GQ tarts up 'Glee' girls. Insert yawn of outrage here.

Et tu, "Glee"?

A mildly pornographic slideshow of photos accompanying GQ's November cover story about "Glee" recently went up on the magazine's website, and the onslaught from parents groups has begun, with terms like "pedophilia" being used and renewed complaints that the show is too sexually explicit for the tween end of the audience it courts. In light of the show's rather self-congratulatory "some people want to do good" Team Project ads, the term "role model" -- so bizarre when it is connected to celebrities of any sort -- can be expected to come up.

But the problem isn't so much the sex as the sexism. And the disappointing banality of it all.

The photos feature Dianna Agron (Quinn), Lea Michele (Rachel) and Cory Monteith (Finn), kicking off with Monteith smiling his All-American smile while grabbing the scantily clad derrieres of two young women. So fresh. So daring.

Monteith is, of course, fully clothed. Not so his female costars, who bare their midriffs and decolletage, bras and panties, in thighs-spread, derriere-hoisted poses made more than slightly unsettling by their school-girl ensembles. Michele, in particular, seems to be auditioning for a live-action version of Japanese anime porn.

Of course, Agron and Michele are grown women who only play high school students, and there is some version of satire at work here -- the story "gleefully" references all the complaints from those uptight parental groups. But it's of the smug have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too variety. The result is not so much saucy and in-your-face as it is predictable and depressing -- oh look, more young women being asked to assume the position, this time complete with pom poms and lollipop. No doubt Agron and Michele did it to be sexy and playful, and were not at all manipulated by forces that have put generations of young women in precisely the same poses for precisely the same reasons -- to feed the fantasy, promote the show and sell magazines.

And that just makes it worse, doesn't it?

One assumes that Michele, whose poses are much more aggressively suggestive than Agron's, also wants a payoff for the hours she has clearly spent in the gym since the show premiered, or at least a bigger payoff than her recent Britney Spears number. And no one can blame a young actress for wanting to make it very clear that, the Broadway cred notwithstanding, she isn't a theater geek but a sexually attractive young woman who shouldn't be shoeboxed into Rachel roles.

But honestly, does a woman still have to strip down to panties and thigh-highs and straddle a bench to accomplish this? That's not titillating or provocative or even retro. That's just sad.

Also very telling. While the pictures do not affect the quality of the show itself, they do make one thing clear. "Glee," in case you were wondering after the CDs and the roadshow, is now a franchise, working its way into the American pop conscious and wallets with the same intensity of the Disney machine it once seemed determined to send up.

The good news about the GQ photos is that, unlike Miley Cyrus when she did those unfortunate "Vanity Fair" shots, these performers are all adults. The bad news is that the women decided to strip down anyway.

-- Mary McNamara

Photo: November cover of GQ. Credit: Terry Richardson / GQ

Comments

[JH]

The complaint is not that this is pedophilia. The complaint is that by having this photoshoot (actually it's only a couple photos really that cross the line IMO), GQ conveys the idea that it is ok for a gentleman (GQ get it?) to have sexual desires for a teenage girl in high school (the charaters these actors play on TV _AND_ are obviously also playing within the photoshoot.) That idea is within the definition of pedophilia.
It's not the actors' fault, it's not the photographer's fault. They just do what they normally do.
It's the editor's fault for letting that slip.
It is disappointing banality and the editors of magazines like this need to know the lines.

[shannon]

Those who can't see such a presentation of the relationship between young women and men as problematic are the heroes of sexism. Sure, this is a men's magazine. Are men so simple and boring that the only thing that can be pedaled to them are naked women? And somehow it's women whose minds are undervalued. See now we're getting somewhere...These women are not dressing and posing like this because "they just have fun feeling sexy". They were assigned this wardrobe because women are not valued for what they can contribute beyond exposing themselves to and for men. Men get a sense of dominance over women from this photo. Women get a sense of submission and desire for male desire. You see the imbalance?
And perhaps that these women are NOT teenage girls and they "merely" play teenage girls is irrelevant because it cannot be escaped that they REPRESENT teenage girls. Public relationship to them is as teenage girls. We don't know Agron and Michele. We know Quinn and Rachel. When we see them, we see their characters, not the adults that they've NEVER appeared to us as . So please abandon that stupid argument. They may have consented, but they're unconscious of the fact that they're not being marketed for their talent and career successes, but sold for their body. Young women WILL view these images and many will derive a sense of how to be sexual women based on them...and then we'll all call them sluts and feel perfectly justified because it's of course young a woman's responsibility to maintain and protect her modesty and shame in the context of a rape culture like the one we have. Some more sexist food for thought.... for those capable of critical thought that is.
Wardrobe indiscretions aside, is there some reason other than sexism that buddy is grabbing both of their butts? This is symbol of power, male power, female submission. And while men may LIKE naked women, it is sexist and morally corrupt in the 21st century to be USING them, and the dominion of their sex to sell magazines. It's high time women mean more to men and the world than this. HIGH TIME! I just watched a television show that referred to women as "a pair of boobs". Perhaps you find that funny and appropriate, but only because your pathetic brain is incapable of resisting even the most absurd of sexist ideologies, congrats.

[lostfansincedayone]

First off, I don't watch the show, but I've heard about it. It's NOT a kids show - I wouldn't let my child watch it. So who are these people worried about the "tween" audience? The parents of these 'tweens' should be ashamed of themselves for letting little kids watch the show at all! How about take some responsibility for what your kids are doing and stop blaming a MENS magazine for their photo shoot - the show isn't for your 12/13 year old and neither is GQ.

