Terry Richardson+Glee+GQ=Creepfest

File it under Gross Yet Unsurprising: Terry Richardson, the "creepy uncle" of douchebags has taken yet another misogynistic and off-putting set of photos of the cast of a teen show! Behold his treatment of Glee:

The male gaze? Why yes, we've heard of it. Why do you ask?

OK, so while we obviously aren't exactly shocked that this member of the Creeper Hall of Fame delivered a series of sexist images (and we all know that Glee has its fair share of problems as well) this photo shoot still rubs me the wrooong way.

Pornography-inspired images of young women who play teenagers on TV published in an adult men's magazine? Check.

A man being shown as strong, fully-clothed, and action-oriented while women fawn all over him, half-dressed, in canting positions meant to signify their "sexy" weakness? Check.

Further evidence of this:

One of these things is not like the others.

So yeah. This is not surprising in the least, but it still irks me. What do you think?

by Kelsey Wallace
View profile »

Kelsey Wallace is an editor in Portland, Oregon. Follow her on Twitter if you like TV and pictures of dogs.

Get Bitch Media's top 9 reads of the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning! Sign up for the Weekly Reader:

46 Comments Have Been Posted

I think it's stupid the

I think it's stupid the female cast members agreed to be portrayed that way.

Not surprising and not cool

Also stupid that Cory Monteith...

These actually really

These actually really disgusted me. Its so overtly sexualised its ridiculous. I'm surprised the producers of Glee allowed it.

They are also, from a technical viewpoint, not even good photos. Lea Michele looks so awkward sitting there in her knickers with her legs splayed and the really do remind me of bad amateur wife photos...



There's stylized uncertainty/awkwardness and then there's "my face looks like this because Uncle Creepy spent the entire shoot looking at my crotch."

Like most of Terry's shoots there is a roughness to these pictures; the clothes are off, the hair is off, the posing is off. While that looseness may work for less elaborate images something as trope-hugging as these comes off as just poorly planned or rushed. These flat out aren't pretty and even with all the skin they aren't really eye-catching either. A sad effort from a sad man.

Its Terry Richardson dude

Seeing a crotch shot of

Seeing a crotch shot of Rachel like that just makes me sad :(

"Pornography-inspired images of young women who play <b>teenagers</b> on TV published in an adult men's magazine? Check."

That's where this feels so wrong to me. As I'm sure it does to many other people.

Yep, pretty darn trashy but

Yep, pretty darn trashy but he's freakin hot, can you blame them? Girls shouldn't be portrayed as children for all the pedophiles out there though. Uck

Gross. And it's sad that any


And it's sad that any celebrities would agree to work with Richardson after everything that has transpired in that horrible man's career.


It would be one thing if the stars of Glee had decided to appear as "themselves" for the photoshoot, but to appear in a highschool setting is another thing.

It's a men's magazine, so of course the shots would be evocative but this is straight up porn, especially the one with Lea Michele on the bench with her legs spread.

re: Straight UP porn

Straight up porn? I must have missed the nudity and penetration shots. They are dressed ridiculously on a high school set...but their show is set in high school right? And if you think this is the first time high school characters have been sexualized you are crazy. At least this show is aimed at an older crowd, what about Miley Cyrus? The show sexualizes their characters, what is a photo shoot about the show in a men's magazine going to do? Ask them their favorite color and profile their humanitarian missions? They are young actors who got their jobs because of their looks....what did you expect? I think people are picking and choosing what to be offended by, this website has links advertising adult sex toys...yet we are shocked when 20 something year old celebrities who become famous for their good looks pose scantily clad in a magazine that isn't for children....

As it has been said many a

As it has been said many a time, I don't think the sexuality is what people, myself included, find offensive, it's the way Richardson treats his female sitters as opposed to his male sitters. There's a clear discrepancy in the way the men and the women are portrayed. The scantily-clad women in submissive poses goes beyond just a photo of a nice-looking woman looking nice, it becomes, particularly when contrasted with the fully-clothed man in a dominant pose, a misogynistic statement. I think they even go beyond camp. If they were all posed and clothed equally (whether all fully dressed or all scantily clad), I don't think there would be such an uproar. The advertisements for sex toys on this site are entirely different--there are little to no human forms, just text and a cartoon cat. No one is being objectified by these ads, and no overt sex is shown. I do agree with you that teenagers have routinely been over-sexualized for an adult audience, and I don't think the shots qualify as "porn." I do, however, take issue with Richardson's (one-note) approach to photography and women.

