Sex sells: Glee gets a GQ makeover

By Aisling | October 22 2010 | 41 Comments

When GQ published its smokin hot pictures of the stars of Glee it was enough to make the world sit up and take notice. It was deliberately provocative and predictably enough caused a storm of outrage in those American organisations where Conservative is spelled with a capital C.

The Parents Television Council issued an angry statement, saying the spread “borders on pedophilia.”

Overreaction much? The actresses are in their twenties and were posing for GQ – hardly a kids comic book. This storm of outrage, protest and screams of “think of the children” happens every time a star who appeals to the young market actually er grows up. We’ve seen it with Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus. (Everyone has long given up on Lindsey Lohan).

Diane Agron (Quinn) said “If your eight-year-old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again I am sorry,” she wrote. “But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there?”

But one other salient point has been made by those who hate the pictures. Why does yer man get to be fully clothed in all the pictures? Fair’s fair and all that, lets see a bit of equality here.

What’s your view? Love it or hate it?

Celebrity Watch, Polls , ,

41 Replies to "Sex sells: Glee gets a GQ makeover"

  • Kirstie says:

    see it’s very easy to say ‘ah sure there’s nothing wrong with it’ because we see these sort of images day-in and day-out. We’re used to hyper-sexualised images of women; they’re now the norm.

    So it can be very hard to explain why it’s not actually all that ok if this is all we ever see because scantily-clad women left, right and centre have now become unremarkable.

    Except it should be remarked on because despite all feminism has done, there’s this yawning – and widening – chasm between the sexes and women are now more objectified than ever.

    Men are not portrayed in the same way as you so rightly point out – Cory Monteith keeps his clothes on and his cheeky, knowing grin, while the girls get their arses out. Ok, you can say it’s not harming anyone as a cover, it’s an adult magazine but there’s equally no harm in dissecting and talking about whether this is an OK trend.

  • Li says:

    Best pictures of Lea Michele I’ve seen, in most others she looks a little too sweet or self-conscious, at least here she’s playing a new character.

  • Eve says:

    I agree with you, Kirstie. And the actors were posing under the name of Glee, not independently; and Glee is after all a show aimed at teenagers, you know? I don’t blame the girls themselves though. Terry Richardson is just a really disgusting photographer.

    I agree completely with what Tom & Lorenzo had to say about it:
    particularly the very last paragraph (scroll all the way down).

  • Aurora says:

    I really don’t see what the big fuss is over, yes he has his clothes on, it’s a lads mag, while it may not be correct, the editor I’m sure thinks it’s target demographic want to see girls scantily clad and the boys, well with their clothes on!

    I’m heard some outragous comments from capital C organisations, which I frankly find hilarious. Many saying that now these photos are out there surely they will be leaked on the web and children will see it this way. Well I’m sorry capital C, why are your children allowed surf the internet with no restrictions? And if they are allowed surf with no restrictions I think a pic with some of the cast from glee in their skimpys is the least of their worries. Rubbish parenting skills is one of them!

    Put it this way, we’re all talking about it, GQ sales I’m sure have gone up, as have the actors profiles. Job well done!

  • Macloon says:

    Is Glee not like High School Musical? i.e basically a kid’s show?

    In that case they shouldn’t really be posing in such a manner. It should be in their performance contracts imo.

    This is how you end up with a market for stuff like kid’s pole-dancing kits and bloody Playboy kids clothes

  • Fiona says:

    This makes my flesh crawl. I’m disgusted by the fact that it’s considered ok to publish images like these, disgusted by the gender imbalance in them, and disgusted by the allusions to “jailbait” in them.
    Just horrible.

  • Kirstie says:

    Eve – jesus don’t get me started on Terry Richardson. Foul, foul, disgusting man. For anyone who still thinks these images are benign, please read this – this man has a lot to do with this sort of stuff:

  • Twinkletoes says:

    I don’t think there’s a problem here really. They are all in their twenties, they just happen to play high school students on TV. And anyway, in the TV show there are often scenes of a sexual nature, so it’s not like it’s the first time the characters have been sexualised.

