This post may contain affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, I may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Read my Affiliate Disclosure.
I remember watching Father Knows Best and being surprised by how much freedom Jim Anderson was willing to give his oldest daughter, Betty.
Now, I generally admired Jim.
Played by Robert Young, he was thoughtful, reasonable, and usually willing to hear his children out. He wasn't the kind of television father who believed every disagreement had to end with somebody being punished.
But when it came to Betty traveling away from home and spending time with a young man, I found myself questioning whether I would have been quite so accommodating.
Not necessarily because I wouldn't trust Betty.
That's an important distinction.
I might trust a daughter completely and still worry about the circumstances she's placing herself in.
I'd worry about the young man.
I'd worry about whether she'd be properly looked after.
And yes, particularly in the social environment of the 1950s, I'd worry about her reputation.
Because people don't always know what happened.
Sometimes they simply know what something looked like.
And unfortunately, what people think happened can become a story of its own.
The episode I was able to identify is "The Family Goes to New York," which aired November 28, 1956. Betty isn't going away specifically to visit a college boyfriend, as I'd initially remembered. She's traveling to attend a friend's wedding, and a young man named Tony is going to show her around New York.
That difference matters.
But the underlying parental concern is exactly what interests me.
Jim knows his daughter.
He knows she's a decent young woman.
And he understands that she's growing up.
Yet he isn't particularly enthusiastic about sending her off to a big city where she'll be socializing with a man he's never met.
Margaret, played by Jane Wyatt, thinks it's time to give Betty some independence.
And ultimately, Jim agrees.
But then a newspaper gossip column describes Betty and Tony as a romantic couple.
And suddenly the question becomes considerably more interesting.
Is trusting your daughter enough when the rest of the world may judge her based on appearances rather than facts?
I don't think that's an unreasonable concern.
But I also think there's a danger in allowing other people's assumptions to determine how much freedom a young woman deserves.
And that's where Jim, Margaret, and Betty give us something worth discussing.
Betty Was Going to a Wedding, but Jim Heard the Word New York
Betty Anderson, played by Elinor Donahue, has been invited to attend her friend Barbara's wedding in New York.
She's going to be a bridesmaid.
And naturally, she's excited.
There's the wedding itself, the chance to visit a glamorous city, and the opportunity to experience a world very different from her ordinary life in Springfield.
I can understand her enthusiasm.
She's a young woman approaching adult independence.
She wants experiences.
She wants to see places.
And she wants her parents to recognize that she's capable of managing without them standing beside her.
Jim isn't convinced.
He worries about the size of New York.
He worries about strangers.
He worries about all the things that might happen to a sheltered young woman who's away from home.
And honestly, I can sympathize with some of that.
New York was unfamiliar territory for Betty.
She'd never experienced that degree of independence.
And a parent has a legitimate interest in knowing whether a young person has somewhere safe to stay and someone dependable to contact.
But Margaret points out that Betty won't be wandering around the city without any arrangements.
She's traveling with Barbara.
She'll be staying with Barbara's aunt, Mrs. Huntington, a responsible adult who is hosting the wedding.
And she'll be met at the station by a chauffeur.
Those details matter.
Because there's a difference between a young woman traveling without her parents and a young woman traveling without any support or supervision.
Betty actually has a fairly substantial network of people looking after her.
Jim just isn't entirely comfortable with the arrangement.
And then he learns about Tony.
Tony Was Supposed to Be Her Escort. That Didn't Reassure Jim.
Tony is the younger brother of the groom and will be serving as best man.
He's also going to accompany Betty to some of the social events during her stay.
Now, in the context of a wedding, that doesn't strike me as particularly suspicious.
A bridesmaid and a best man spending time together?
Good grief, that's practically a wedding tradition.
But Jim doesn't know Tony.
And because he doesn't know him, he begins imagining what sort of man Tony might be.
He pictures a sophisticated, wealthy young fellow who spends his evenings in nightclubs.
Someone charming.
Possibly irresponsible.
And perhaps far too experienced for a young woman like Betty.
Now, I understand a father's concern about a daughter dating a man whose character he hasn't had an opportunity to evaluate.
But Jim begins making judgments without actually knowing anything about Tony.
And that's where I think he goes too far.
A man isn't automatically untrustworthy because he's wealthy.
