Parents Group: GQ's Glee Cover "Borders on Pedophilia"
Credit: Terry Richardson/GQ
GQ's sexy Glee cover has gone too far, The Parents Television Council says.
In a statement released Wednesday, the group slams the November issue, which features Cory Monteith, 28, Dianna Agron and Lea Michele, both 24 -- all of whom play highschoolers on the hit Fox show -- wearing hardly any clothing.
PHOTOS: Glee stars' high school yearbook pics
"It is disturbing that GQ, which is explicitly written for adult men, is sexualizing the actresses who play high school-aged characters on Glee in this way. It borders on pedophilia," the statement reads.
"By authorizing this kind of near-pornographic display, the creators of the program have established their intentions on the show’s direction," the statement concludes. "And it isn't good for families.
GQ Editor-in-Chief Jim Nelson fired back, releasing the following statement to UsMagazine.com Wednesday afternoon: "The Parents Television Council must not be watching much TV these days and should learn to divide reality from fantasy. As often happens in Hollywood, these 'kids' are in their 20s. Cory Montieth's almost 30! I think they're old enough to do what they want."
PHOTOS: Lea Michele and other hot fall hair makeovers
Nevertheless, the Glee stars were still surprised by the shoot, titled "Glee Gone Wild!"
"I don't know how they got me to do half the stuff I did" for the GQ shoot, said Michele. "But I was in really good shape this summer, so…"
Said Agron: "I've never been shot in so little clothing."
Tell Us: Do you find the GQ cover offensive?
Tell Us What You Think
51i think this magazine has great website, thank you guys for great work! Kathy from Slovakia :)
its amazing how "matured people" think now a days, it's really scary. Goodluck to your children's children. If i were a parent, maybe it would be hard for me cause no matter how responsible i am and protective of my kids, i'm only one, two or very few compared to millions of irresponsible adults around us "just doing their job" because its their job.
i think that with gq being an adult magazine and the three in the picture are actually adults there is no problem no if it was on the cover of say a teen magazine then it would be.
i think that with gq being an adult magazine and the three in the picture are actually adults there is no problem no if it was on the cover of say a teen magazine then it would be.
Maybe GQ is actually decent and trying to 'out' Glee for what it is. In the words of the producer of 'Glee", whose goal in life is to remove every barrier to the depiction of explicit sex on TV: "Hopefully I have made it possible for somebody on broadcast television to do a rear-entry scene"
I strongly agree the guardians/parents are the ultimately responsible for raising their youth. We live in a saturated, over-stimulated image society. Parents/Guardians can't control all the inappropriate media images. I agree that adults who take care of youth definitely must make it a point to talk & clarify values/beliefs. These particular adult actors (the male actor is near 30 years old playing a teen) currently make a living/$$$$ portraying teens battling peer pressure, self-esteem, self-acceptance & discrimination in high school. How naive, disregarding & dismissive are they given their vast fan base are youth that they can profit off the portrayal of young people and be shocked of their contradictory over-the-top sexualized depictions vs. the underdogs GLEE club members! Whether we like it or not, media plays a role in perception, in the case of this magazine cover "GLEE gone WILD" perpetuates that women are objects, it's ok for males to inappropriately put hands on their bottoms - sexism frankly. Though I like GLEE for the musicality and some of the themes, I've lost a lot of respect for these adult actors.
Alright, in how about some people get some things straight, use your vocabulary correctly. This is nowhere near being pornographic, by definition. It is however offensive, but GQ tends to be racy, and the actors are way older than 18, so it is not even close to being pedophilia. With that aside, I think the show should put some standards for their actors, and keep them inline. However, I do not think it is that big of a deal, considering all of the crap on the TV, that far easily surpasses this cover shoot. One more thing, if a teen manages to get pregnant because of the images, well, that is one hell of a stupid kid. I mean, the image is not that bad, I see more skin when I go surfing in the summer, and I have seen even more just walking the beaches in Europe.
I totally agree with the Parents Group on this one. The implication is the message. So here you have a men's magazine encouraging lust for high school girls. That is the message. What other reason is there for this cover?