    As for Cory having his clothes on while the girls are in their scanties – agree with Aurora that it’s just fitting the target market of GQ. If it was Cosmo, the girls would most likely be in more glamorous stuff and Cory would be topless or something.

  • Fiona says:

    Eve, Kirstie, I was going to share some choice words about Terry Richardson, but I’ll limit myself to agreeing with you that he’s a disgusting, horrible man. Creep.

  • roxette says:

    Yes was just going to comment on Terry Richardson.

    I was reading about him on celebitchy the other day. Sounds like an awful man who abuses his position with young models.
    Apparo. his father had the exact same tendancies towards young girls too.
    Totally vile :evil:

  • Aurora says:

    Fiona, Eve and Kirstie I completely concure. Terry Richardson is a creep. Even that might be too mild a word to describe that vile man. However GQ and the PR machine behind Glee clearly knew what kind of reaction they would have by letting that creep create the shots. They knew this would happen, and we are all playing into it. Google the edition and you will find 100’s of sites discussing it.

    As Twinkletoes said, Glee often has scenes of a sexual nature, and it is not the first time the parents television council has complained about it they say that the show is of a sexual nature, if so the photos of the actors are just living up to that. They don’t really have a valid reason to complain.

  • sweetie says:

    I understand why with Glee being aimed at kids’ market it looks so wrong, but c’mon, if your kid reads GQ, he/she had seen similar images already and can be hardly shocked by them. And yeah, GQ isd not called Hunku Lads or whatever, so we can barely expect Cory to strip down to his boxers, can we?

    …and who the f*** would buy their kid Playboy clothing?!?!?!? People who call their daughters Candy maybe… WRONG on every level.

  • Annie says:

    I think they’re pretty gross to be honest and reek of desperation. Not to mention that Terry Richardson is SUCH a hack photographer and a creep at that. I know I sound like such a prude (and I’m not normally conservative in the slightest) but Lea’s o-face is just disturbing – she looks like such a try-hard. I don’t mind sexing the Glee cast up a little, but that it’s so OTT (hello spread legs) and with Terry “the creep” Richardson behind the lens, it just feels all wrong.

    (I like the debate about it on the Project Rungay blog:

  • Li says:

    Oh no – just knowing it’s Terry Richardson puts a whole new spin on it – exploitation. Should have guessed it by the pose on the cover – supplant his face over Cory’s. ew.

  • ShuGal says:

    I’m not a prude at all, love watching the Victoria’s Secret show & think the models look fab strutting their stuff, but I think this is too much. Yes they may be all over age but they are playing up the Lolita fantasy. They are recognised as teenage girls & the photo shoot is in a high school setting. The mag maybe aimed at older males but a teenager (or younger) can still go into their local newsagent see Glee stars on cover & look at pictures (& probable buy it too, I’m not aware of age restriction on GQ)
    If this is the norm then is it really a shock when young girls are texting obscene pictures of themselves around??

  • Maevie says:

    On the matter of the gender imbalance in the photographs, the thing that strikes me is that not alone is your man fully clothed; in the cover image, he also has a paw squarely on the backsides of each girl, and they appear to delight in it. Ok, it’s an act etc etc, but I really find it discouraging that these kinds of messages can still be communicated in such a blasé fashion through what is, essentially, a mass medium. And yet, the feminist backlash continues unabated!

  • Emz says:

    Just read the article Kirstie posted re Terry Richardson – what a vile excuse for a human being.

  • Aphrodite says:

    Ah I knew the comments on this one would be great

  • Kirstie says:

    oh you and your devils avocado.

  • rosey says:

    I have a huge problem with the actors posing in school uniforms and in a school background in the way these pics portray (the one with Rachel with her legs wide open is particularly distasteful). But as several people have mentioned above, Tom & Lorenzo get it nail on the head:

    “Of course he didn’t dress all of them up like porn fantasies, just the girls. Guys don’t do sexy. Guys have sexy done for them. Guys stand or sit fully clothed while girls are meant to writhe and gyrate and spread their legs in their underwear. That’s the way of things. Great message there, morons. Knowing that this show has a huge teen and even pre-teen following, whatever person approved the idea of this shoot (TERRY RICHARDSON, people!) should be fired”.

Leave a Reply

Content © and partners