He isn't necessarily a playboy because he's from New York.
And being sophisticated doesn't automatically mean he has dishonorable intentions.
Jim is allowing his imagination to fill in the gaps.
I can see why he's worried, but I wouldn't call that sound judgment.
A parent should be concerned about a young man's character, not simply assume that unfamiliarity is evidence of bad character.
I'd want to know who Tony was.
I'd want to know something about the family.
And I'd want to understand the arrangements for Betty's visit.
But I'd also try not to condemn a young man before meeting him.
That's something Jim struggles with throughout the episode.
Margaret Understood That Growing Up Requires Some Freedom
Margaret takes a different approach.
She believes Betty is intelligent, responsible, and well brought up.
She knows the family has spent years teaching her how to behave.
And she believes the time has come to give her an opportunity to use that judgment independently.
I appreciate that.
Because parenting cannot consist entirely of protecting children from situations in which they might have to make a decision.
Eventually, they have to make decisions.
They have to travel.
They have to meet people.
And they have to learn how to handle situations their parents cannot supervise.
Margaret understands that Jim and Betty can't remain in exactly the same parent-child relationship forever.
At some point, Jim has to recognize that his daughter is becoming an adult.
And if he's taught her responsibility, he needs to give her opportunities to demonstrate it.
I agree with that principle.
But here's where I differ somewhat.
I don't think trusting a daughter requires abandoning every concern about the circumstances.
I'd want to make sure the arrangements were appropriate.
I'd want to know where she was staying.
And I'd want her to understand that a young man's flattering attention doesn't necessarily establish anything about his intentions.
I wouldn't approach those conversations as an accusation.
I'd approach them as preparation.
Trusting your daughter doesn't mean assuming every situation she encounters will be safe, fair, or easy to understand.
It means helping her recognize those situations and make thoughtful decisions.
And I think that's where both Jim and Margaret have something valuable to contribute.
Margaret recognizes Betty's growing independence.
Jim recognizes that Betty may be inexperienced.
Neither concern is inherently unreasonable.
The question is how to balance them.
The Gossip Column Proved That Appearances Can Become Their Own Story
Once Betty arrives in New York, she has a wonderful time.
Mrs. Huntington welcomes her.
Barbara is delighted to have her there.
And Tony turns out to be a charming young man who enjoys showing visitors around the city.
Betty is swept up in the excitement.
The beautiful apartment.
The fancy restaurants.
The dancing.
The extraordinary feeling of being somewhere far more glamorous than the town where she grew up.
And she begins becoming rather taken with Tony.
Then comes the newspaper.
A gossip columnist has spotted Betty and Tony dancing together.
And the column describes them as though they're a romantic couple.
Well.
That's certainly one way to inform a father about his daughter's vacation.
Jim reads the item back in Springfield.
And naturally, he becomes alarmed.
He hasn't met Tony.
He doesn't know what the relationship involves.
And now his daughter's name is appearing in a gossip column alongside a man described as a prominent figure in New York society.
I wouldn't be pleased, either.
Not because dancing with a man is immoral.
And not because Betty has done something deserving of shame.
But because the column is presenting a romantic interpretation of her behavior without knowing the facts.
And people reading it may assume there's more to the relationship than there actually is.
That's precisely the problem with gossip.
A public impression can be created without anyone establishing whether the impression is accurate.
Betty and Tony may have been enjoying an entirely proper evening.
But the columnist doesn't have to explain the details.
He just has to make the story sound interesting.
And suddenly two people have become characters in somebody else's romantic narrative.
I don't think that's fair.
Yet I also don't think Betty should automatically be blamed for the columnist's behavior.
And that creates the difficult question for parents.
Do you prevent a young person from having an ordinary social experience because other people might misrepresent it?
Or do you teach her how to exercise good judgment while recognizing that you cannot control every story someone might tell?
I Would Have Worried About Betty's Reputation, Too
Here's where I want to explain my concern, because I don't mean that a young woman should be ashamed of spending time with a man.
I don't believe dancing with someone makes a girl immoral.
I don't believe visiting another city automatically means she's engaging in inappropriate behavior.
And I certainly don't believe an innocent young woman deserves condemnation simply because someone starts a rumor.
But I do believe reputation can have consequences.
Especially in a social environment where people are quick to draw conclusions about a woman's character.
