle in the Carter years to keep a family in a decent manner. At that point, I had been sexually active for fifteen years but used birth control because I was aware of at least some of the consequences. I didn't know them all until after the first child was born. Had I known that I would have put it off for at least a couple of years.
In regard to young people having access to firearms, I see no problem as long as they have sufficient maturity to recognize the dangers. I began hunting for food at age ten . It was not a hobby. I had to account for every cartridge used. If I used ten bullets to get eight squirrels, there was some explaining to do. Bullets even for a .22 were costly for my family. There had to be a return on the investment. As a consequence, I am an excellent shot with a rifle or pistol. I believe that gun control means aiming at and hitting a target.
My home security system is a pair of shotguns, a rifle and two pistols. A couple of years ago, I stopped a home invasion by two thugs by wounding one and holding the other at gunpoint until the cops came. It made a mess on the carpet but they had knives showing. It brings to mind the old statement about not bringing a knife to a gunfight.
USA
July 23, 2009 - 16:16 ET by Noel SheppardUSA,
Let me see if I can inject some sanity here.
None of this has anything to do with nature. Nature wants its species to procreate without restriction in order to maximize the gene pool. Nature doesn't care about morals or laws.
With this in mind, nature wouldn't be concerned with rape. After all, this could increase and extend the gene pool, correct? So, you could use your same argument in favor of abolishing rape laws.
Nature also isn't very concerned with hygiene and the proper disposal of human waste. Using your argument, our laws against urination and defecation in public are unnatural. Ditto public nudity. After all, nature didn't give us clothing.
Nor did nature give us wings. So, I guess using your argument, we shouldn't fly in planes?
Yes, I'm being facetious, but the "it's only natural" argument could be used in so many areas of our lives that if we took it to its furthest extent, we would all be living in caves.
In many ways, civilization is man's way of controlling nature and his own natural instincts. If you're displeased with one aspect of civilized man, how many others are you willing to give up to prove your point? :-) ns
USA
July 23, 2009 - 19:27 ET by Georgia GirlI'm not going to address the moral issues to your argument because I see your stance on that, and I could not disagree more -- we are so far apart that there's no point. But I will answer you regarding the science. A teen brain's frontal lobe is not fully developed, which affects judgment and decision-making.
When this link comes up, refer to "What the Research Shows." Although there are factors that influence maturity and reasoning, there is no way around it -- age does matter. The longer the brain "cooks," the better equipped a person is to make wise decisions.
The article:
http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/teen_brain_research_in_education
Then how have other cultures
July 24, 2009 - 10:07 ET by USAnumber1Then how have other cultures done it for thousands of years?
OH JOY
July 23, 2009 - 14:29 ET by Delsalets all gather around the television and watch this wonderful show.
NO lets all gather and avoid it like we should
Style over substance
July 23, 2009 - 15:09 ET by locomotivebreath1901From the CMI article:
"...Woodley’s character got
pregnant at 15, Raisa’s is known for her sexual promiscuity, and Park’s
abandoned her Christian beliefs and lost her virginity in the new
season opener...."
Their parents must be so proud.
Dang. Back in my day those girls were called 'sluts', and had their name prominently featured on the public bathroom walls with "for a good time call..."
Now, they got a toilet, ~~ er, a TV show of their own.
How silly of me to have supported my now grown daughters when they pursued careers in finance and law. I should have said, 'No, no, girls. Behave like wanton, open all night sp3rm dumpsters, write a memoire and have actors portray you on TV. THAT's where the BIG $$$ are at!'
Krykee. An open sewer is now called 'entertainment'.
Turn off your TV, folks. What you pay for, you get more of; what you applaud, you encourage, but be careful what you celebrate.
http://locomotivebre...
How many weeks in a row?
July 23, 2009 - 15:59 ET by someloudthunderHow many weeks in a row has Newsbusters posted an article about this show?
I GET IT. You don't like the damn show. There's nothing wrong with people liking it. It's a bad show, yes. Poorly made and uninspiring. But the content of the show always gets me and this site's panties in a bunch. It's just a show. If you believe girls will go and have sex because of this show just to get pregnant then you're a fool. If we are going to blame tv for our failings as a society let's also lay the blame of gun violence on television.
Fight in schools? Obviously the work of UFC, MMA and WWE.
Anorexic girls? Obviously the work of Cosmo and Sixteen magazine.
garbage
July 23, 2009 - 16:55 ET by LorraineYet another garbage TV show. These kind of shows are a big part of the reason I don't watch TV - at all.
Why don't they do a "Secret Life of a Real Teenage" and feature someone like my daughter, a good girl who knows that her future is too important to throw away on some guy out to use her for only one thing. My daughter spends 20 hrs a week in ballet class and lessons, on top of school and voice lessons. Sex, promiscuity, and contraceptives are NOT part of her life.
She and my sons have had plenty of exposure to the "secret life" portrayed by this show, it's not so secret and they don't need a TV show to tell them. My daughter has had numerous friends and classmates get pregnant or get caught having sex at school. She walked into the bathroom in middle school and found several girls cutting.
She loves babies and kids, but doesn't want any of her own until she's accomplished her dance and music goals.
The price she pays for her mature attitude towards life is a lack of a boyfriend. It's been clear that if a teenage girl doesn't "put out", a boy doesn't want to date her. I've reassured her that the right guy will come along someday, there are decent ones out there. She may have to wait a while though.
So, if it's a Republican
July 23, 2009 - 20:20 ET by balboaSo, if it's a Republican governor's daughter, it's AOK. But a TV show representing the same trials and tribulations of the same situation, bad?
Nice strawman. No one
July 24, 2009 - 15:16 ET by Petey WheatstrawNice strawman. No one ever said it was "AOK" (though the fact that she chose not to compound her mistakes by killing her unborn child *is* commendable).
The sad fact is that teenage pregnancies happen (despite decades of so-called "safe sex" education).
The issue here is that having a show like this glamorizing it and other immoral behaviors - particularly on a channel whose name implies it is family-friendly - that is where the problem lies.
From what I've seen, the
July 25, 2009 - 10:13 ET by balboaFrom what I've seen, the show is a lonnng way from glamorizing teen pregnancy.
I'm A Bachelor, So Why Should I Care?
July 23, 2009 - 22:36 ET by The7SticksFor once, I would like to hear someone say, "How about a show for us single slobs?" Oh wait, I suppose Married With Children would suffice. Al Bundy is so dreamy.
PS: I'm neither a member of the National Organization for Women nor the National Organization for Marriage. I am simply a member of NO MA'AM. Ya got that?
You couldn't
July 24, 2009 - 07:22 ET by jessieHYou couldn't pay me to watch that crap.