Glee GQ cover 'borders on paedophilia'

[JaredJames]

So here's a new one, not sure if anyone's seen it:

http://celebrity.uk.msn.com/news/gossip/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=155068471

A GQ cover featuring scantily-clad stars of Glee has caused outrage in the US after a parents association said it "borders on paedophilia".

Corey Monteith appears on the front of the November issue with his hands on the bottoms of his co-stars Dianna Agron and Lea Michele, who, like him, play high school students on the show.

Monteith is 28 and Agron and Michele are both 24, but that has not stopped the Parents Television Council (PTC) blasting the photo shoot.

People really will find anything to complain about. They should go after every adult magazine / website that depicts women in school uniform if this is their stance.

In particular, the PTC has complained about one photo featuring Michele. The actress is sitting in a locker room wearing nothing but a top that is pulled open to show her lacy bra, thigh-length socks and panties. Tugging on her hair and licking her lips, she sits with her legs wide open, flashing her underwear to the camera.

Sound familiar? It is a basic 'concept' for many adult images (even videos), but is it paedophilia? Does the connection to Glee make it so?

You could equally argue that any high school style adult image "borders on paedophilia". This is just non-sense in my opinion. People looking at these images will think what they want to think. If they want to see it as paedophilia then that's what they'll see. Glee character or not.

Personally, not a fan of the show, but I always find it amazing what people will complain about.

Am I the only person who thinks this is rubbish or do others find something wrong with this?

 

[Jack21222]

I'll go one step further and take the controversial stance that even if the shoot DID use 16 and 17 year olds, it would STILL not be paedophilia.

It makes me cringe that the same term is used to describe sexual interest in a post-pubescent 17 year old and a pre-pubescent 7 year old.

 

[Evo]

It's a disease here in the US. There are some types of people that fear anything they don't control and falls outside of their personal beliefs. Since they disapprove, no one else in the country should be allowed to see it, hear it, or look at it. They want to control the entire country.

 

[JaredJames]

I'll go one step further and take the controversial stance that even if the shoot DID use 16 and 17 year olds, it would STILL not be paedophilia.

It makes me cringe that the same term is used to describe sexual interest in a post-pubescent 17 year old and a pre-pubescent 7 year old.

I agree, in the UK consent age is 16 (not sure about porn but I believe all are over 18). Looking at an 18 year old in a costume such as a school uniform, does not make it paedophilia.

As above, people will see what they want to see. There will always be a minority who see it as something it isn't, but does that mean it should be banned?

It's a disease here in the US. There are some types of people that fear anything they don't control and falls outside of their personal beliefs. Since they disapprove, no one else in the country should be allowed to see it, hear it, or look at it. They want to control the entire country.

So true.

 

[G037H3]

What is wrong with paedophilia?

You turn 18 and become sexual? rofl

 

[Borek]

Amount of idiocy becomes unbearable. Since yesterday we had already case of Christian roommate and Righthaven lawsuits. Now this.

This world is going to an end, it already swallows its own tail.

 

[JaredJames]

What is wrong with paedophilia?

I would be very careful saying that. It is very wrong. Do you even know what it is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

You turn 18 and become sexual? rofl

Here (in the UK), once you are 16 you are legally allowed to have sexual intercourse with other 16+ persons.

There is a reason there is an age of consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent). What you have just said actually worries me somewhat. I don't know whether it was a joke or not (I hope it was).

 

[jreelawg]

Much more disturbing is this.

Nickelodeon's 23rd Annual Kids' Choice Awards (Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards 2010) were held on March 27, 2010...