In the 1950s, a young woman might face social judgment for behavior that attracted considerably less criticism when a young man did the same thing.
And even today, that double standard hasn't completely disappeared.
A man might be admired for being romantically experienced.
A woman might be criticized for the same behavior.
A young man traveling to visit a girlfriend might be considered adventurous.
A young woman making a similar trip might face intrusive questions about what happened when the two were alone.
I don't approve of that unfairness.
But recognizing that something is unfair doesn't mean pretending it can't affect someone's life.
And that's the distinction I'd want parents to understand.
We can reject an unjust double standard while still teaching our children how to navigate a world in which that double standard exists.
I wouldn't want Betty to become fearful of every social interaction.
But I would want her to understand that people can misinterpret situations.
That some men may have expectations she doesn't share.
And that a reputation built through years of decent behavior can become the subject of gossip after one photograph or exaggerated story.
Not because the gossip is true.
But because other people may believe it.
My instinct would be to approach the situation cautiously.
The harder question is whether caution should mean forbidding the trip.
And I'm not sure Jim's original impulse to keep Betty home was the best answer.
A Chaperone Doesn't Automatically Solve Every Problem
I've thought about whether having a chaperone would have made the situation more appropriate.
And in Betty's case, the arrangements already included several adult safeguards.
She was staying with Mrs. Huntington.
She wasn't traveling alone.
And the young man showing her around was connected to the wedding party.
This wasn't a secret weekend at a boyfriend's apartment.
I think that distinction deserves emphasis.
If Betty had wanted to travel alone specifically to stay with a boyfriend at his college, my concerns would have been different.
I'd want to know where she'd be sleeping.
Whether the visit involved separate accommodations.
Who else would be present.
And what expectations the couple had about their time together.
Not because I'd automatically assume they intended to behave irresponsibly.
But because circumstances matter.
It's possible to trust a person's intentions while recognizing that some situations create unnecessary complications.
And sometimes it's simply wiser to make arrangements that avoid those complications.
But I wouldn't want the entire discussion reduced to whether a chaperone was present.
A young woman can behave irresponsibly while surrounded by other people.
And she can behave responsibly when nobody is watching.
That's why supervision alone isn't an adequate substitute for moral judgment.
A chaperone can help establish appropriate circumstances. But a young person's own values have to guide her when the chaperone isn't there.
I think Jim and Margaret had already invested years in teaching Betty those values.
Now they were discovering that teaching them and trusting her to apply them were two different challenges.
Betty Wasn't Doing Anything Wrong by Enjoying Tony's Attention
There's another part of this story I think we should examine fairly.
Betty likes Tony.
He's handsome.
He's charming.
He takes her dancing.
And he makes her feel as though she's living in the middle of a romantic movie.
I can understand why she's excited.
She's young.
She's experiencing a beautiful city.
And a sophisticated man is making her feel special.
There's nothing inherently disgraceful about that.
But I do think Betty begins confusing the romance of her surroundings with the seriousness of the relationship.
She's enjoying a fantasy.
And she doesn't quite realize how much of her excitement comes from the circumstances rather than from knowing Tony particularly well.
That's something young people need to learn.
A beautiful evening doesn't automatically establish a lasting relationship.
A charming companion isn't necessarily promising marriage.
And a man who spends several days showing you around town hasn't necessarily fallen in love with you.
Those things can be meaningful without being permanent.
But when someone is inexperienced, the distinction isn't always obvious.
That's what makes Mrs. Huntington's conversation with Betty so important.
She notices that Betty is becoming emotionally invested.
And rather than accusing her of behaving improperly, she gently warns her not to confuse the excitement of New York with something more substantial.
I appreciate that.
Because the woman doesn't shame Betty.
She doesn't suggest that enjoying male attention is disgraceful.
She simply recognizes that a young woman can mistake an exciting experience for the beginning of a serious romance.
Good guidance doesn't have to make romantic feelings shameful. It can help someone understand what those feelings do—and don't—necessarily mean.
That's the kind of advice I'd want Betty to receive.
And I think it would have been more useful than simply forbidding her to go.
Jim and Margaret Rushed to New York, but Betty Was Learning Something They Couldn't Teach From Home
After seeing the gossip column, Jim decides he and Margaret should go to New York.
And I understand his anxiety.
He's worried that Betty is becoming involved with a man who may not be serious about her.