[Brett]

Shannon, the flaws in your logic are glaring. The inconsistency of your reasoning is flabbergasting. In the same meandering paragraph, you state that "we don't know Agron and Michele" yet you claim that they were "unconscious" [sic] "of the fact that they're not being marketed for their talent and career successes, but sold for their body." [sic] Pick one. Either "we" do not know these actresses, or "we" know of what they are or are not "conscious."

[Lily]

I have to admit when I saw the shot of Lea Michelle with her thighs spread on the bench pedophilia is exactly what popped into my mind. Glad I'm not alone on that. I'm not sure they were going for that look but perhaps Lea's drastic weight loss combined with photoshopping just took any look of being a woman out of her thighs, legs. They look childlike and certainly not like any woman's thighs I've seen. The problem with the issue of feminism is that discussions seem to take place in a bubble of 'what should women do, be demur or not?' when what we really need to address as women is what men still expect of us. No female born into this world can make it through life without, at some point, and probably many many times in her life, having to deal with what men want, expect from them. That's the sad part. Corey being fully clothed with his hands on two scantilly clad backsides says that women are still sexual objects and personally, given women are still victims of oppressive sexism around the world I'd rather not see photos like this. Doesn't help women's causes at all

[hijk]

It's not that bad if you take lea's shots out. Actually I have to say it is basically only lea's shots that are so GROSS.
And yes they are still portraying teens, so its really pandering to perverts.

[shannon]

Shannon, the flaws in your logic are glaring. The inconsistency of your reasoning is flabbergasting. In the same meandering paragraph, you state that "we don't know Agron and Michele" yet you claim that they were "unconscious" [sic] "of the fact that they're not being marketed for their talent and career successes, but sold for their body." [sic] Pick one. Either "we" do not know these actresses, or "we" know of what they are or are not "conscious."

Brett, you pointed out ONE "flaw", not more than one. The logical fallaciousness you employ to call me out is rather glaring, erm, dare i say, flabbergasting. True, I don't know them personally, but I simply give them only as much credit as they deserve: the credit of ignorance; which is demonstrated by their decision to pose in these ways despite the reality of how it is being used by men to objectify women, and by women to objectify themselves and each other. If I were not willing to give them this credit, I would just be flat out calling them useless and stupid, a waste of space, we should never hear from them again. Again when I presume to know what they are conscious and unconscious of I'm using bona fide methods of social theory and critical thought to infer why women continually agree to degrade themselves the way they so often do. I'm open to being wrong in this case, I just hope for their sake I'm not.
When I said the public doesn't know them as adults, only as teenagers, that remains to be the case. Please spend more time demonstrating your points than stating you eventually have one to make. What you observed MIGHT be considered a paradox, not a contradiction, in fact those statements had two separate contexts, but good detective work.

[shannon]

Additionally Brett, what about the rest of my arguments? Are you so simple minded that you've reduced them to meandering blather so that you feel justified in refusing to address them? You're not justified. You thought you had spotted a instance of inconsistency so your brain shut out everything else that I argued? Attacking my style and rhetoric is pretty futile. If wish to make a point, make one.

[shannon]

What is really sexist is implying that any woman who chooses to pose provocatively, or even nude, is somehow "sad." And the fact that she did it of her own volition makes it worse??

This is the classic double standard of feminism. The sexual liberation of women is both championed by feminists, but then criticized by the same feminists because when actually celebrated, it is seen as catering to men.

Well which is it?? Should women keep covered at all times and be demure? Or do they have every right to be sexual and provocative without judgement??

Make up your mind, you cant have it both ways.

I like this argument. It's good, it's challenging and it's a good place to start the debate. Unfortunately all things are not being considered. This argument ignores the fact that women are likely making decisions about their sexuality in accordance with a culture that seeks to value women almost exclusively for their sexuality. An image like this is conducive to that social order. Young women derive their sense of sexual self from images like these. Images which are IN FACT designed to appeal to men. Perhaps I respect and celebrate that these women are exercising their "choice". However their choice is a reflection of systemic gender ideals and dominant influence pervading the minds of pre- and post-pubescent girls inducing the understanding that to be sexually desired is desirable. I've been honked and hollered at since i was 12 years old. Is that not significant enough for serious discussion with respect to sexual relations between men and women? I've been sexually harassed all my life because men believe it's acceptable to behave that way toward women. Many if not most women don't tolerate it with gritted teeth, they simply don't notice it as a social problem because "boys will be boys"... or something.... They perpetuate essentialist views that protect men from being responsible for their pernicious behaviour when they're guilty of it. You may not think that all these experiences unique to females, compounded by the images of women on every magazine cover "assuming the position" shape their sense of themselves as sexual beings, but that's truly your folly. The alternative of course does not and should not be forcing women to wear drapes. That's the false dichotomy the world has presented you with and you champion it with this argument. Women should be free to dress the way they want. I venture that in a culture with respect for women and their sexuality, these would not be considered the decisions of sexually liberated women. This is a new shackle, a modern way of being subservient to men because our sense of beauty and our desire to be attractive controls much of our treatment of ourselves and each other far more than it should. You think it was a fair deal that if women wanted sexual liberation they be treated like things for men's sexual use? I don't.