Musical performers
Miranda Cosgrove - Kissin' U" (Countdown to Kids' Choice! pre-show)
Rihanna - "Hard"/"Rude Boy"/"Don't Stop the Music" (Main program)
Justin Bieber - "Baby" (Main program)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickelodeon_Kids'_Choice_Awards

Come on rude boy, boy
Can you get it up
Come here rude boy, boy ...

http://www.elyricsworld.com/rude_boy_lyrics_rihanna.html

Nickelodeon (usually abbreviated as "Nick", and originally named Pinwheel from December 1, 1977 to March 31, 1979), is an American cable television network owned by MTV Networks, a subsidiary of Viacom International. The channel is primarily aimed at children ages 6–14, with the exception of their weekday morning program block aimed at preschoolers ages 2–5. Since 2006, Nickelodeon has been run by MTVN Kids & Family Group president Cyma Zarghami.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickelodeon_(TV_channel )

I can't wrap my head around this. IMO popular culture becomes increasing shallow and perverse every year.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't get it.

If you are referring to the lyrics:

Obviously, what the song is about I understand, but the phrases "rude boy" and "baby" aren't referring to anything paedophilic (unless you have sources which show otherwise).

Rude boy is slang: (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rudeboy)

And so far as baby goes, have you not heard of a male/female refer to someone (usually a partner) as it?

The song was popular and played at the awards. I don't see a problem. Only misinterpretation of the lyrics by those picking out specific words.

If you are referring to the 'meaning' of the song, again, I don't see a reason not to play it at the awards.

So far as the other performers go, they're popular. (Justin Beiber very much so with younger audiences.) So why shouldn't they have them?

 

[jreelawg]

I don't get it.

Obviously, what the song is about I understand, but the phrases "rude boy" and "baby" aren't referring to anything paedophilic (unless you have sources which show otherwise).

Rude boy is slang: (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rudeboy)

And so far as baby goes, have you not heard of a male/female refer to someone (usually a partner) as it?

The song was popular and played at the awards. I don't see a problem. Only misinterpretation of the lyrics.

So far as the other performers go, they're popular. (Justin Beiber very much so with younger audiences.) So why shouldn't they have them?

It's just a song about rough sex, played for an audience of 6-14 year olds. And it is quite disturbing that a network dedicated to entertaining young children would make this decision.

If you wanted to get literal, it is saying come on "outlaw, or thug" if you have a big enough penis, and can get an erection, I want you to bang me really hard.

 

[JaredJames]

It's just a song about rough sex, played for an audience of 6-14 year olds.

I was editing the last post as you replied, but I'll continue here.

These kids are exposed to far more than this on a daily basis when you factor in the internet, adverts and music overheard.

I somehow doubt the people who booked her were even considering the lyrics. They just chose a series of songs they wanted.

Frankly, I doubt any of the kids truly understand or take notice of the lyrics.

However, this is somewhat off topic here.

 

[Borek]

It's just a song about rough sex, played for an audience of 6-14 year olds. And it is quite disturbing that a network dedicated to entertaining young children would make this decision.

Agreed.

 

[lisab]

It's just a song about rough sex, played for an audience of 6-14 year olds. And it is quite disturbing that a network dedicated to entertaining young children would make this decision.

If you wanted to get literal, it is saying come on "outlaw" if you have a big enough penis, I want you to bang me really hard.

That song is full of single entendres!

I'm just glad when my daughter was a kid, her taste in music tended to be out of the mainstream.

 

[Evo]

I am so happy my kids didn't get sucked into that teenybopper phase. My kids went straight from Disney to Indie, which was good for me. Of course they grew up listening to my alternative radio station.

Oh, we're still in the GQ thread, sorry.

 

[JaredJames]

But that's just it. If kids listen to it, whether by internet or otherwise banning it from one TV show really won't make that much difference, especially if they like it they'll just look for it elsewhere.

When you consider how freely accessible the internet (YouTube) and various music channels are, they can gain access to it anyway.

EDIT: There are things which children should be protected from, certainly.

 

[jreelawg]

But that's just it. If kids listen to it, whether by internet or otherwise banning it from one TV show really won't make that much difference, especially if they like it they'll just look for it elsewhere.

