Glee GQ cover 'borders on paedophilia'

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaredJames
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
80 replies · 11K views
jackmell said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jackmell said:
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.
 
Danger said:
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.
 
jarednjames said:
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 :devil:
 
DanP said:
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.
 
jackmell said:
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.

Mark the color of the statement.

"...much my decision to try and prevent them from doing so by teaching them about sex"

It is only your decision to try to prevent it with education. And , real sex education, not lies, not religious idiocies and threats. I am not saying you do this, but I seen ppl doing this kind of ****.

Ppl should not be so closed minded about sex as some of us are. So what if your daughter has sex and enjoys her life ? You only live once.
 
jackmell said:
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 ...
Why shouldn't teen have sex ? Maybe adults shouldn't have sex :P For it seems, all sex does to some of them is to make them determined to prohibit to teens what they enjoy to do. hypocrisy.

jackmell said:
and perpetuate the serious problem of teen-pregnancy in America.

What about oral sex with no coitus ? Is that allowed to teens in your opinion ? Since it poses 0 risk of pregnancy.
 
DanP said:
Why shouldn't teen have sex ? .

My goodness Dan. I can' believe I'm reading that. I could explain why, pretty convincingly I think. But that would be off-topic.

Oral sex is not allowed in my opinion but as you have alluded, we can't prevent them from doing it. Know about rainbow parties?
 
jackmell said:
My goodness Dan. I can' believe I'm reading that. I could explain why, pretty convincingly I think. But that would be off-topic.

No, no really please explain. It is my perception that what is lacking is a solid sexual education to teens coming from their parents. The act of sexual intercourse in itself is pretty natural, I think you will agree with me. It is a failure of parenting IMO if your daughter is knoked up at 16.

You know, if you where my father when I was 16, you and I would have had some serious issues. And you would not have won them. I was hell bent after age of 16 to get laid as much as possible. Luckily, all my parents did was to teach me early how to responsibly protect myself from STDs and avoid pregnancies. It worked. Should they have tried to convince me not to have sex as a teen I would have laughed in their faces.
 
DanP said:
No, no really please explain.

No.

It is a failure of parenting IMO if your daughter is knoked up at 16.

I do not agree with you and I do not blame the parent if she gets pregnant unless the parents did nothing to teach her about it. Rather, I blame also our (American) sex-obsessed culture for that and our modern, consumer-addiction to wealth and possessions that drive both parents to work til' they drop leaving little time to engage their children.
 
Last edited:
jackmell said:
No.
Then don't explain, Its more or less equal to me if you want to make your beleifes known by others or ruminate them in your solitude =)

jackmell said:
Rather, I blame also our sex-obsessed culture for that and our modern, consumer-addiction to wealth and possessions that drive both parents to work til' they drop leaving little time to engage their children.

this is what humans do. Always blaming everything but themselves. It gets old IMO. While social psychology teaches us that indeed situations are powerful, this kind of thinking is highly uni-dimensional IMO. You still have choices in many matters.

And I believe that teen pregnancies are more of a problem to low social classes, where lack of education is also a marker.
 
I agree with Dan and his last point is what I was about to make.

It is the lower class people who end up with the highest rate of teen pregnancy. Regarding your "parents work too much" being a cause, it is this lower classes where the majority of state benefits cases and are without jobs and so your statement doesn't really fit.

It is about teaching your kids responsibility and not trying to force them. Kids will deliberately do something you tell them not to.

(I'm referring to the UK in my above statement regarding benefits, where we also hold the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe).

I think this would be an interesting debate that should have its own thread.
 