You know I have never seen a GQ magazine in any area that I have taken my son. Ben is right when says you can't expect these people to be role models for your children. My son watches buffy the vampire slayer and at 4 years old he doesn't believe that the monsters and vampires are real and that they will really come get him at night. You cannot blame sex in the media on teen pregnancy. Teenagers will have sex it is the parents responsibility to make sure your teenager feels they can talk to you about contraceptives so it can be avoided!! Look at all the publicity that the teenager girls who have gotten pregnant get why don't the parents go against that? I don't think teen pregnancy should be rewarded with there own television shows and magazine covers (You know I never seen a teen mother on a magazine cover until Palin's daughter got pregnant) obviously it's not working when one of the girls is pregnant again. Don't let your kids see the magazine, it's just like a porno, what if they quit Glee and became porn stars? Nobody would be able to complain about how they pose then, GLEE is not really for children, all the people I know who enjoy it are older people, there is Drama that is not new to this world the girls look sexy they are 24 years old and should be able to show there sexuality. These people are not the first people to be critize3d about how they pose in a magazine, look what Brittany did in rolling stones years back but you know i don't see a bunch of little girls running around in there nighties on the telephone with a telly tubby thing, if you teach your children to have there own mind they will be okay, teens will always have sex unless something really really changes, but these parent TV league just need to leave it alone, if it wasn't this particular cast of GLEE they found something wrong with it would be another star, it's not like it's in people, or teen magazine actually targeted to teens...oh and it won't mean pedophilia because guess what woman here's a little secret....men have been fantasizing about girls in catholic school girls outfit for years!! That's why you can find em at your local Halloween store!
The parents are a bunch of prudes. Wake up! The world is and forever will change! If you didn't like the GQ cover, then don't buy it and bring it into your house! Then your children won't see it!
The "The Parents Television Council" needs to get a life. I looked at the pictures that the mid to late 20's actresses took and big deal! The fact that these "concerned parents" are so enraged is amazing. If you are that upset about some pictures then wake up and realize that your children are exposed to things a million times worse. And Estrellita, you say that these actresses are role models? God help us if children are really looking to characters from a TV show to be a role model. If a parent is failing to be a solid role model to their children they have no right to get upset because a mature adult woman chooses to take some pictures meant for an older audience. You argument that these actresses are role models also is flawed because many actresses and actors will do many different roles. Nicolas Cage will do movies for Children and Adults. Should children be bared from watching his children shows because he does adult movies too? Should we ban all actors and actresses who act in "Kid Friendly" roles from progressing their career and doing adult work as well? I think the "The Parents Television Council" need to wake up and get a life. Stop sitting on your couch moaning and judging everyone else for your failure as a parent. If learn to use parent controls if you are concerned about your children seeing questionable material. Or here is a novel idea... "SPEND TIME WITH YOUR CHILDREN AND BE RESPONSIBLE" And don't you dare say that you are working and can't spend time with your kids. Guess what, those actresses are paid for those photo shoots, they are working too! Sorry if their job isn't as "important" or "moral" as your jobs are all you parents on "The Parents Television Council". Get a life and stop being ridiculous!
Well, whoever you are who is "so sick of parent's who don't use common sense, and take the initiative to explain to their kids what they are watching on TV" the issue here is their provocative posing in the magazine. not the "GLEE" show itself. That kind of photos are precisely one of the reasons why teens get pregnant at an early age. Don't blame the parents, its but natural for them to be afraid of what the people or things or situations around their children might do to their very own kids. Are you a parent now? Do you have kids? Do you care about kids and their future? You may not fully understand now cause people with the kind of thinking as yours basically think it's ok because pictures like that are just everywhere especially in the internet. But these actresses serve as a role model and many kids love them for their role in Glee, so i am with these parents. they can always be a cover of the magazine, but make it a bit more discrete not vulgar, not loud. Look at Lea with her pose, go and look at the poses made by pornagraphy stars. If everything that media does and feed the people can be considered normal, acceptable, "it's just natural", "it's the trend, what can we do" staff, see what's happening now? Media & latest technology, This is just my opinion, truly hurt the spiritual part of life of people from all walks of life, around the world. Let's not give-in to it.
I am so sick of parent's who don't use common sense, and take the initiative to explain to their kids what they are watching on TV. Glee is not High School Musical, nor any type of Disney sing a long show! The first season revolved around teen pregnancy, sexual identity, divorce, and many other issues... NEWSFLASH: Parent's those are not typical issues for KIDS! No matter how much singing is involved the shows topics are for teens-mature audiences... PERIOD. So don't be shocked to see the actors doing things that are meant for that age range. It was your fault as a parent assuming that the show was like any sing-a-long show you have watched on Disney!