When you consider how freely accessible the internet (YouTube) and various music channels are, they can gain access to it anyway.

True, but in this case, the kids didn't choose to watch it, Nick, chose to show it, at an event, in which millions of young children would be watching regardless. On top of this, they picked it as 1 out of 4 total performances.

The choice, could be to bolster ratings? But if my daughter was watching, and I saw this song performed, I would turn it off. The song could be to promote the hit single to young children to make money off of them? Or it could just be to promote getting banged by criminals who have big penises/refusal to bang men with small penises?

 

[JaredJames]

True, but in this case, the kids didn't choose to watch it, Nick, chose to show it, at an event, in which millions of young children would be watching regardless.

The choice, could be to bolster ratings? But if my daughter was watching, and I saw this song performed, I would turn it off. The song could be to promote the hit single to young children to make money off of them. Or it could just be to promote getting banged by criminals who have big penises/refusal to bang men with small penises.

Yes, that's clearly nickelodeons agenda.

Like I said, I doubt the lyrics were even taken into consideration.

As with the Glee article above, if people want to complain about this they should go after every media situation which could present this type of media to children, not just specifics. I agree it wasn't well thought out by Nickelodeon but then there are far more examples than just this. MTV should be banned on this basis.

Anyway, perhaps back on topic?

 

[jreelawg]

Yes, that's clearly nickelodeons agenda.

Like I said, I doubt the lyrics were even taken into consideration.

As with the Glee article above, if people want to complain about this they should go after every media situation which could present this type of media to children, not just specifics. I agree it wasn't well thought out by Nickelodeon but then there are far more examples than just this. MTV should be banned on this basis.

Anyway, perhaps back on topic?

Or maybe it was well thought out, they just don't have good intentions.

As for the Glee shoot, the pedophilia comment was just one persons opinion. Sleazy and exploitive yes. That is how they get their ratings.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm not really joking. It's evolutionarily natural and healthy to be an ephebophile.

But you said paedophilia. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Note this on the top of the wiki page for ephebophile:
This article is about the sexual preference of adults for adolescents. For the sexual preference of adults for prepubescents, see pedophilia.

Your first post indicated you agreed with adults having sexual interests in < 13 category. Which is what this article refers to.

 

[Evo]

We are not going to get into a discussion of illegal sex with minors.

 

[jreelawg]

MTV should be banned on this basis.

Anyway, perhaps back on topic?

It's just kind of depressing how mindless and naive the masses are. I guess it's just a sad state we are in, where a vehicle which could be used as such a tool, for the betterment, of human kind, where role models have a stage which gives them incredible influence over people, who have the opportunity to inspire people with a beneficial message, instead send such a moronic mix of horrible messages.

We live in a world, now, where pimps, gangsters, prostitutes and crackheads are leading role models for our children. Where rough sex, street killings, crack dealing, and pimping, are glorified, I assume for the depicted wealth and respect these things bring people in popular culture.

 

[JaredJames]

It's just kind of depressing how mindless and naive the masses are. I guess it's just a sad state we are in, where a vehicle which could be used as such a tool, for the betterment, of human kind, where role models have a stage which gives them incredible influence over people, who have the opportunity to inspire people with a beneficial message, instead send such a moronic mix of horrible messages.

We live in a world, now, where pimps, gangsters, prostitutes and crackheads are leading role models for our children. Where rough sex, street killings, crack dealing, and pimping, are glorified, I assume for the depicted wealth and respect these things bring a people in popular culture.

I'd agree with that.

 

[Cfire]

It's just kind of depressing how mindless and naive the masses are. I guess it's just a sad state we are in, where a vehicle which could be used as such a tool, for the betterment, of human kind, where role models have a stage which gives them incredible influence over people, who have the opportunity to inspire people with a beneficial message, instead send such a moronic mix of horrible messages.