He doesn't want to see his daughter hurt.
He knows how flattering attention can influence a young person who hasn't had much experience with sophisticated romantic relationships.
But when he arrives, he isn't particularly interested in hearing Betty's favorable opinion of Tony.
He's already decided what sort of man Tony must be.
And I don't think that's fair.
Jim is allowing his concern to become certainty.
He's assuming that because he understands more about adult relationships, his judgment about this particular man must be correct.
Yet he still hasn't learned enough about Tony to justify all his conclusions.
I don't think parents should surrender their judgment simply because their children disagree.
But they should be willing to consider evidence.
And Jim seems reluctant to do that.
Meanwhile, Betty is beginning to learn something from the experience itself.
Something she might never have learned quite as effectively through another lecture at home.
She is discovering that romance and commitment aren't necessarily the same thing.
And the lesson becomes unmistakable when the family sees Tony out with another woman.
Tony Was With Another Woman. But Had He Actually Betrayed Betty?
This is where the episode becomes particularly interesting.
Jim, Margaret, and Betty see Tony with another woman.
To Jim, it appears to confirm his fears.
Tony is a playboy.
He's been charming Betty while having other romantic interests.
And Betty is about to be heartbroken.
Now, I can understand Jim's reaction.
If my daughter had spent several days becoming interested in a young man and then unexpectedly saw him enjoying another woman's company, I'd be concerned about her feelings, too.
But Betty responds with more maturity than Jim expects.
She recognizes that Tony hasn't actually broken a promise.
They aren't engaged.
They aren't married.
He hasn't declared that they're in an exclusive relationship.
He's been kind to her.
He's shown her around New York.
And she's enjoyed his company.
But she has allowed herself to imagine something more serious than he'd promised.
That's a painful realization.
Yet it demonstrates genuine growth.
Because Betty doesn't need to transform Tony into a villain simply because she's disappointed.
She recognizes that her expectations got ahead of the facts.
And that's a valuable lesson.
Someone can disappoint us without necessarily having deceived us. Sometimes the disappointment comes from a commitment we imagined but the other person never made.
I think that's an important distinction in dating.
It doesn't mean people are free to mislead others deliberately.
If Tony had promised Betty exclusivity while secretly seeing someone else, I'd judge him differently.
But the episode doesn't establish that.
And Betty is honest enough to recognize it.
I admire her for that.
She takes responsibility for her assumptions without treating her feelings as something embarrassing.
And she doesn't need her father to condemn Tony on her behalf.
Jim Wanted to Protect Betty From Heartbreak. But Could He?
There's something very human about Jim Anderson in this episode.
He doesn't want Betty to be hurt.
I believe that.
He isn't simply concerned about appearances.
He's worried about her heart.
He knows that a young person can become emotionally attached before recognizing whether the other person feels the same way.
And he wants to spare his daughter the disappointment.
But there's a problem with that.
Parents can't prevent every heartbreak.
They can't guarantee that every person their child dates will return her feelings.
And they can't supervise every interaction closely enough to eliminate disappointment.
At some point, children have to experience the ordinary uncertainties of relationships.
Not because pain is desirable.
But because learning to evaluate people, recognize expectations, and handle disappointment is part of becoming an adult.
Betty's trip gives her an opportunity to develop that judgment.
She discovers that attention isn't the same thing as commitment.
She recognizes the difference between enjoying a romantic experience and assuming it represents lasting love.
And she handles the disappointment without losing her dignity.
I think Jim should have been proud of her.
The goal of parenting shouldn't be to ensure that a child is never disappointed. It should be to help that child develop the judgment and resilience to handle disappointment wisely.
And Betty demonstrated both.
She may have been a little dazzled by New York.
But she wasn't incapable of learning.
Reputation Matters. But It Shouldn't Become a Prison.
Here's where I return to the concern that made this episode stick with me.
I would have worried about Betty's reputation.
I still think that concern deserves consideration.
Parents have a responsibility to teach young people that appearances can influence how others perceive them.
A photograph can be misunderstood.
A rumor can spread.
And people can draw conclusions without knowing what actually happened.
But I also think we need to be careful about how we communicate that lesson.
I wouldn't want a daughter to believe her character depends entirely on what other people say.
I wouldn't want her to feel ashamed of an innocent social outing.
