Glee GQ cover 'borders on paedophilia'

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaredJames
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The GQ cover featuring Glee stars Corey Monteith, Dianna Agron, and Lea Michele has sparked controversy, with the Parents Television Council (PTC) claiming it "borders on paedophilia." The cover depicts Monteith, 28, with his hands on Agron and Michele, both 24, who portray high school students. Critics argue that the portrayal is exploitative, while others assert that the outrage is exaggerated and reflects societal fears rather than actual issues. The discussion highlights the complexities of sexual imagery in media aimed at younger audiences and the differing perceptions of appropriateness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of media representation and its societal implications
  • Familiarity with age of consent laws, particularly in the UK and US
  • Knowledge of the Glee television series and its cultural impact
  • Awareness of the role of organizations like the Parents Television Council (PTC)
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of media portrayals on public perception of youth and sexuality
  • Explore the legal definitions and implications of paedophilia versus ephebophilia
  • Investigate the history and influence of the Parents Television Council on media content
  • Examine case studies of similar controversies in media, such as music videos and magazine covers
USEFUL FOR

Media analysts, cultural critics, parents concerned about youth representation, and anyone interested in the intersection of sexuality and popular culture.

  • #61
Given the fact that both my girlfriend and myself (she's 28, I'm 30) enjoy the naughty student/teacher roleplaying, I'd say this is a fairly minor bit of sexual play.

I'd prefer twenty people pretending to be teenagers than one furry.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Turbo, I have seen the cover and it would never cross my mind that either of the women are under 25. It's a bit harder to tell with the guy.

jarednjames said:
People who sue those who give them CPR to save their life clearly shouldn't have been saved in the first place.
Actually, it's usually the family of a deceased or injured party who instigates litigation. It's kind of weird here in Alberta. I have several friends who are firemen and/or paramedics. They are forbidden to assist someone when off-duty because they and their department can be sued if something goes wrong. Civilians are almost exactly the opposite. To do nothing is a crime, if you are capable of helping. (That is almost never enforced, because a lot of people simply freeze up through no fault of their own.) A new thing that I just saw on the news a week or so back says to ignore the breathing aspect and just concentrate on the chest compressions. It recommended pressing to a Bee Gees' song such as "Staying Alive" in order to stimulate proper blood flow.
 
  • #63
turbo-1 said:
There were people protesting the release of Shannon Curfman's first album "Loud Guitars, Big Suspicions" saying that it was too "mature" for a 14-year-old. Get a life, people. They didn't say such things about Johnny Lang.

God forbid a teen woman looks good and make nice money and a decent living. This will scare the **** out of the sanctimonious "adults"
 
  • #64
DanP said:
God forbid a teen woman looks good and make nice money and a decent living. This will scare the **** out of the sanctimonious "adults"

Teen women are doing quite well for themselves these days, just look at Beiber... :biggrin:

(Had to get that in)

I agree with danger, it is clear that those women are over 20.

I stand by what I said earlier. People will see what they want to see.

So far as CPR goes, I would never sue a person who tried to help. I'd be more angry at someone who just stands there and does nothing. But then, as you point out it is a natural issue that causes that.
 
  • #65
jarednjames said:
I'd be more angry at someone who just stands there and does nothing. But then, as you point out it is a natural issue that causes that.

It's not that simple. Where few ppl are qualified to give help in emergencies of various nature. Frankly, if you don't know what you are doing, you should call immediately someone who knows and mind your own business.

But besides that, there are a lot of psychological factors involved, such as motivation levels, bystander effect, your construe of reality may be different by what actually happens in the field, schema on the cost of your actions and potential unintended consequences (including your own physical safety) and time constrains; all of them may inhibit helping behaviors.
 
  • #66
DanP said:
It's not that simple. Where few ppl are qualified to give help in emergencies of various nature. Frankly, if you don't know what you are doing, you should call immediately someone who knows and mind your own business.

But besides that, there are a lot of psychological factors involved, such as motivation levels, bystander effect, your construe of reality may be different by what actually happens in the field, schema on the cost of your actions and potential unintended consequences (including your own physical safety) and time constrains; all of them may inhibit helping behaviors.

Oh of course, if you don't know what you're doing stay away. I just hate the thought of someone who does have the capability standing by and doing nothing.
 
  • #68
jarednjames said:
Oh of course, if you don't know what you're doing stay away. I just hate the thought of someone who does have the capability standing by and doing nothing.

I sort of disagree with that in that I have no training in CPR other than what I've seen on the news (I do not go by anything on fiction TV.) I wish that I had full first-aid training, or at least the CPR aspect of it, but it isn't possible. Here, the CPR course alone costs almost $300, and I'm on Social Assistance with just enough to live on. (I personally think that first-aid should be taught for free to anyone capable of learning it.) Still, if no one more qualified steps up, doing something is better than doing nothing. I was told very early by one of my paramedic buddies that you can expect to bust a couple of ribs applying CPR. While I haven't had any broken, I've had a couple of cracked ribs and a couple of others torn off of my sternum. That hurts like a bastard, but is infinitely preferable to death. My cousin, who was a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry, also told me to forget about cleanliness in an emergency. If you encounter someone in a car wreck with a cut femoral artery, grab an oil rag from you trunk and a rock from the terrain and squish the damned thing shut. There's plenty of time to treat infection once he's in the hospital; ignoring sterility gives him the opportunity to get there.
 
