web counter
 

New Rule: If You Play a High School Student, I Don't Care How Old You Are: Keep Your Clothes On

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (65)

Gleeexy500.jpg

It’s stuff like this that always brings out my archaic Southern side, where I want to go up and put a bathrobe over these women and tell them to go home to their parents and put on some clothes. Did their mothers not show them enough affection!

Granted, both Lea Michelle and the blonde one are both old enough to drink and legally pose for Hustler, but that doesn’t mean they should. There are kids watching this show. And I’m guessing after these images from a new GQ spread travel across the interwebs, there will be even more kids watching.

All I know is, if Sue Sylvester knew about them, she’d put a stop a stop to these shenanigans haste to the post. I will say this: They somehow do make the Rachel Berry character slightly less annoying. And she and the blonde are definitely making a play for lead roles in B-horror movies that feature lots of singing. I’m thinking: Prom Night: The Musical.

Prepare to have your illusions shattered.

LeaMicheleSexyGQ500.jpg

GleeGQSexy500.jpg

glee07.jpg

glee10.jpg

glee02.jpg

You can see the entire photo spread, and apparently, there’s even an article, though who could read with these images in your eyeline? And for God’s sake: Please no “bunk’ jokes. These women have fathers! (Via Movieline)









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← The Only Reason Not to Watch Sarah Palin's New TLC Docu-Series Is If You Hate Freedom | Through the Magic of Computers, You, Too, Can Have Perfect Sideboob →









Comments

Holy.

Fucking.

Shit.

Posted by: Kballs at October 20, 2010 11:25 AM

My God, you are an old woman.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at October 20, 2010 11:27 AM

I'm with you Dustin. Also wondering why it's only the ladies half nekkid and not that whats-his-name. He even gets to wear a damn tie in some of those shots. I mean, duh, it's GQ but for real?

Posted by: JenVegas at October 20, 2010 11:31 AM

Don't see the big deal. They are posing as the actress they are. People by now should know the difference between acting and real life. That said, don't know why this is getting that much attention, since "high school" is often portrait as sexual. The Cast of Gossip Girl did something similar once and didn't get half this judgment.

Posted by: Geisa at October 20, 2010 11:35 AM

Lea Michelle is beautiful and has great legs, but her trying to be sexy really bothers me for some reason. I'm not sure if it's cause her character isn't like that, or if its the actress herself that looks forced.

Also... Could we get a little half naked man action? I mean seriously where did the feminist movement go? We women require equal naked man rights.

Posted by: virenda at October 20, 2010 11:36 AM

Wait. This isn't from that "Clown!" trailer? WTF. I'm confused. Why are there so many clowns in this photoset? Do those women need that much makeup?

Posted by: lubeg at October 20, 2010 11:37 AM

If they wanna do a sexy photo spread, fine. The Rolling Stone pictures the cast did had those elements and such and they were ok. And you can do alluring and sexy or cutesy and sexy in such a way that it's not totally perverted and sheds the idea that you're just in a show about high schoolers.

But I have such a fucking problem with that gross douchebag Terry Richardson. Everything he does just looks so... Pedobear approved. Oh ha ha, Uncle Terry, we get the symbolism of the locker room bench. You're so clever, I bet you tweedle your mustache in joyous exaltation of your own brilliance.

Poor Diana Agron looks like she's about to crawl out of her skin. It's obvious she's not comfortable, which is a shame, because she's naturally beautiful and always looks flawless. But here, she looks like a camp counselor just asked her to unzip her pants slowly.

And Lea Michele, sweetheart, please don't try so hard. Seriously. We get it, you've shed your duckling awkwardness, but save the see-through panties for a pictorial done with class. Like, say, Playboy.

The worse part is that Cory Monteith is fully clothed. They could have had him prancing around in the full line of American

Posted by: Kayanne at October 20, 2010 11:37 AM

@virenda. Lea Michele is trying so hard it makes me just want to pat her head and tell her "it's okay, it's okay, you're decent looking."

And seriously isn't the whole sexy schoolgirl thing done.

Posted by: juicyjui at October 20, 2010 11:39 AM

(whoops, here's the rest of my comment)

Apparel underwear, but they don't. Why? Because he's a dude and therefor above objectification. Why show him shirtless when all it's really about is T'n'A?