And I certainly wouldn't want her to think that if somebody spreads a malicious rumor, she's somehow responsible for having given that person an opportunity.
That's unfair.
A young woman's reputation may be vulnerable to gossip, but her actual character isn't determined by gossip.
Those are different things.
One is what people believe about her.
The other is what she actually does.
Parents can help children understand the difference.
They can encourage prudence.
They can teach appropriate boundaries.
And they can discuss situations in which misunderstandings might arise.
But they shouldn't make their children responsible for controlling every unfair assumption someone else might invent.
Because that's impossible.
Even Betty's carefully arranged trip produced a misleading public impression.
She was staying with a respectable adult.
She'd traveled with a friend.
She was attending a wedding.
Yet a gossip columnist still managed to turn an evening of dancing into a public romantic story.
If Jim had insisted on eliminating every possibility of gossip, Betty would have had to remain home indefinitely.
And that wouldn't have taught her how to live responsibly.
It would have taught her to avoid living.
I don't think that's what a loving parent should want.
Would I Have Let Betty Go?
I have to admit that Jim and Margaret give me something to think about.
My initial instinct would have been caution.
Possibly even refusal, depending on the circumstances.
I wouldn't have been comfortable sending a young daughter to stay alone with a boyfriend at college without knowing the arrangements.
And even if I trusted her completely, I'd want to discuss expectations, boundaries, and the possibility that other people might draw conclusions.
But in the actual New York episode, the circumstances are different.
Betty has a legitimate reason for traveling.
She's part of a wedding.
She's accompanied by her friend.
She's staying in a reputable adult's home.
And her hosts have arranged transportation and social activities.
That's hardly the same thing as abandoning her in an unfamiliar city with a suitcase and a young man's telephone number.
Looking at those facts, I think Margaret made a reasonable decision.
Jim's worries were understandable.
But the family had taken sensible precautions.
And Betty was old enough to begin exercising some independence.
I might have wanted a little more conversation before the trip.
I'd certainly want Betty to know that she could call home if she felt uncomfortable.
And I'd want her to understand that she never owed Tony physical affection or romantic attention simply because he was escorting her around the city.
But those are lessons she could apply without her parents accompanying her everywhere.
I explored the importance of young women making decisions according to their own values in my article about Natalie and Snake on The Facts of Life.
That story concerns a much more intimate decision, but the broader principle is related: a young woman shouldn't confuse another person's attention or expectations with an obligation to take a romantic relationship further than she's ready for.
Betty needed to understand that, too.
And perhaps her New York experience helped her.
What Jewish Wisdom Says About Character and Public Perception
There's a teaching in Pirkei Avot 2:1 that encourages people to consider a path that brings honor both to the person choosing it and in the eyes of others.
I think that's relevant to the question of reputation.
Our behavior doesn't exist in complete isolation.
Other people observe us.
They form impressions.
And the way we conduct ourselves can influence the trust and respect we receive.
I don't believe that's something we should ignore.
But I also wouldn't interpret the teaching as an obligation to satisfy every gossip or unfair social expectation.
A person can behave honorably and still be misunderstood.
Someone can have an excellent reputation while behaving badly in private.
And a young woman can be judged unfairly simply because someone has decided her independence is inappropriate.
That's why reputation and character need to remain distinct.
We should care about conducting ourselves decently.
We should consider whether our actions might create unnecessary misunderstandings.
But we shouldn't surrender our judgment entirely to people who may be more interested in gossip than truth.
There's also Hillel's teaching in Pirkei Avot 2:4 about not judging another person until we've stood in that person's place.
I think Jim could have benefited from that reminder.
He imagined Tony was a playboy before meeting him.
Then the newspaper column seemed to confirm his suspicion.
But the eventual discovery that Tony was seeing another woman didn't necessarily prove he'd mistreated Betty.
He hadn't promised her exclusivity.
And Betty herself recognized that.
I appreciate that she could distinguish between being disappointed and being wronged.
Good character involves behaving honorably ourselves, but it also involves judging other people's behavior fairly.
And I think both are important lessons for parents to teach.
The Difference Between Trusting a Daughter and Trusting the World
I think the most important distinction in this entire discussion is one that parents sometimes have difficulty explaining.
You can trust your daughter without trusting every person she'll encounter.
You can believe she's responsible without assuming she's experienced.