To put it in crude terminology that some have used in my area: Edit: BLEEP There is no species other than humans on the planet who refrain from sexual activity after reaching puberty, and humans do it only because of societal pressure. In most of the history of civilization, an 18-year-old was considered middle-aged. Marie Antoinette was married at the age of 14, proceeded to have 4 children, and was executed at 37. In even earlier times, that age of 37 would have marked her as a very old woman.
Young women today tend to go out of their way to appear older than they really are. A lady of my acquaintance is very self-assured and independent. She drinks responsibly, smokes (although I've tried to talk her out of it), and has been living with her boyfriend for 2 years. She just turned 17. If I ran across her in a bar, without knowing her previously, I'd try to nail her without ever considering that she might be a minor.
By the same token, the producers of the "Mini Pops" records and videos are under investigation in the UK for possibly promoting pedophilia. I can see why; those kids can't be more than about 12, but they're dressing, acting, and singing just like pop stars such as Britney Speers. I suspect that they wouldn't go to that extent without adult coaching.
All that parents can do is educate (preferably with the help of the school system) their kids about sex before it actually becomes a part of their lives. You can't stop them from doing it, other than by locking them up, so just make sure that they know how to do it safely and responsibly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danger said:
By the same token, the producers of the "Mini Pops" records and videos are under investigation in the UK for possibly promoting pedophilia. I can see why; those kids can't be more than about 12, but they're dressing, acting, and singing just like pop stars such as Britney Speers. I suspect that they wouldn't go to that extent without adult coaching.

I can completely accept a complaint with regards to that.
 
Danger said:
To put it in crude terminology that some have used in my area: Edit:Bleep There is no species other than humans on the planet who refrain from sexual activity after reaching puberty, and humans do it only because of societal pressure. In most of the history of civilization, an 18-year-old was considered middle-aged. Marie Antoinette was married at the age of 14, proceeded to have 4 children, and was executed at 37. In even earlier times, that age of 37 would have marked her as a very old woman.
Young women today tend to go out of their way to appear older than they really are. A lady of my acquaintance is very self-assured and independent. She drinks responsibly, smokes (although I've tried to talk her out of it), and has been living with her boyfriend for 2 years. She just turned 17. If I ran across her in a bar, without knowing her previously, I'd try to nail her without ever considering that she might be a minor.
By the same token, the producers of the "Mini Pops" records and videos are under investigation in the UK for possibly promoting pedophilia. I can see why; those kids can't be more than about 12, but they're dressing, acting, and singing just like pop stars such as Britney Speers. I suspect that they wouldn't go to that extent without adult coaching.
All that parents can do is educate (preferably with the help of the school system) their kids about sex before it actually becomes a part of their lives. You can't stop them from doing it, other than by locking them up, so just make sure that they know how to do it safely and responsibly.

I agree to a large degree.

Also, doesn't the UK have some silly laws regarding adults and proximity to children?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G037H3 said:
I agree to a large degree.

Also, doesn't the UK have some silly laws regarding adults and proximity to children?

Proximity to children? In what sense?
 
jarednjames said:
Proximity to children? In what sense?

Echo that. It's a pretty broad term.
Anyhow, I'm not at all conversant with UK law; I'm Canadian.
 
jarednjames said:
Proximity to children? In what sense?

I recall reading something about adults having to have a permit to be in regular proximity with minors, and that this rule is extended to a ridiculous degree.
 
Danger said:
Echo that. It's a pretty broad term.
Anyhow, I'm not at all conversant with UK law; I'm Canadian.

We share the same monarch if that helps? (biggest scroungers by far, but that's an entire other debate).
 
G037H3 said:
I recall reading something about adults having to have a permit to be in regular proximity with minors, and that this rule is extended to a ridiculous degree.

Really? If you are to work with minors you have a criminal record check. But nothing more as far as I'm aware. No permits.

I know that the laws are ridiculous at the moment, teaching staff aren't allowed to touch (not in the bad way) children unless they really have to (we're talking serious injury).

I was 14 and cut my leg badly playing football during gym. They weren't allowed to give me anything to put on it and I had to tend to the wound myself, despite the person trained in first aid being stood opposite me. Bloody ridiculous, literally.
 
Back on topic. Has anybody here actually pulled up the GQ cover and viewed it (I sure hope so, if you've been posting!)? If you have, were you able to engage in enough willing suspension of disbelief to pretend those actresses were teenagers? We've got a tempest in a teapot, here.

"Modern" society is easily influenced by fringe elements, including nanny-types who claim "it's for the children". Don't want your kids looking at GQ? Don't leave it on the coffee-table!
 
jarednjames said:
Really? If you are to work with minors you have a criminal record check. But nothing more as far as I'm aware. No permits.