Everything about that just feels squicky. You can do sexy and by all means should be allowed to, but the girls just look so... Not right that it's less sexy and more cringe-worthy.

Ugh. Terry Richardson makes such pervy photos I want to vomit. Is there any way he can stop getting work?

Posted by: Kayanne at October 20, 2010 11:40 AM

My problem with this is on the other end: GQ and their readers who give acceptability to the concept of a girl in a school uniform being the ultimate sex lure. If we accept that pedophilia is an illness (and I do), why on earth would we make it seem so acceptable to men who already are fighting the urge to act on their attraction?
I'm no prude (and Mr. PaddyDog has been know to read GQ) but the whole concept of "look, she's sexy because she's dressed like someone underage" makes me very uncomfortable.

Posted by: PaddyDog at October 20, 2010 11:43 AM

Don't worry, Dustin. Kayanne just has an upset stomach and can't figure out that one must sate their crushes as soon as humanely possible. She can't be helped.

Not that you're wrong, of course, Kayanne. I just can't get into FB at the moment...

Posted by: RobP at October 20, 2010 11:43 AM

They look like they're trying way too hard.

Compared to Rita Hayworth peeling off a glove, this is as sexy as...well, something that is not sexy at all.

Posted by: Simon at October 20, 2010 11:46 AM

And seriously isn't the whole sexy schoolgirl thing done.

Posted by: juicyjui at October 20, 2010 11:39 AM

Nope. I'm pretty sure it will never be done.

Posted by: Porkchop Express at October 20, 2010 12:00 PM

Errr, my 16 year old saw these on the local Fox affiliate this morning and damn near dropped his coffee.

Although, after last week's make-out session and Santana's delightful ass-shake, so what? Jeezus, watch those skeevy Housewives or Jersey Shite...infinitely worse.

I ALSO want some male-nekkidivity!!!!

Posted by: dammitjanet at October 20, 2010 12:00 PM

Lea Michele does have a rocking bod. I kinda knew that already, but now we have photographic proof. Glee is kinda naughty anyway, this shit doesn't bother me. The spread-legged thing is skeevy, but otherwise... meh. And yeah, the schoolgirl thing is beyond cliche. I wouldn't expect better from GQ, though, so ... meh again.

I am wondering, are these two the only ones who agreed to do a "pictorial," or are they the only ones who were asked? Because that Santana chick and the other blonde are also quite hot. And Mercedes has big boobs, I'm sure someone would like to see those.

And I would like to see a corresponding "hot young dudes of Glee" pictorial. Shirtless, preferably.

Posted by: Slash at October 20, 2010 12:26 PM

Taylor Momsen scantily clad = skeevy and gross.
Miley Cyrus scantily clad = skeevy and gross.
Lea Michelle scantily clad = ... hot.

I may be a perv, there is line. When Miley turns 18, I still don't want to see her naked. Lea Michelle has passed that zone, though. She, to me, looks like a woman in her early 20's playing a teenager.

the only problem I have with this photoshoot is Lea Michelle is getting too thin. Goddamn skinny bitches...

Posted by: logar at October 20, 2010 12:30 PM

I really really hate the airing-out-your-crotch pose. We get it Richardson. Lea has a vagina. And legs that spread! Now stop taking that picture so I can cease imagining a ferret crawling up there.

Posted by: Julie at October 20, 2010 12:30 PM

Distruaght and confused man has lost his left and right testes. Last seen along the 43rd parallel. Cash reward for the speedy and safe return of manhood.
Contact Dustin@anoctavehigher.com

Posted by: peanut at October 20, 2010 12:31 PM


GQ gets away with presenting yet another cliched, low-budget, drag-makeupped schoolgirl fantasy - and yet, NO ONE is objectifying Puck.

Conde Nast, I demand equal objectification! For liberty! For justice! For the love of hot sexy man meat! [cue "America, The Beautiful"...]

Posted by: Tammy at October 20, 2010 12:34 PM

You're so cute Dustin.

Posted by: anikitty at October 20, 2010 12:47 PM

A few things:

First, Gross, Gross, Gross, Gross.

Second, I'm with Kayanne.

Third, the double standard--fully dressed Finn, no Puck, total bullshit.

Fourth, anyone else get a vampire vibe from Lea Michelle in those pictures?