This is not Glee-ful at all.

yea, this makes me sad. I, too, am surprised that these young actors posed for this. Boooo. And I agree with earlier posters that the photographic quality is just awful. Bad choice guys.


The photos of Lea Michele are

The photos of Lea Michele are especially creeping me out. I guess she doesn't want to just be seen as her annoying, innocent character on a TV show but...seriously?
Also the whole concept of this shoot is just straight up creepy. The school theme is weird. Yeah, I know Glee takes place in a high school and all but...come on, now.

oh boy...

...this is one of those tricky areas for me. For one, I do feel creepy looking at these pictures. I'm sure there are those who'll get their rocks off to this but that's beside the point. However, the whole thing strikes me as incredibly ridiculous to the point of self-parody. Like how we have actresses playing characters younger than they actually are (gee, sounds familiar) placed in extremely sexual and obviously sexist situations.

I actually do feel uncomfortable looking at richardson's stuff but that's what interests me about him.

I want to clarify what I

I want to clarify what I wrote by saying that the photos are comparing the show to porn (women playing younger characters, particularly high schoolers, etc) and in doing so, it's saying the show (or maybe the plot involving these characters) is a type of male fantasy, just like porn. I haven't actually watched glee due to getting turned off after the first two episodes so I don't know any of the details but this is just the impression I get from the pictures.

Of course, it is possible that they're just intended to be wank fodder but since when has intent ever mattered?

What I really wish is that

What I really wish is that the men to whom GQ is trying to market this schlock would realize how insulting it is to THEM (the insult to women is too obvious to go into). It says, in effect, that men cannot see women as anything but brainless, infantalized sex objects, that men have no interest in anything beyond a woman's body, and that showing some sexed up starlets is enough to get them to watch a TV show they've otherwise ignored -- that they can be led into anything by the balls.

As for the actors in the shoot, I can only think "Hey, way to reinforce the paradigm that talent gets a woman nowhere, it's all about her tits and ass. Thanks, guys!"

You know, it's funny, I was

You know, it's funny, I was wondering when Terry Richardson would rear his ugly head (either one) again.

Yee...ah. I'm not surprised by these at all. And I agree with the above comment--he's really not a talented photographer, just banking off the visual fad spurred on by over-exposed amateur shots featured on Facebook for that whole "real life" look. Gag. Can someone stop him already? Please? He needs to be stopped.

Wait, why!?

Why!? Why is this man still getting work? I wish I knew what I could do to somehow organize a mass push fueled by anger and distaste to have a man who has been repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct (coercion, harassment, mistreatment of minors, etc) to face some manner of accountability for his behavior. Every time I see a photo shoot by Uncle Creepy, I can't help but wonder if he stripped down and waggled his dong in some model's face -- and I can't even start on the world of gross infantilization, fantasy fulfillment and rampant sexism that he frolics in. Though its pretty common place in the fashion industry, it still makes me frown so. hard.

To summarize:


and because ...

... these cast members are actually in their mid-twenties they will likely survive this debacle ... and Richardson will keep shooting as he damn well pleases ...

Doesn't it feel good to side with the d-bags that are, in their own right, the right-leaning Parents' TV Council on this matter? I never thought I'd see the day when you would ...

I can't believe the cast

I can't believe the cast members agreed to this shoot. I'm not a fan of Glee because it's just not my thing, but now I'll be sure not to tune in. So many young people watch this show, and a good number of them will know about this shoot and think about it every time they watch. Great role modeling, Glee cast! *the sarcasm train has arrived.*

oh, dear

Thanks for the link! Though I guess it's half apology to save face and half 'it's not my fault if you're offended'.

Oh, and this gem:

<cite>Had she been allowed to appear in her ideal photo shoot, Ms. Agron wrote, “I’d be in a tree house, in a wild costume, war paint and I’d be playing with my pet dragon.”</cite>

Somebody's been at a ke$ha show lately?

Who will think of the children...I mean adults?!