I know that the laws are ridiculous at the moment, teaching staff aren't allowed to touch (not in the bad way) children unless they really have to (we're talking serious injury).

I was 14 and cut my leg badly playing football during gym. They weren't allowed to give me anything to put on it and I had to tend to the wound myself, despite the person trained in first aid being stood opposite me. Bloody ridiculous, literally.

I've read of similar policies here in the US, but schools are locally controlled so there's wide variation place to place.

And yes I agree, simply banning touch is a ridiculous overreaction to a serious issue.
 
jarednjames said:
We share the same monarch if that helps? (biggest scroungers by far, but that's an entire other debate).

I'm well aware of the monarchy. As much as I do consider them parasites, I have sworn my allegiance to Her Majesty and those who serve under her. That was several decades ago, but no matter how much I might disapprove of things in the upper chambers I can't go back on my word.
As for the cut leg thing... that's just stupid. Where does maintaining decorum supercede medical aid? If you were in the US (the most litiginous society on Earth), your parents would have sued the school for negligence. On the other hand, they would also have sued for physical contact if something had been done to help you.
Personally, I would give mouth-to-mouth and CPR to a kid in distress, and screw the consequences. Maybe that kid will grow up to be a legislator who will put a stop to the idiocy.
 
turbo-1 said:
Back on topic. Has anybody here actually pulled up the GQ cover and viewed it (I sure hope so, if you've been posting!)? If you have, were you able to engage in enough willing suspension of disbelief to pretend those actresses were teenagers? We've got a tempest in a teapot, here.

"Modern" society is easily influenced by fringe elements, including nanny-types who claim "it's for the children". Don't want your kids looking at GQ? Don't leave it on the coffee-table!

I've seen the pics and frankly I don't believe they look that young in them (at least not in the paedophile way). Personally I think they look excessively airbrushed (not that it's a new thing).

Here is the pic:
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/10/21/2010-10-21_gq_glee_photos_actress_dianna_agron_responds_to_backlash_over_provocative_photo_.html
 
Danger said:
I'm well aware of the monarchy. As much as I do consider them parasites, I have sworn my allegiance to Her Majesty and those who serve under her. That was several decades ago, but no matter how much I might disapprove of things in the upper chambers I can't go back on my word.
As for the cut leg thing... that's just stupid. Where does maintaining decorum supercede medical aid? If you were in the US (the most litiginous society on Earth), your parents would have sued the school for negligence. On the other hand, they would also have sued for physical contact if something had been done to help you.
Personally, I would give mouth-to-mouth and CPR to a kid in distress, and screw the consequences. Maybe that kid will grow up to be a legislator who will put a stop to the idiocy.

I would never refuse to help someone, anyone, at all. But that's just who I am.

People who sue those who give them CPR to save their life clearly shouldn't have been saved in the first place.
 
jarednjames said:
I would never refuse to help someone, anyone, at all. But that's just who I am.

People who sue those who give them CPR to save their life clearly shouldn't have been saved in the first place.

Its good to be CPR certified anyway, and is not very expensive to get, at least arround here.

But I agree, if you sue me I saved (or at least tried) your sorry life, you are better of dead and buried 6 feet under
 
jarednjames said:
I would never refuse to help someone, anyone, at all. But that's just who I am.

People who sue those who give them CPR to save their life clearly shouldn't have been saved in the first place.
As a papermaker, I received CPR training at least once/year. If you find someone down and unresponsive in a large mill, you may be the only one that can save them until someone else happens along and can summon help. I never feared that my CPR certifications would lay me open to a lawsuit. Do what you can.
 
jarednjames said:
I've seen the pics and frankly I don't believe they look that young in them (at least not in the paedophile way). Personally I think they look excessively airbrushed (not that it's a new thing).

Here is the pic:
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/10/21/2010-10-21_gq_glee_photos_actress_dianna_agron_responds_to_backlash_over_provocative_photo_.html

Its not first time those sex frustrated individuals from parent groups open their stinky mouths. Recall the Miley Cirrus scandal ?

http://gleekifi.com/gossip/Mileys-Sexy-New-Video-Has-Parent-Group-Singing-the-Blues-3702059.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator: