Thursday, October 21, 2010

Glee's not that innocent!

Have you seen the new cover and feature about Glee in GQ magazine? I saw it for the first time on Entertainment Tonight a few nights ago when I was staying at the InterContinental Hotel in Toronto all by myself for a conference.

My first reaction?


Wow. Rachel and Quinn are so hot. I have to hit the gym hard-core next week!

My second reaction?

Someone is going to have a negative reaction about this cover—uh-oh!

My third reaction?

Wow. Rachel and Quinn are so hot. I have to hit the gym hard-core next week!

Jill wrote a great post about why the cover featuring the stars of Glee bothered her, and her comments have been excellent and plentiful, with some people completely agreeing with her view that it's a bit too much, while other thinking it's totally appropriate.

Jill said that: "Yes, it’s an adult magazine, but these kids play high school students, for crying out loud. Young high school students. They are in character, in a school, promoting their show about high school students."

I am okay with 'high school' students being portrayed in this sexy fashion. Why? A few reasons. First of all, both actresses are over 21. GQ is a men's magazine that is known for taking seriously sexy pictures of women and men. Also, let's not kid ourselves, folks—kids in high school are drinking, smoking, and having sex. It's been like that forever. Remember the 70s? The 80s? The 90s? You get the picture. It's not a new phenomena, teens being sexual beings. I wasn't completely innocent in high school. I'm not talking about grade 9, but by the time you're in grade 11 or 12? People are doing things. I'm not saying that's right... it's just the way it is.

Looking at this issue of GQ is not going to make teenagers have sex. Or make them dress any sexier than they're already dressing. Yes, some things teenage girls are wearing today are completely inappropriate—tacky, slutty clothes that fall under the category of 'major faux-pas'.

But if your child is living under your roof, it's your job to see what they're leaving the house in. If you're paying for their low-cut jeans and crop tops, then don't blame the people at GQ. And don't forget. No matter what? Sometimes teens will be rebels. I'm not proud of all that I did back in the day. (Oh, my God—I just said back in the day. Weep.)

Have you seen Glee? There is nothing unsexy about this show! Everyone is hot. Puck is sleeping with older ladies. Quinn is pregnant. Cupcakes are laced. Santana is making out with Brittany. Threesomes are discussed, people are faking their pregnancies, and entire shows are devoted to Madonna, Britney Spears and Lady Gaga. If you're concerned about Rachel in her sexy underwear but everything else that is being portrayed on the show is okay, I'm confused. This show is not for young children. And GQ is for men.

I'm speaking from my own personal perspective, and as a mother of two boys. I wonder if I had girls if my opinion would be any different? I do understand how shitty it is to have to spend countless hours looking for a decent Halloween costume for a young child. And that is sad. Children should be allowed to be children. But once you're 17, you're in another category altogether.

I am curious to find out what you think about the new GQ cover? Do you hate it? Do you approve? Why?

Edited to add: 24 year old Dianna Agron (Quinn) released the following statement in response to the reaction over the sexy GQ cover and photo shoot:

In the land of Madonna, Britney, Miley, Gossip Girl, other public figures and shows that have pushed the envelope and challenged the levels of comfort in their viewers and fans… we are not the first. Now, in perpetuating the type of images that evoke these kind of emotions, I am sorry. If you are hurt or these photos make you uncomfortable, it was never our intention. And if your eight-year-old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again I am sorry. But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there?

33 comments:

Stacie's Madness said...

also...the show is NOT innocent at all...so the cover doesn't surprise me in the least.

Amy said...

I don't watch Glee.

Can we still be friends??

Bobbi Janay said...

What a great post, and very true.

Loukia said...

Amy - of course!

Jen said...

When I first saw it on Scary Mommy's site I was a little shocked and didn't like it but the more I think about it, the better I feel.

Like you said, they are all over 21. Adults that can pose any way they want and its for a men's magazine so sex is it.

So well, I don't hate it its just an image I wasn't ready for.

sam {temptingmama} said...

AMEN! Had the ACTORS been minors I may take issue with this sexy spread, but they are ADULTS who play high school students. And like you said, no matter which age group they are representing in the show, it's all been done before, really.

The fact that they portray TEENAGERS doesn't really hold water with me. Hell, John Connor was a "teenager" in Terminator 2 and look at all the crap he did. That was okay though? And to place blame on the media for the fact they are sexualizing characters of a show which teens are watching is really just another way for parents to place blame on someone else, that's my opinon anyway.

Hell, the show's first three episodes encompassed pre-marital sex and teenage prgnancy... maybe the parents should take another look at their concerns if this photo shoot is their main issue with Glee...

There are just sooooo many issues with stuff like this... it's just tiring...

Nenette AM said...