  • #70
jreelawg said:
Come on rude boy, boy
Can you get it up
Come here rude boy, boy ...
Sorry, I'm kinda tired, just wanted to say..

"Rudeboy" is a common term for fans of ska and "pick it up" is a common phrase used in connection to skanking, the common style of dance to ska music. Either way, if your kid hears "get it up" and thinks of erections then the damage was already done my friend.
 
  • #71
TheStatutoryApe said:
Sorry, I'm kinda tired, just wanted to say..

"Rudeboy" is a common term for fans of ska and "pick it up" is a common phrase used in connection to skanking, the common style of dance to ska music. Either way, if your kid hears "get it up" and thinks of erections then the damage was already done my friend.

Exactly.

Like I said, I doubt kids take much notice of the lyrics and at most will be able to regurgitate them, parrot style. If they truly understand what their talking about (let's face it they had to be translated in this thread, what are the odds a child will know it?) then the damage is done.

I agree with TheStatutoryApe.
 
  • #72
TheStatutoryApe said:
Sorry, I'm kinda tired, just wanted to say..

"Rudeboy" is a common term for fans of ska and "pick it up" is a common phrase used in connection to skanking, the common style of dance to ska music. Either way, if your kid hears "get it up" and thinks of erections then the damage was already done my friend.

lol. :biggrin:

I knew she is innocent...

Edit: I thought that artists can use metaphors, but apparently they don't.
 
  • #73
TheStatutoryApe said:
Sorry, I'm kinda tired, just wanted to say..

"Rudeboy" is a common term for fans of ska and "pick it up" is a common phrase used in connection to skanking, the common style of dance to ska music. Either way, if your kid hears "get it up" and thinks of erections then the damage was already done my friend.

You may be right about the fandom of the tern "rude-boy" in Ska, but it's a Jamaican slang term that made its way into music, mostly through reggae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rude_Boy

Probably, and just guessing, this made it into the song because of Rihanna? (Barbados is pretty close)
 
  • #74
nismaratwork said:
You may be right about the fandom of the tern "rude-boy" in Ska, but it's a Jamaican slang term that made its way into music, mostly through reggae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rude_Boy

Probably, and just guessing, this made it into the song because of Rihanna? (Barbados is pretty close)

It is similar to the word punk. Some people call people punks as an insult, to others, it is a term that identifies with a subculture and musical style which they will proudly call themselves. The term originally meant a novice criminal.

Pick it up specifically refers to your feet when you skank.
 
  • #75
jackmell said:
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.

Now I understand and wish for the record to change my opinion about this matter: the pictures depict little teenage high-school girls in sexually suggestive poses and what makes it border on pedaphellia is the fact that these pictures appear in an adult gentleman's magazine. I should have known better the parenting group knew what they were talking about. However it's not something I with to talk about further so forgive me if someone calls me on this and I do not reply.
 
  • #76
As I said Jackmell, people will see what they want to see.

I see two twenty plus girls posing in some provactive pics wearing uniform. Nothing wrong with that, no more so than any other adult media which depicts a person in a school uniform. I see the choice to use uniform being because they are from Glee (and it's the theme).

The boy isn't exactly in any pic I'd consider remotely pornographic.

Got the entire photo shoot here: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201011/glee-photos-rachel-quinn-finn#slide=1
 
  • #77
jackmell said:
Now I understand and wish for the record to change my opinion about this matter: the pictures depict little teenage high-school girls in sexually suggestive poses and what makes it border on pedaphellia is the fact that these pictures appear in an adult gentleman's magazine. I should have known better the parenting group knew what they were talking about. However it's not something I with to talk about further so forgive me if someone calls me on this and I do not reply.

Thats bull. Media shouldn't let sanctimonious pricks dictate their content. Pedophilia my ***.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
I'll ask again: How old are the characters in the glee show supposed to be?
 
  • #79
Pedophilia happens in reality, not in someone's thoughts, which is called imagination. If that line of "reasoning" continues sooner or later people will go to jail for looking at someone with evil eye.
 
  • #80
Upisoft said:
Pedophilia happens in reality, not in someone's thoughts, which is called imagination. If that line of "reasoning" continues sooner or later people will go to jail for looking at someone with evil eye.

The only pedophiles in this case are the ones who see the image bordering pedophilia.
 
  • #81
DanP said:
The only pedophiles in this case are the ones who see the image bordering pedophilia.

Even they are not pedophiles. They are just very confused people having no idea where is the border between imagination and reality