GQ Glee Cast Over Fantasizing Teens

There's been some backlash over the upcoming GQ magazine cover (no doubt a best seller when it hits stands) which features members of the cast of the television show “GLEE” in sexy poses – one of them in her underwear. The racy pictures in the men's magazine are nothing new; the disgusting part is the fact that they're using adults posing as innocent high school students in kids' clothes.

This is disconcerting to me and to quite a few others.

The Parents Television Council once again raised concerns over the use (and abuse) of sexy kids images by stating the GQ “GLEE” shots “border on pedophilia.”  This sparked a slew of opinions which, frankly, missed the point. Starting with the magazines' own statement by GQ editor-in-chief Jim Nelson, who dismissed the critisims by saying, “as often happens in Hollywood, these 'kids' are in their twenties. Cory Monteith is almost 30! I think they're old enough to do what they want.”

I don't think they did what THEY wanted to do, sir. And if these so called 'kids' are in their 20s and 30s, why are you calling them 'kids'? Because you dressed them to look like students, or because they play the part of high school kids?


Another argument missing the point is by one of the actors in the photo, Dianna Agros, who tried to apologize for her part in these raunchy photos. I say tried because she ends it by saying, “if you are offended because your 8 year old had a copy of GQ in her hands, I have to ask how it got there.”

This is not the point.

The problem is not with kids looking through GQ, or if an issue got into their hands, it's with the adults in it dressing like kids in a kids' school setting posing in photos for perverted eyes to ogle them.

It’s becoming more the norm in our culture to accept images of kids in sexy clothes, and to some extent, kids do wear clothing that is inappropriate for their age thanks to celeb endorsements and mass marketing that makes parents think letting their middle schoolers wear short shorts and UGGs is fashionable and therefore appropriate.  

But I digress.

Most of us are familiar with television shows, music videos, magazines and the media promoting this type of thing (dare I say her name again? Okay, her initials are MC) and it seems there is no filter in Hollywood or the media to keep the money-making machine from using kids to sell – and sex sells.

NPR has a different view of why this magazine missed the mark this time, “…the GQ pictorial is nevertheless a disheartening, depressing development that deserves to be roundly and loudly condemned.”

For those who think this is no big deal but just another opportunity for a 'teachable moment' to talk to your kids about this incident, it's not as simplistic as this. If you are using this as a teachable moment, then thank organizations like the PTC and Katie Curic who brought this to the forefront so you could talk about it with your teens.

Facebook comments are all over the place with this one; a few get lost between the issues of teens' over sexualized images and the influence this has on young people, and the issue of whether this further promotes adult men ogling teens with deviant eyes.

What say you?



  1. Anonymous says:

    You are my hero. Sexy has its place…but in depicting kids, it is foul – you know (not that I am an expert) that a lot of porn depicts the actors as high school kids – but the man is the guy w/the van finding underage GIRLS. Porn makers actually used my high school (in SF Valley) to film one (marquee showing “Talent Show This Week”). Parked in front of school – “actress” depicted as school girl gets in man's van – Van starts shaking.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It's more and more acceptable to use images of young high school girls — not boys — to sell all kinds of things using them as sex symbols. Disgusting.

Speak Your Mind


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.