The idea the any adult should have to apologize for being portrayed as a sexual creature is ludicrous. These actors are all 20-something people who have every right to be portrayed in a manner they see fit, they're adults. Judging them for it seems disingenuous at best as judgment is a two-way street. Should we judge you on the sexual imagery you like or agree to be a party to?

If anyone actually watched the show they'd notice that one of the main themes is that they portray the "children" as adults and adults as "children." This photo shoot plays into that theme nicely.

I have to agree with a previous poster and point out that you all sound like the right-wing sex police. Bitch Magazine indeed.

Well, not exactly.

Hi Anonymous,

I am not, nor do I wish to be, a part of the right-wing sex police (can you imagine what those uniforms must be like?). My arguments against these particular photos come from a feminist perspective, not a "save the children" perspective. While I think that from a PR standpoint the folks on <i>Glee</i> should have thought twice about this photo shoot (since a lot of kids do watch the show and, hello, their parents might not like these sexy pics), my particular beef with these shots is that they represent a disturbing male gaze—made all the more disturbing because it was created by the ever-creepy Terry Richardson. As I pointed out above, I am put off by the ways in which the women in the shots are portrayed in relation to the man because I find them to be sexist.

To your point about this photo shoot representing the themes of <i>Glee</i> itself, I have to disagree. Yes the show plays with adult themes, but the notion of teenage girls spreading their legs in the locker room for the purpose of pleasing adult men has not been one of them (and let's hope it doesn't become one).

In all honesty I do not know

In all honesty I do not know what "disturbing male gaze" you're referring to. Is there a disturbing female or non-disturbing male version you could source so that the juxtaposition might clear it up for me?

There's no doubt that Terry is kind of a creepy guy but his photos are hot sex on a stick. I also know plenty of queer and/or near-queer women who find his photos to be just as titillating as any man so the idea that you speak to the feminist cause is just silly. You're speaking to your own aesthetic preferences...nothing more.

You also say that your comment is not about the "children" but then two sentences later you say you're advocating for protecting children and their parents from seeing sexual images. I saw plenty of sexual images growing up (so did all my friends, and their friends, as it's a normal thing to do when discovering one's sexuality) and we're all fine thank you. No protection needed.

You say you find the images to be sexist but it seems that the man in the image is being manipulated by the women in most cases. That's a sub-plot to the show of you'll recall.

What's wrong with a woman showing off her crotch in panties? Isn't that what a strong woman who's not afraid of her vagina does? Isn't a straight woman in a locker room invariably going to be spreading her legs for men? What do you have against strong teenage girls who are comfortable with their sexuality? Isn't that like a goal of feminism?

So...when all is said and done...you're trying to associate your distaste for Terry Richardson with "feminism" when really you just don't like his work. So just be honest about it and stop "wrapping yourself in the flag" like the tea party sex police do.

Yikes! "What's wrong with a woman showing off her crotch...."

What is wrong is that this is a mens magazine and the imagery is meant to be provocative. It is meant to get a sexual rise out of the viewer and it is objectifying the women posing in them, reducing them to sex objects and proving that their only worth is how sexually appealing they are. That is what's wrong. Nevermind the fact that they are actors, or singers, let's just take their clothes off and show everyone their vaginas!!! The guy is completely clothed....do you think that these images represent a fair or balanced representation of sexuality? Furthermore, these people do represent role models for the viewers of Glee...a TV series that targets a young audience and takes place in a high school scenario. I am all for youth growing up in a sexually positive space, where sex is talked about and is embraced but this imagery does not represent healthy sexual mutuality.

If you also look at the "sub plot" of the show where men are being manipulated by women...that is not a position of power given to women...that is not doing women a favor. It demonizes women and presents the very archaic idea that women control men through sex.

"We're all fine thank you." ....are WE really ALL fine? We live in a world where popular culture and media repeatedly celebrates damaging ideals and behaviors. If we were ALL fine, I think this discussion wouldn't even be happening. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but to look at this matter is such a closed minded way is ridiculous. A healthy representation of sex is wonderful, but these images do not promote that, especially because these actors core audience are so young.

Wow. How can you be so

Wow. How can you be so condescending and judgmental with your opinions?