I agree with you, Loukia.
Sure, kids are going to look at those pics and say, "hey, I want to look like that... they're kids in high school!", but that's parent's cue to be parents and explain that these are actors NOT in high school.
Besides, it's a SHOW! It's not real life. Do the kids in high school walk around the halls singing?! Of course not!

Ottawa_Mama_77 said...

I agree with your post, the cover doesn't really bother me, since it is in a men's magazine and they are all over the age, and the show itself talks about a lot more than just teenage stuff. Plus, I have a 17-year-old step-daughter, and they do dress like that (and go clubbing, drinking, etc.).

I do have a problem with society these days sexualizing everything, though, when it has to do with younger kids and selling products. The fact that I could hardly find a decent bathing suit for my 5 year old this summer without a triangle bikini top, or the padded bras for 8 year olds that they had to remove from the shelves, I worry about the message she is going to get as she grows up. But she doesn't even look at those magazines yet, or watch Glee, so I don't have a problem with it.

karen said...

It doesn't bother me at all because both of the actresses are 24 and it is a mens magazine.

The entire show practically revolves around sex so I don't see how the cover is shocking.

Taylor Momsen from Gossip Girl is 17 and she has a cover photo for a magazin called Revolver. I thought it was in bad taste because she actually is a teenager.

We all know the cast of Glee are not actually teens just like back in the day we knew Luke Perry wasn't a high school kid.

Tonique H said...

I completely agree with your post. Glee is not an innocent show and I think that the people who object to the GQ spread need to realize that these actors are adults and can make decisions that fit them.

Avitable said...

Well said. I think you make some excellent points. Of course, I also prefer that 16-year old girls dress like that, too, so I might not be the best person to have an opinion on that.

Scary Mommy said...

I still think it was in poor taste, but I've chilled out a bit. I have been known to overreact a tad. :) BUT, I do think the fact that they were portraying high schoolers is icky. If that hadn't been part of the shoot, I wouldn't have reacted the way I did.

Nancy@ifevolutionworks.com said...

They are just trying to grab some more audience. The ratings high will last for as long as the issue is on the stands.....

blueviolet said...

Seeing as how GQ is not really supposed to end up in the hands of our lesser aged youth, I think it really shouldn't be a problem. If it was on a cover of a magazine for kids...then arguments would be justified.

Kat said...

It does bother me, but for the same reason all of these types of pics bother me. They sexify everything these days. And tho these actors may be over 21 they PORTRAY teenagers. And we wonder why teenage girls try to dress so sexy and are having sex younger and younger. Bah.
It is really hard to raise a girl to be modest and classy with this kind of stuff around.
I'm just sayin'. ;)

Suzanne said...

I agree with Kat. It has nothing to do with the fact that these girls are on Glee and watched by teenagers. It has to do with the fact that they had to do a photo shoot in their bras and panties. Like, seriously? I understand that they're "adults", but they still are only 24, and I wouldn't want to see my 24 year old daughter splashed out in a magazine spread that way, knowing that 40 and 50 year old men are looking at her. Gross. Maybe I feel this way because I have a daughter, but it's just not cool. And really, I don't find it sexy.

Mighty M said...

I like the cover and it doesn't really bother me.....I have seen much hotter pictures of early 20 something girls on this magazine. Might be a good opportunity to raise the subject with your age-appropriate kids if they watch the show and/or see the magazine.

Sara @ Domestically Challenged said...

I am not a huge fan of a few of the pics, but it is reality, isn't it? This isn't anything our children wouldn't have seen on magazine shelves. I remember this summer when Lady Gaga did the machine gun bra, and my son saw it. I had to take some time to explain to him about it, but you? That's what you do as a parent!

Lady Mama said...

I'm with you. These pictures are in a men's magazine - they're definitely not aimed at school children. The actors are all consenting adults, so really it has nothing to do with sexualizing children. Great post!

Faiqa said...

Let's see... I think it's NOT a big deal and that it IS.

On the one hand, every single one of your points is absolutely spot on. Kids in high school are not innocents, in fact, I, personally am WAY more conservative than my high school self. GQ is a magazine that targets adults. Those are adults on the cover.

On the other hand, I think that there's merit in discretion and modesty as it is exercised by a society... even if it is only a pretense. It's sort of society's way of setting limits on adolescents. They can be as wild as they like, but the fact that they know deep down inside that it's not okay not only potentially mitigates their reckless behavior, but can, in many ways, give them a sense of security. They know what the rules are, so even if they want to break them... the rules are still the rules. In the end, they will most likely shed their rebellion and join the suburban soccer moms and we call all have play dates and shop and live happily ever after. You know, productive and *normal*. ;-)

While this is a magazine that is targeted to males & adults, it's not alone in its depiction of "younger" women. It's actually quite representative (Miley Cyrus? Britney Spears? Need I go on?)

