Pajiba

How old are they again? 25? Yeah, eat a bag of dicks, PTC.

I never noticed how hateful BarbadoSlim was until yesterday's debate thread. Still pining for LaBarbara, man? Get over it, already.

"If you asked me for my dream photo shoot, I’d be in a treehouse, in a wild costume, war-paint and I’d be playing with my pet dragon." - Dianna Argon

So, yeah. I now have a bit of a crush, and I've never seen more than one lackluster episode of Glee. But, if that's her fantasy, I'd pay good money to help make it happen.

Note, for me, "good money" is about twenty-five bucks.

Doesn't she have one of those poem tattoos on her side? I thought the GQ pics showed that.

So she must be accustomed to making bad decisions by now.

B Slim, have you never done anything that seemed like a good idea at the time, or at least a harmless enough idea, and then afterward, you're all like, "Well, it was fun but it wasn't real fun, if asked to do so again, I'll probably take a pass"?

I think that's what she was trying to communicate. I mean, yeah, the hardcore reaction would be "Fuck you, PTC, I'm a grownup, the pictures aren't remotely close to pedophilia, you're a bunch of idiots." But that's just what I would say. Maybe she's more polite than I am.

Ok: First of all, yes the photoshoot was not the most tasteful.

Second: the ho's on Gossip Girl routinely wear less clothes—both on the show and in their daily lives. They are also portraying highschool kids.

Thirdly: Miley hobag Cyrus. END OF DISCUSSION.

I wish I'd had my hands on one of those 'good call' devices when I was younger.

Terrible thing, to live in fear. Brooks Hatlen knew it. Knew it all too well.

Um, yeah:

Throw, not Through.

*snapsnap* Another MARG here, Poncho, and one for my friends!

The PTC's website makes it pretty clear they hate most everything. They just got press this time and as long as you are not assuming I am a hypocrit, go with Godtopus.

You can have the salt, but I need to keep the pearls; they have so many metaphorical uses and I like to keep them handy.

I'm with that Sam fellow on the show -- she'd have to wear sunglasses just so I could retain the ability to speak.

Can I be her pet dragon? Please?!

Of course, by looking at their site, I appear to have diminished my already questionable ability to form a coherent sentence. At least, that's the explanation I can live with.

We really say that, or we used to. I've been stuck in the States for a while now so I'd have to double-check.

I still don't see the point of the uproar. Isn't this the same show with apparently underage cheerleaders talking about scissoring each other (to my admitted enjoyment)? Why is this photo-shoot somehow considered out of line? This would have been the quote I would have emphasized:

If you are hurt or these photos make you uncomfortable, it was never our intention. And if your eight-year-old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again I am sorry. But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there?

Exactly, pretty lady from that show I don't watch. Exactly.

I must give props to Ms. Agron for her diplomatic and fairly mature response. As it has been said, that is how a professional deals with a project, not the sanctimonious bullshit Heigl pulled.

And anybody who can appreciate Walken can't be all bad.

I never noticed how hateful BarbadoSlim was until yesterday's debate thread.

The scales, they are falling from their eyes....

More than one, Vermillion.

Going to disagree with you Fredo. Ribcage tattoos are fucking sexy. Sexy.

The fact that its poetry makes it even better.

Ribcage+tattoo+poetry= nerd boner

Well stated Vermillion. I have to say I'm a bit baffled at the whole kerfuffle over one freakin' photo shoot. And the scissoring line is an excellent example of how this show ALREADY isn't really for little kids (as well as the Emma to Rachel BJ line in the first season). The PTC just wants to whitewash EVERYTHING so they no longer have to monitor what kids are able to watch. Parenting is SO HARD when people don't do the work for you!

Whether or not kids should be allowed to watch Glee (and I agree, it ain't for kiddos)... it's a separate conversation.

What does it have to do with whether they can see the cover of GQ? (It is displayed next to the Certs and KitKats at my local Safeway.)

Go ahead and argue whether this picture is inappropriate... I say it's not that big of a deal.

But saying "If your kid can see the cover of GQ, then you're obviously not paying enough attention to what they're doing, anyways, so fix that first!" (Which is how I'm reading your "Parenting is SO HARD when people don't do the work for you!" comment.)

That's more ridiculous than the PTC complaint.

More than one, Vermillion.

My God, they are spreading. And we don't have nearly enough ointment.

It's not Penthouse or Hustler. It's GQ. No one has wrapped it in brown paper or put it behind the checkout counter. It's not unreasonable for people (parents or no) to express dissatisfaction for an image that is printed on the cover of a mainstream magazine, if they feel it crosses a line.

Well, if that is the argument, what about Maxim/Stuff/Single Word Title For Grunting Male Magazine #2905? I know I see those magazines all nice and front on the racks as well. Not to mention the women's mags that advertise sex tips and such on their covers. Or the more artsy stuff like Vanity Fair. Those magazines are allowed to flit by month after month, and I don't really see anything here that is more outrageous than what they show on their covers.

I understand that sometimes, kids get into stuff when the parent isn't watching. Nobody is blaming them for that. But to get upset at the magazine, simply because it existed for the child to see? It is pretty ridiculous.

I guess my point is that, yeah, it isn't Penthouse or Hustler. It IS GQ. So what is the big smacking deal about it?