I am so sick of parent's who don't use common sense, and take the initiative to explain to their kids what they are watching on TV. Glee is not High School Musical, nor any type of Disney sing a long show! The first season revolved around teen pregnancy, sexual identity, divorce, and many other issues... NEWSFLASH: Parent's those are not typical issues for KIDS! No matter how much singing is involved the shows topics are for teens-mature audiences... PERIOD. So don't be shocked to see the actors doing things that are meant for that age range. It was your fault as a parent assuming that the show was like any sing-a-long show you have watched on Disney!
I am so sick of parent's who don't use common sense, and take the initiative to explain to their kids what they are watching on TV. Glee is not High School Musical, nor any type of Disney sing a long show! The first season revolved around teen pregnancy, sexual identity, divorce, and many other issues... NEWSFLASH: Parent's those are not typical issues for KIDS! No matter how much singing is involved the shows topics are for teens-mature audiences... PERIOD. So don't be shocked to see the actors doing things that are meant for that age range. It was your fault as a parent assuming that the show was like any sing-a-long show you have watched on Disney!
Oops, I FUBAR'd. I'm someone just over 50, and "there" is a feeling of growth. Figured I'd correct that one before anybody corrected me... Have a great day!
Heather Kortus, as something just over the 50 mark, I am a huge fan of Taylor Swift. Why? She still embodies a genuine, wholesome attitude, who seems to care about her audience. I think you are right about performers such as Miley Cyrus. She's breaking free of her House of Mouse days, but I do wonder how many adult fans she has simply because she is presenting a more sexual image? But, a person's image grows as they grow. It reflects their feelings to a large degree, although in the case of marketing, it's sometimes the situation of how others think one should look. As a father, I do feel performers on child audience based shows should act within acceptable boundaries. Having said that, not everyone is conservative. You sound reasonably so. I tend to be somewhat opposite, thus more liberal on actors and performers showing some skin. I have been in moments that caused anxiety, such as when my kids walked in during delicate moments of shows like Rescue Me or Sons of Anarchy. Remember though, that just because someone is proud of their body and doesn't mind showing it off doesn't make them a bad person. As for dumb adults, while I was a photographer, I was frequently amazed at how people had a personality change when they got in front of a camera. Add to that younger actors and performers who want to make a name for themselves and producers eager to get ratings, and the end result seems somewhat obvious. Plus, their is a feeling of growth to many in that their careers are growing up...
I think it's discustingly inappropriate, a lot of people watch(ed) this show together as a family, have daughters who look up to these girls in this show, and now you have them half naked on the cover of a magazine? Do you know how many girls out there are going to be like "Oh if the Glee girls are doing it then it's okay for me to do it to" And these people, adults or not, play highschool children, and it's just wrong and discusting to portray them like that.(And what kind of "adult" agrees to shoot vulgar photos like this, when they know that there are children who look up to them?) And I'm done wasting my time typing because a dumb female is going to be a dumb female, I am sick of chicks thinking they need to show off a bunch of skin to get attention. Yay chicks, way to go! Your show is getting so many more hits from fat nasty perverted 40 year olds who only watch cause they seen you with your legs spread! Woo! What would your daddies think?!
Oh yeah...Lisa Spadaro, she definitely has a cute butt. You were correct in that regard. From a capitalist perspective, he was actually being paid to put his hand on it. Something to think about...
I agree with Daniel Gonzalez regarding the definition of pedophilia. I know there was some discussion a few years ago regarding if portraying people or anime characters as underage would be classified as child pornography. I think once you understand the actors aren't kids, why is it anybody's business, other than the actors and magazine? Even if they aren't 18 yet, the scenes do not portray sexual acts or a sexually suggestive situation "per se," but there is suggestivity in the photo on the locker room bench. Draw your own conclusions to that one. As for Fritz Zie, hore obviously isn't the correct spelling, but the filter probably caused that. School Marm has the right to find it objectionable. I find people who are narrow-minded, can't spell and have bad grammar to be objectionable. I do bet their ratings went up after all the controversy. Coincidence? Anyway, that's just my opinion. "Dr. G."