Posted by: tamatha at October 20, 2010 12:49 PM

I don't mind about the fully-dressed Finn; I don't care if he's 28, he looks like a fetus and the thought of objectifying him makes ME feel like PedoBear.

Posted by: Tammy at October 20, 2010 12:52 PM

Mmmmm...

Panties. Boobies. Unironic show choir.

Yep...still hetro!

Posted by: Green Lantern at October 20, 2010 1:04 PM

Lea Michele is Broadway pretty like Bernadette Peters or Sutton Foster. I guess what I'm trying to say is she is most assuredly not a traditional sex symbol and would be wise to carry herself like the nice little theater geek getting an unexpected trial run as a TV star. Does she really want to be a celebutard that badly?

Posted by: Robert at October 20, 2010 1:09 PM

Pedobear! I never thought I would hear anyone on this site use the work Pedobear. Goodtimes.

Posted by: Porkchop Express at October 20, 2010 1:25 PM

Bernadette Peters was hot.

This Lea Michele, uh, not even the Wonderland motif is gonna do it.

Posted by: Jackseppelin at October 20, 2010 1:29 PM

the girls don't look sexy, they look desperate. and it's magnified by the fact that cory not only has all his clothes on, he's completely covered except for his head and hands. the whole photo shoot makes me sad.

Posted by: carolyn at October 20, 2010 1:36 PM

So what you're saying is I should start watching this show?

Posted by: frobme at October 20, 2010 1:36 PM

If this is so objectionable, Dustin, why post the pics?

Particualrly when they are avaialble everywhere.

Mmm, the sweet, acrid stench of rank hypocrisy

Posted by: kingsize at October 20, 2010 1:37 PM

Ugh, Lea Michelle. You're a gorgeous, incredibly talented girl. You can sing and you can act. Stop crawling down to the lowest level possible because you have self-esteem issues where you should have none. You're embarrassing yourself.

Posted by: figgy at October 20, 2010 1:49 PM

I just don't get this need for different, extraordinary (and by that I just mean not ordinary) people to try and become just like everybody else.

Posted by: figgy at October 20, 2010 1:50 PM

Put me in for the "this looks awkward and weird and they look uncomfortable and this whole thing is just creepy" vote. I like a hot girl in lingerie as much as the next person, but only if they look like they want to be there. Lea looks... I don't even know, but I feel sorry for her, and Diana looks distinctly unhappy. I'm waiting for the "there are some times I've been in photoshoots and had to do things..." confessional interview

Posted by: Claire Allison at October 20, 2010 1:52 PM

I saw these photos on Tom&Lorenzo's blog and maybe it's because the pictures they put up are bigger, but everything just look sooo muck grosser there.

I think there are two things that give these photos such a "wait, WHAT?" vibe. The essence of the show and Lea Michele. Terry Richardon did a similar cover (for RS?) with the cast of Gossip Girl, where 20-somethings play teenagers, but when the main character of the show left town after the guy she was having a threesome and cocaine lines with overdosed, right after she had drunk sex with her best friend's boyfriend on a hotel bar (yes, I watched the first season) - well, photographing two actress licking the same ice cream cone isn't very far fetched or shocking.

And Lea Michele? Oy. I think she's beautiful, but man, does she try too hard. If they had put Naya Rivera (Santana) there, things would have been much better. Just because you're pretty does mean you can do OMG SEXY!!11! well.

Posted by: Holly at October 20, 2010 1:57 PM

*Terry Richardson, ugh.

Posted by: Holly at October 20, 2010 2:01 PM

Am I really the only person who doesn't care at all about this? They're grown women. Seriously, who gives a shit?

Posted by: superasente at October 20, 2010 2:12 PM

Lea Michele is completely overhyped, so I don't get the big deal.
/is 20
/feels 80

Posted by: ThatGuy at October 20, 2010 2:12 PM

One, someone needs to feed Lea Michelle. NOW. Golden Coral starts serving dinner at 4. Make her stay til closing.

Two, dull and boring really.

Three, I get tired of 25-30 yr olds playing high school kids. Enough already. I am sure that you can hire some high school aged kids,and turn them into more Lohans.

Posted by: Sean at October 20, 2010 2:16 PM

The brunette's mouth scares me. I am pretty sure she devours souls.