JustBill - thanks for explaining. I'm glad I misunderstood your point! We actually agree, then.

My 6 year old saw a "Kick Ass" bumper sticker back when the movie first came out. As a new reader, she proudly read the bumper sticker out loud and then asked what "ass" meant. I told her it was a grown-up word for "bottom" and that it was kind of rude and she shouldn't repeat it until she was old enough to understand when it was and was not appropriate. I think a lot of these things are learning opportunities (to use a really hackneyed phrase) and I think kids can understand a whole lot, if you just take the time to explain it.

Vermillion - I agree, this picture (to me) is no more "shocking" than your typical Cosmo/Glamor/etc. "Cleavage and BJ Mouth" shots, or any of the lad mags. I think the kerfuffle (fantastic word, JB) is ridiculous.

My issue was that the quote that you highlighted takes the argument away from "Is this image over-the-top?" to "But why are you allowing your little prince or princess to SEE such an inappropraite magazine in the FIRST place!?" And, to me, that's ridiculous for the reasons stated above.

am I the only one here that thinks this lady should get her dream photo shoot to happen NOW?! I want this girl in a tree house with war paint on, petting her dragon! Now that's fucking SEX.

It's not a big smacking deal, just one more little example of the way our society markets young girls as passive sex objects. You are absolutely right, GQ isn't doing anything worse than anyone else. I mean, obviously they are trying to sell magazines and pressuring young actresses into posing provocatively in their underwear is a way to sell magazines. Yeah, maybe the girls aren't totally comfortable with it but hey, they are young and famous and that's how the game is played (plus, you totally know they are into it and love the attention, just like you know they love t-- oh, sorry, got carried away in Maxim-ville for a moment. Where were we?

I don't care if my eight-year-old son gets an eye-full in the checkout lane. Hell, those simple pleasures are what being eight was all about, at least they were before the internet brought us streaming hardcore pornography on demand. I might be a little... squicked-out when my 38-year-old neighbor buys a copy, too, but hey- free country.

What I really don't like is that my 12-year-old daughter sees it and is constantly bombarded by the easy sexualization of any (and every) attractive post-pubescent female our pop-culture has produced. It's just assumed that if you are doing press for a project and you have breasts that you are going to be photographed in a provocative way. You work for Glee and you get interviewed by GQ, You get interviewed by GQ and you take your pants off for some pictures. So it goes.

It just seems absurd when you actually stop and think about it how casual the exploitation is, how it is just a natural part of being noticed, and being pretty. It actually starts to seem a little disturbing when you think about how pervasive it is and how our kids are saturated with it everywhere they go.

So it's not a big deal, it's just one more drop in the ocean of negative examples that I have to overcome when I try to raise a daughter to value her self and believe in herself. I mean, I know we pamper out kids too much but I really want to tell her that she can be whatever she wants to be and she won't need to get undressed for some 45 year old guy along the way.

Yossarian, well put...I often wonder if we'll ever figure out how to handle female sexuality in this culture. Maybe the focus is placed on the young ones because they haven't got the upper hand on how to wield it yet?

It's some potent stuff, that is. Teenage female sexual desire is like plutonium, but there aren't too many safe channels for it (and by safe I mean selected by the girl, for the girl and suiting her needs first). Instead, there are avenues that have been plastered over so many times with the same billboard shapes that it seems like tradition of you walk the path you're offered.

I've done all sorts of interesting things as I grew up, but the best ones were the ones that were one hundred percent my own idea. I wonder how hot a photo shoot that REALLY came from a young woman's perspective might actually be? And why aren't more women enabling positive sexual expression from our little sisters? It's like we've all bought into doubting our motives because the results might look the same if we did...or we that we've bought into the idea of jealousy, or ageism or what the hell ever has us snapping at each other instead of getting our heads straight.

I forget who said that we really ought to be pissed as hell at our mothers and mothers before them for letting this crap get out of hand.

replica: Blame our mothers and their mothers??

I'm not understanding where you 're going with this. I'm reading that as meaning "blame earlier generations of women for the history of young women being exploited for their bodies/sexuality."

Is that what you meant?

I thought it was what was inside, which is far more risque. Still between the 'separating fantasy from reality' 'and heightened versions of our characters' and 'borderline pedophilia' (the most overused and mis-defined word since 'misogyny'), I'm still smarter than any crap in a GQ.

she also called Terry Richardson a "fun loving man" sorry but no honey. guy is creepy mc creep, at least be grateful he didn't tell you to give him a hand job or a blow job, oh wait, right you're famous, he doesn't do that to famous people, just young models he can force into it by using his position of power and by threatening to get call their agency and complain if they dont comply. Why is nobody of this poeple say "sorry i'm not taking any pics with this talentless old creep, you want me on your cover get someone else.

Ask Rie Rassmussen what's so 'fun-loving' about T.R. And if you want a real look into the heart of perversions that is this one-trick-predator, check out 'Terry Richardson, tampon tea'. That he's even allowed to work with all of those sexual harrassment suits pending is the most offensive thing to me. That his father dated an underaged Anjelica Huston while in his forties shows us the apple doesn't rot from the tree. I guess you're golden when Taschen and Vogue are on your side. I swear, this guy is drifting into pre-sanctioned Andrew Luster territory