We live in a world, now, where pimps, gangsters, prostitutes and crackheads are leading role models for our children. Where rough sex, street killings, crack dealing, and pimping, are glorified, I assume for the depicted wealth and respect these things bring people in popular culture.

From what I understand, there have always (at least in the last 85+ years) been adults saying that the moral world is going to hell. Why is this specific generation of adults actually correct?

On the other hand, maybe we really have been slowly going to hell all these years. What could possibly be the next level of extremism? How many more levels do we have to go before children (teenagers) commonly attend emotionless orgy parties?

Maybe the average age of devirginization (did I make up that word?) has remained unchanged, a certain range of percentages of kids are always bound to get caught up in the unethical crowd, and everyone's adult lives will be about the same as the adult lives of you guys (not me, I'm 21 and am therefore still mostly a dumb kid) and your parents and their parents.

Man, there are a lot of things I don't know; I could write a few papers on the things I don't know about societal decline.

Sorry to digress from the original topic.

As far as the GQ thing is concerned, I'm not surprised that there's an arbitrarily chosen target of some random group's moral outrage. Per the normal routine, the extremist contention ended up one of the two positions that it always does: a moderately over-dramatic and incorrect outcry (the other position being a justified outcry at a fringe event that misses the core source of the event almost completely).

EDIT: I don't mean to say that I think pimps, crackheads, gangsters, and prostitutes are not bad, just that I'm optimistic of our future.

 

[Galteeth]

An interesting note is most people in the US believe there is a nationwide age of consent at 18. This is not true. That is the age at which you can appear in pornographic material. It is also the oldest age of consent for any state. Age of consent actually varies from state to state. The most common age of consent is 16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#United_States

(For those of you who doubt wikipedia, I checked the link for my state, one of those with AOC 16. The link was out of date, linking to an irrelevant part of the criminal code, which makes sense since the criminal code is constantly changing. However, searching the criminal code through google, I confirmed wikipedia's information.)

How old are the glee characters supposed to be?

 

[disregardthat]

From what I understand, there have always (at least in the last 85+ years) been adults saying that the moral world is going to hell. Why is this specific generation of adults actually correct?

They have all been right though, at least for the past 200 years. The "moral world" changes, as well as those within it, but nobody likes change.

 

[Galteeth]

They have all been right though, at least for the past 200 years. The "moral world" changes, as well as those within it, but nobody likes change.

Disagree. Although perhaps the number of people suffering and oppressed has increased in total, the amount of people, and percentage of the world's population who has seen their suffering and oppression decrease, has consistently risen over time.

 

[DanP]

So here's a new one, not sure if anyone's seen it:

http://celebrity.uk.msn.com/news/gossip/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=155068471


People really will find anything to complain about. They should go after every adult magazine / website that depicts women in school uniform if this is their stance.


Sound familiar? It is a basic 'concept' for many adult images (even videos), but is it paedophilia? Does the connection to Glee make it so?

You could equally argue that any high school style adult image "borders on paedophilia". This is just non-sense in my opinion. People looking at these images will think what they want to think. If they want to see it as paedophilia then that's what they'll see. Glee character or not.

Personally, not a fan of the show, but I always find it amazing what people will complain about.

Am I the only person who thinks this is rubbish or do others find something wrong with this?

Paedophilia my ***. Parents Television Council is a sad joke IMO.

 

[Danger]

The most common age of consent is 16.

I don't know about other countries, but "age of consent" and "age of majority" are totally different things in Canada. Age of majority is when you can drink, smoke, get into adult movies, and vote. Age of consent is when you can have sex without your partner being arrested. It's complicated, but as nearly as I can figure the age of consent is 14 as long as the partner is under 18. If the partner is 18 or over, the age of consent is 16. Age of majority varies by province.
Don't even think about anything that the Parents Television Council says. They're a bunch of raving Jesus freaks.