Posted by: brian at October 20, 2010 2:19 PM

aaaaand....it was shot by Terry Richardson, child molester. Of course it was.

Posted by: koj at October 20, 2010 2:23 PM

They are THROWING books in the air. Books are a treasured resource and I am completely appalled by this lack of decorum and I completely agree with you about this Dustin- wait, what?

Oh. I see. So you meant...yeah, my bad.

(Also, why are they wearing socks and heels? That's just stupid.)

Posted by: TWoP_Fan at October 20, 2010 2:24 PM

I'm with @ClaireAllison on this one. It's not the dead-eyed schoolgirl sucking on a lollipop thing cause, let's face it, the wheels have come off on the way to That Old Chestnut Road. It's not even that the girls are in their underwear and he's fully dressed.

There's just something weird and awkward about the whole shoot. Oddness.

Posted by: emotionalpedant at October 20, 2010 2:38 PM

As for the spread-leg shot, that just seems like the natural way to sit on that narrow little bench. The rest of the pics just seem like normal high-school antics, sans pants. What's the big deal?

Posted by: logar at October 20, 2010 2:41 PM

So doesn't LM keep blabbing about having 9 tattoos? Were 8 of them airbrushed out for this spread? Cause I seriously am starting to doubt that validity of her claim...

They both look like fame whores. Lea Michele needs to eat a hamburger and get some blue slushie thrown into her face to get her off her high horse...ugh...

I'd rather see Sue Sylvester surrounded by puppies.

Posted by: grace b at October 20, 2010 2:50 PM

Tamatha, I get more of a blow-up doll vibe.

Posted by: Patty O'Green at October 20, 2010 3:05 PM

Creepy, not sexy. She looks like this pinball game I used to play called "Funhouse"...where the goal was to shoot a ball into the open mouth...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kiwifrenzy_on_location/2479920274/in/photostream/

Posted by: TrickyHD at October 20, 2010 4:14 PM

Patty - You make a good point. But look at the pic where she's attempting to rip off her shirt. I'm telling you, serious vampire vibe.

Posted by: tamatha at October 20, 2010 4:15 PM

This will be my second "God, I'm old" posting of the week but when did women stop having hips? Both these girls go straight up and down. I bet you if you saw them from the back you'd be hard pressed to tell they were female. It's not just them. Hips seem to have disappeared completely from most actresses, female singers and female models these days. It's all big fake boobs and then straight down to their shoes. I don't get it.

Posted by: Abby at October 20, 2010 4:20 PM

All I could think about when I saw this is how that poor girl is going to get clonked on the head with that book. Poor thing.

Posted by: pxilated at October 20, 2010 4:50 PM

These photos are embarrassing.

But what annoys me the most is Lea Michele.
She acts like such a goddamn show pony all the time. Does her face really need to give the impression that she's being bonked from both sides in every photo?

Count me in among the people who think these photos are tacky and completely inappropriate.

Posted by: citizen_cris at October 20, 2010 4:57 PM

Nah, superasente. This whole thread is just embarrassing follow-the-leader bullshit. If Dustin had posted "look at these hot photos!" most of the people here would be parroting that too.

Posted by: hector at October 20, 2010 5:14 PM

The Leader is good, the Leader is great, we surrender our will as of this date!

Posted by: peanut at October 20, 2010 5:54 PM

An all gay magazine does a pictorial with the all gay cast of an all gay show and they decide to vamp some standard heterosexual imagery. Big deal, they're having a little fun at the expense of the breeders who don't get the joke. They were talking about scissoring on the show with the kids watching and I'm sure they'll get around to covering felching and rusty trombones before the season is over so it is not and never was a show for kids. Go look at the image from Rolling Stone of Chris Colfer looking about 11 surrounded by leather boys seeming like he's about to pull an ass rape train and then tell me that this is a show for kids. That image is far more disturbing than a couple of girls posing in far more than what they'll wear to the beach next vacation.

Posted by: OscarTamerz at October 20, 2010 6:31 PM

That's not Megan Fox?

Posted by: , at October 21, 2010 1:29 AM

Can someone please tell me the legal age of consent in the US?

There is nothing wrong with of-age women dressing up as 17 and 18 (revealing) schoolgirls should they want to.