In the end, I don't get overly offended by this stuff... I do find it irritating, though, because it makes it harder for me to transmit a decent and strong sense of womanhood to my daughter. It was, I think, a lot easier for my mom. (Ha, I bet every daughter says that!!)

I think these women on the cover are gorgeous. And I thought that they were gorgeous with their clothes on, too. I don't understand the need to objectify them to this degree... I'm actually kind of embarrassed for them. But offended?

Not so much.

Nikosmommy said...

I couldn't agree with you more!!! These are adults not teens... and this photo shoot was for an adult (mens) mag and is aimed at a specific target audience. It's seriously NOT a big deal....next!

mapsgirl said...

"But if your child is living under your roof, it's your job to see what they're leaving the house in. If you're paying for their low-cut jeans and crop tops, then don't blame the people at GQ. "

I feel exactly the same way.

I was a bit shocked at first as well because "wow" the sweet Glee kids didn't look so sweet. But they're not kids; they just play kids on TV.

Someone commented on Facebook about this ( might have been you...can't remember exactly who) and said "Glee isn't a kids show and GQ isn't a kids magazine."

Chrissy MacCEO said...

I could not agree with you more - the show is NOT and never was (in my mind!) for children. Yes, it's on at 8pm and that's an irresponsible time in my book for them to air such a show that is as provactive as this, but when Quinn got pregnant, I think I would have stopped my kids from watching it.

Tinfoils Tiaras said...

I haven't jumped on the Glee bandwagon as of yet (I'm more of a Real Housewifes kind of girl) but there's no denying the sex appeal of these girls- damn!

tinfoilstiaras.blogspot.com

Chantal said...

I need to start watching this show. :)

CaraBee said...

Completely agree with you. When I saw all of the hoopla, I was like WTF? Really? When Miley Cyrus did nudish, sexy photos, THAT was offensive. She is a teenager on a clean cut Disney show. Glee is a bunch of adults playing sex-crazed teenagers on a late evening prime time show that small kids should NOT be watching.

Elisa @ Globetrotting in Heels said...

I don't know if it's because I'm a mother of two girls, but this bothers me.

My daughter doesn't know they are over 21. She thinks they are teenagers. And kids don't always reason the way we do. Perspective hasn't really set in at that age. As a person it doesn't bother me, but when I look at it the way a huge tween and teen might see it, it does bother me.

Sure GQ is for me, but just like overly skinny models aren't setting a good example for girls, chauvinistic mags that depict high school girls in sexy underwear and looking, frankly, kind of trashy send the wrong message to boys/men.

I'm not a prude, boys will be boys, I know GQ is for men and it does what it does, but I'm not really ok with the perverting of the character's image.
The show may not be innocent, but it's relatable. This however takes it a little far IMO.

Midwest Mommy said...

Yes, it really is not innocent at all! I'm not sure if those parents who are upset have ever really watched the show with their kids.

ModernMom said...

I would have to agree with you that Glee is not a children's show. I let me 11 year old watch SOME of the shows. After hubby and I have pre-screened them. It opens up some pretty frank discussions. Some episodes she may never see!
In the end, I'm still a Gleek:)

Mommyfriend Lori said...

I agree with you, but I did happen to think "why?"...maybe the better question is "why not?" I don't know, the show is wildly successful and the girls are so talented, it just struck me as unnecessary more than anything.

Lisa @ Crazy Adventures in Parenting said...

I don't watch Glee, but I have to tell you, I am so sick of oversexualization in today's society. Just because sex exists doesn't mean we have to exploit it in everyfrigginthing out there - regardless of target market, kids are seeing it and getting the message that they have to look this way, wear those "clothes" and act slutty - KIDS! Over 21 or not, I'm so tired of it. And to hear what's happening in this show? I'm glad I'm missing it.

Jennifer said...

I know I'm commenting late, but I've been thinking about your post. While I agree with many of your points, there was one idea that bothered me, this idea that because we know that teenagers are having sex, we should lighten up. As a society, we seem to keep lowering our standards. What if we raised the bar and taught our children that they could wait--that they didn't have to give in to the sexual temptation like society may suggest--they were worth waiting for?

You've inspired a blog post for me! Thanks for the discussion!

Elaine A. said...

My kids can't watch that show until they are at least 25 so... guess they won't get the magazine 'til then either... ;P

Seriously, it's not any worse than the show, just as you said.

BUT. It is EVERY.WHERE. and it is HARD to raise kids to NOT want to dress that way when it's IN THEIR FACE. That part, I'm not so happy with. I kinda agree with Kat's comment in that regard.

Blog Designed by: NW Designs