 

[disregardthat]

Disagree. Although perhaps the number of people suffering and oppressed has increased in total, the amount of people, and percentage of the world's population who has seen their suffering and oppression decrease, has consistently risen over time.

I was talking about the upper/middle class sexuality.

 

[jackmell]

Personally, not a fan of the show, but I always find it amazing what people will complain about.

Am I the only person who thinks this is rubbish or do others find something wrong with this?

As usual, people miss the point with stuff like this and you could have posted the picture so we didn't have to go lookin' for it. We have a mis-representation of reality in that picture: the actors are actually 20-something and as 20-something, I don't think it's an inappropriate picture given the sex-obsessed culture we live in. However, they portray teenagers in Glee and I think teenagers in that pose would be inappropriate.

All that picture is doing is contributing to what I think is a terrible trend in society: seducing teens into early sexual activity.

The picture does not border on pedaphellia and I'm not even gonna' bother to look up the spellin.

 

[Danger]

the actors are actually 20-something and as 20-something

Therein lies yet another stumbling block. This isn't an exact quote, but the general definition of "child pornography" in Canada is the depiction of someone under 18 years of age (or appearing to be under 18 years of age) in a state of undress and/or engaged in sexual activities. That is patently ridiculous. Who in my age group does not have family photos of some naked baby on a bearskin rug? By Canadian standards, my grandmother who has been dead for 57 years was a child pornographer.

 

[DanP]

All that picture is doing is contributing to what I think is a terrible trend in society: seducing teens into early sexual activity.

Sure. Like, I needed anything like GQ picture that to realize I want sex back in high-school. I grew up in a communist country and we pretty much never seen anything like those magazines and those modern fancy spreads. We didnt see sex on TV, naked women in magazines, virtually nothing. We didn't need them to seek an active sexual life. Its only **natural**. All we needed where the girls in our classes :P

It's an utmost hypocrisy to claim that teens need to be seduced into an "early sexual life", while an adult can have a sexual life which he can enjoy and at the same time be sanctimonious to teens about their sex life.

It;s not for you to decide when your daughter or son becomes sexually active. It is their decision alone. What you should do is educate them at the best of your ability so they make informed decision about their sex life. But those decision are not yours to take.

 

[JaredJames]

Therein lies yet another stumbling block. This isn't an exact quote, but the general definition of "child pornography" in Canada is the depiction of someone under 18 years of age (or appearing to be under 18 years of age) in a state of undress and/or engaged in sexual activities. That is patently ridiculous. Who in my age group does not have family photos of some naked baby on a bearskin rug? By Canadian standards, my grandmother who has been dead for 57 years was a child pornographer.

I'll raise you one UK issue.

It is now frowned upon (not sure if it's banned yet) to use a camera in a public area where it may be construed you are taking illegal photos of minors. People don't like the idea of others using a camera to take a photo of their own child playing in a local park with other kids because that person might be a paedophile. I can understand if you were directly focusing on random kids but this is just going crazy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-from-taking-photos-of-her-grandchildren.html

Now I mean seriously, who the hell comes up with this rubbish.

 

[DanP]

I'll raise you one UK issue.



Now I mean seriously, who the hell comes up with this rubbish.

Men with small packages and 40 years old virgins none wants to screw

 

[jackmell]

It's an utmost hypocrisy to claim that teens need to be seduced into an "early sexual life", while an adult can have a sexual life which he can enjoy and at the same time be sanctimonious to teens about their sex life.

Teens should not be having sex and if you saturate their lives with it like we do in America, we're just making it much, much easier for them to engage in sex and perpetuate the serious problem of teen-pregnancy in America.

It;s not for you to decide when your daughter or son becomes sexually active. It is their decision alone. What you should do is educate them at the best of your ability so they make informed decision about their sex life. But those decision are not yours to take.

I agree I can't prevent them from having sex, but while my children are teens, it is very much my decision to try and prevent them from doing so by teaching them about sex and the problems they may encounter by being sexually active as a teen.