And you can respect her independence while still wanting her to understand the risks associated with certain choices.
Those positions aren't contradictory.
But I also think parents have to recognize when their concern has become an excuse to control experiences that belong to their children.
Jim was afraid Betty would be hurt.
He wanted to protect her.
And he believed his greater experience gave him a clearer understanding of what might happen.
Sometimes that experience was useful.
But sometimes his fears led him to conclusions that weren't justified.
Margaret understood something he struggled with.
If Betty was ever going to become an independent adult, she needed opportunities to exercise judgment while her parents were still available to support her.
And that's precisely what happened.
Betty traveled.
She met people.
She enjoyed herself.
She became a little carried away by romance.
And she eventually recognized that she'd misunderstood the seriousness of a relationship.
Not an ideal emotional experience, perhaps.
But a valuable one.
And she returned from it with greater understanding.
Parents can't give their children good judgment simply by keeping them away from every situation that requires judgment.
They have to teach.
They have to prepare.
And eventually, they have to allow young people to apply what they've learned.
That's one of the hardest parts of parenting.
And one of the most necessary.
My Verdict: Jim Was Right to Worry, but Margaret Was Right to Let Betty Grow
I still understand Jim Anderson's concerns.
I wouldn't dismiss a father's desire to protect his daughter from heartbreak, inappropriate expectations, or a social situation she wasn't prepared to handle.
And I don't believe it's unreasonable to consider how an innocent action might be perceived by others.
Reputation can matter.
Especially when society is inclined to judge young women more harshly than young men.
But I also believe there's a limit to how much freedom someone should lose simply because other people might gossip.
Betty wasn't sneaking away to visit a secret boyfriend.
She was traveling with a friend to attend a wedding.
She had responsible adults arranging her accommodations.
And the young man who escorted her around New York was connected to the wedding party.
Jim had legitimate reasons to ask questions.
But not necessarily to forbid the trip.
And Margaret was right to recognize that Betty needed some independence.
What I particularly admire is the way Betty handles the disappointment at the end.
She doesn't collapse because Tony is spending time with another woman.
She doesn't demand that her father punish him.
And she doesn't pretend that Tony promised something he never promised.
She recognizes that the romance she'd imagined was partly a product of her own excitement.
And she accepts that.
That's maturity.
Not because she never made an error in judgment.
But because she was capable of recognizing the error and learning from it.
At fifty-one, I still believe parents should encourage young people to behave with dignity, exercise restraint, and consider the circumstances in which they place themselves.
I wouldn't be eager to send a young daughter off to visit a boyfriend without knowing exactly what arrangements had been made.
And I wouldn't pretend that gossip and reputation are irrelevant simply because they ought not to matter as much as they sometimes do.
But I also wouldn't want a daughter growing up believing that her entire life had to be organized around preventing other people from forming unfair opinions.
She deserves more than that.
She deserves guidance.
She deserves appropriate safeguards.
And she deserves opportunities to grow.
Perhaps that's what Jim had to learn.
He could teach Betty to be responsible.
He could warn her about romantic misunderstandings.
And he could be available if she needed help.
But he couldn't accompany her through every experience or prevent every disappointment.
And he couldn't guarantee that the world would always interpret her actions fairly.
A parent's responsibility isn't to protect a child's reputation by preventing her from living. It's to help her develop the character and judgment to live responsibly, even when other people are watching—and sometimes judging unfairly.
That's the lesson I take from "The Family Goes to New York."
Jim wanted to protect Betty.
Margaret wanted her to grow.
And Betty demonstrated that she was capable of doing a little growing on her own.
I think both parents had something worth teaching.
But in the end, Betty had something worth teaching them, too.
She wasn't the helpless little girl Jim feared sending into the world.
She was a young woman who could experience romance, disappointment, and a little embarrassment without losing her sense of self.
And I'd say that's considerably more valuable than having a reputation nobody ever had an opportunity to gossip about.
Sources and Further Reading
Father Knows Best — "The Family Goes to New York," Original Episode Transcript
Father Knows Best — Official Fan Archive, Season 3 Episode Guide
Want to Watch the Show?
Find your favorite classic TV shows on DVD or Blu-ray at Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Enjoyed This Article?
Get more TV nostalgia, good laughs, and life lessons delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to CouchDegree.com!