<blockquote>"What is wrong is that this is a mens magazine and the imagery is meant to be provocative."</blockquote>

Isn't this a women's magazine site that pushes <a href="http://bitchmagazine.org/post/smart-hungry-eyeballs-buzz">provocative images</a> and prose (the magazine is called Bitch for instance) to it's viewers to increase ad revenues? So it's OK that you do it but a men's magazine can't? That position seems to lack in mutuality.

<blockquote>"It is meant to get a sexual rise out of the viewer and it is objectifying the women posing in them, reducing them to sex objects and proving that their only worth is how sexually appealing they are."</blockquote>

That is what <i>YOU</i> get out of it. Your problem is that you assume that's all that others are getting out of it. Maybe you need to examine why you objectify these women instead of seeing their strength as willingness to take risks with their sexuality. There's also a strong cultural subtext to the images that you might see if you were more open-minded to Terry Richardson's artistic expression.

<blockquote>I am all for youth growing up in a sexually positive space, where sex is talked about and is embraced but this imagery does not represent healthy sexual mutuality. </blockquote>

Are you the sexual mutuality god that sits atop a mountain dictating what is and isn't proper sexual behavior? Isn't that what right-wingers do?

<blockquote>If you also look at the "sub plot" of the show where men are being manipulated by women...that is not a position of power given to women...that is not doing women a favor. It demonizes women and presents the very archaic idea that women control men through sex. </blockquote>

Do you honestly think that many women (especially teenagers) don't try to control men with sex and the lure of sexual contact? I witnessed a teenage girl try to manipulate her own father with sexual subtexts at a family event just last week. I'm not judging it, I think it's normal behavior. It is you who vilify your fellow women by not accepting what's common to your nature.

I could go on and point out more blatant hypocrisy in these responses but it won't change anyone's mind and I don't like feeling like a troll.

In all honesty I used to think Bitch magazine was cool until a few hours ago. Now I see it's just another outpost for advocating control over other people and culture under the guise of feminism. You should be ashamed for acting so contrary to your stated beliefs.

I think I'm now going to refer to this site's community as the "She-Party".

Um, whoa...

Okay, I can see that you disagree with those who have felt a need to post about these images (though it wouldn't be fair to automatically assume that a few comments speak for a whole website. That's a bit of an overreaction don't you think?) But you're pretty much doing exactly what you're accusing your comment conversation partner of in this response -- being condescending, and judgmental. If you feel you have a dissenting voice, that's fine, but your tone is anything but non-judgmental of those who don't share your opinion.

Fine, you don't think the photo shoot is problematic. Fine, you like Terry Richardson. However, others may not and you are addressing them in a pretty hostile manner over a difference in opinion.

Just because someone feels more strongly about something than you do doesn't mean their feelings are any less valid. And while the glibness of some comments may have seemed unreasonable to you, if you would have couched your response in a less confrontational and reactionary way then maybe you would be having a meaningful discussion about the nature of sexual empowerment through the use of erotica rather than getting your back up.

I'm not trying to attack you or offend you, just seeing some anger that could be avoided (in both camps).

Final Thought

I will admit that I am overreacting when it comes to generalizations I wrote about the community. It was not fair to paint with such a broad brush. I apologize.

That being said I'm sure you can see that I'm far from grasping at straws either. There's a lot of unsubstantiated conjecture, hypocrisy and "groupthink" in this post and the message boards here that seem to run contrary to your stated goal.

I also never made an ad hominem attack or a direct judgment on any community member in my comments. I asked questions about statements that seemed to conflict and pointed out how other people's generalizations ran contrary to my own opinion or what I have found when it comes to human nature. I'm not advocating for any "shoulds" like many of the other commentators.

If you read the thread over you will also notice that nobody actually addressed the issues I raised and instead told me that it's my fault nobody's responding with substance because I was unapologetic in my disagreement. Well that's kind of how disagreeing works.

My initial statement that most of the commentators just don't like the photos but wrap it up in feminism still stands. They're just some photos of sexy adults doing sexy things with a sexy photographer. Intellectualizing human nature is fun but it rarely leads one to a deeper understanding of people...it usually does the opposite.

So, in closing, if you'd like me to return and comment on posts that will go against the grain please let me know. I will even sign up with a verified user name.

If you'd like me to never return to the boards, silence will seal the deal.

Cheers Bitch(s)!