I don't think it feeds into the sexualisation of children "phenomenon" considering it is a depiction of consenting young adults (at least the age is right in Australia, not sure about US) in the guise of their adult content, on-screen 17 to 18 year old characters. Uniforms notwithstanding, obviously.

Honestly, the photos are fu*king awful, but I don't get my knickers in a twist over them.

Posted by: Peter G at October 21, 2010 6:50 AM

Dianna Agron has posted a response to the outcry about this photo spread.

http://felldowntherabbithole.tumblr.com/post/1362746026

I now have more respect for her, she says three things I like-
1) Your kid shouldn't have a copy of GQ.
2) I'm a grown-up, I do what I want, I sometimes do things that turn out to be not the best idea ever.
3) I didn't love the way the shoot went.

Posted by: Abby-Wan Kenobi at October 21, 2010 8:35 AM

I always love how people "protest" pictures like this by SHOWING THEM TO MORE PEOPLE.

Sometimes I wonder about their sincerity....

Posted by: logan at October 21, 2010 8:40 AM

Possible Glee porn parody titles:
Gleek On Me
Girls Gone Glee
Cluster-Gleek
Two Girls, One Cup And Some Sheet Music
Gleek My Face

Posted by: Manny at October 21, 2010 10:19 AM

I guess the thing that seems, to me, to be creepy/weird about these photos is that they're so obvious. Place me firmly in the camp that prefers mystery and seduction in defining sex appeal, not "I'm going to spread my legs while sitting on a phallus. And lick this lollipop. Yum?"

I would like to see Terry Richardson castrated, though. This isn't really a rational thought, but I'm just throwing it out there.

Posted by: Amanda6 at October 21, 2010 8:46 PM

I looked at these photos and I thought, "I wonder who the photographer is... please not Terry fucking Richardson... please..."

*checks credit.

Of course it's Terry Richardson. Fuck.

/photography nerd comment.

Posted by: denesteak at October 21, 2010 9:22 PM

Just read your comment, Amanda6. I second that.

Posted by: denesteak at October 21, 2010 9:24 PM

Posted by: anitra at October 21, 2010 10:08 PM

Posted by: anitra at October 21, 2010 10:11 PM

Peter G,
There is no U.S. age of consent. Each state determines its own. The majority of states do set 18 as the limit.
I don't know why people keep using the word pedophilia in these contexts. Does anyone really think these women look like 10 year old girls?

Posted by: Pat C at October 22, 2010 2:10 AM

I absolutely agree with Hector and Superasente about this whole issue.

Had Dustin been wildly enthusiastic about these pics, there would have been an overwhelming positive response, with a sprinkling of haters.

I don't care AT ALL about this shoot. They're in their mid-20's for the love of jeebus. Let. It. Go. I'm annoyed to no end that the Parents' Association of the Blah Blah felt they needed to make an official media statement about their disgust.

I do agree that the girls are trying a little to hard to be sexy - you can actually see it in their faces - so it looks a bit awkward.

It's obvious at this point that Glee is NOT High School Musical. They are a different TV entity in itself. They've dealt with homosexuality, sex, promiscuity, virginity, grilled cheesuses and god knows what else they have in store. Personally, I love the show. I think the writing is brilliant and I love the topics they hit because the shows I watched were like Saved the the Bell, 90210, Silver Spoons, Different Strokes, etc. The most "risque" subject matter on those shows were like bulemia and blatant racism, homelessness or domestic violence. (I'm sure there are a few others, but you catch my drift.)

I'm glad Glee is stepping up and taking on topics that we all know are based in reality but are presented in a satire with some great song mashups and characters. I love this show.

They posed for a photo shoot in a MEN'S MAGAZINE. Not in Teen Beat or Seventeen. I'm sure the incidence of 15 or 16 years olds reading GQ is incredibly low, but thanks to the ridiculous media frenzy surrounding the photos, they're EVERYWHERE.

Posted by: Seriously at October 22, 2010 1:33 PM

I don't mind the face that they've posed for the magazine. As the article says, they're legal.

But it is pretty weird watching them pose so sexually as high school students! Are men supposed to be titillated by the Lolita getup? Creepy. Disturbing. And gross.

Lea Michelle, pose as yourself, in some ridiculously lingerie or at some high class party. But please take off the cheerleader outfits!

Wait. That sounded wrong...

Posted by: Spicy Cheeto at October 23, 2010 12:06 AM