I wouldn't necessarily

I wouldn't necessarily constitute people sharing a similar distaste for something as group think, but I suppose it could be to some degree. As other have said, as this is a website that is a safe space for feminists and feminist thought, Richardson often is received as problematic if not only because of his own personal sexual misconduct during shoots, but for the way many of his pictures could be considered exploitative of female sexuality. Of course, there is merit in women embracing their own bodies and own sexual power; however, these particular images do have the unfortunate vein of mostly undressed women and fully dressed men. Further, there is a fetishization of the High School girl (and in degrees, the infantilization of older women through their roles in a show about high school, and the use of props like lollipops) which may have been intended as camp, but decoding authorial intent is only half the process of consuming imagery. Richardson's Campy style may be, in fact, further contributing to objectification and producing imagery that is counter intuitive to his original intent (if his intent is to subvert, it may come off as simply playing into sexist tropes.) Of course, the photographer's goal is to achieve art and the way an audience reads their art is usually not under their control; but one has to ask whether or not something that can be so obviously miscoded is appropriate (which he might not care about, but some feminists might) or if the images only serve as damaging - particularly in the fetishization of high school aged girls.

But that ramble about the images aside, you may not have outright made attacks of the character of others, but your final statements in the previous comment could be considered an insult to some, if only because it made the link between people who found the images problematic with people in the Tea Party. Which isn't necessarily fair. Shoulds are problematic of course, but inferring people who are offended or agree with the author, no matter how glib they may have been, are bad feminists, or wrapping their dislike of the photographer in their feminism (I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive) is also problematic and pushes disagreement into argument. And rather than appearing as a dissenting voice, it comes across as hostile.

*shrugs* I personally don't have any problem with you, and even understand and partly agree with some of your statements. I just think both sides are fair, and disagreement in either vein doesn't necessitate a groupthink or sheep mentality.

fundamentally speaking

It seems, Anonymous, like you're misunderstanding what Bitch is about. This blog, as are all things BitchMedia-related, is a feminist response to pop culture. Feminism is a movement, and a hugely varied one at that. People have individual views, of course, but there are some threads that seem to connect most of us. One of those is blatant sexism and objectification of women. It's definitely not JUST the author of this post, or any ONE of the responders to it, that look out for hyper-sexualized images of women, and are sensitive to them/offended by them.
For this specific example, the sexism is inherent if for no other reason than that the girls are undressed and come-hither, and the boy is fully clothed and laughing and grinning- not really playing in to any kind of obviously sexualized message to the viewer. If it's sexy, it's because he's good-looking, not because most of his clothes are off and his reproductive organs are on display. And I think the clincher here as to why this isn't a healthy sexual representation is that it's the vision of the (male) photographer. It wasn't the actresses' decision to take pictures of their vaginas. They have made no statements before or since or EVER that they are interested in taking pictures and creating media that are pro-sex, or pro-feminist, or pro-girl power at all.
Bitch is not trying to control anyone, ever. We (humans, not feminists in particular) are given cultural stimuli constantly, and we (Bitch staffers and lovers) analyze what we can and share it, so there are at LEAST two lanes on the information highway. No message is entirely neutral, particularly in advertising, especially when clothes come off. We like to remind our readers of that.

Hey, Anonymous

Um, I'm really sorry you have so many issues with women, and that you have to make yourself feel better by transparent blame-shifting and digging into all those nice, archaic "women's behaviors" statements, about what's "common to our nature." I guess you think we can't do math, either? I'm also sorry that you take a singular point of view as some kind of personal attack. As I told a reader below, you might also want to look into Terry Richardson's history of sexual misconduct on the job--although I suppose you'd think that making an underage model touch your penis and then ejaculating on her is some kind of brave and brilliant artistic statement.

"Isn't a straight woman in a locker room. . ."

<cite>"Isn't a straight woman in a locker room invariably going to be spreading her legs for men?"</cite>

This seems better as a sarcastic parody than a true question—more a reason why this photo shoot is pretty wrong!

Teacher/student, and the bio question

I found that question outrageous and offensive, to be sure. I would assume that a straight woman in a locker room could be, you know, <i>changing to play sports.</i>

To the Richardson fan who says we shouldn't bring up his personal life: I agree that it's possible to enjoy art by someone we think is actually a creep, but I don't think that's the only issue here. Even just as photos, I think these are disturbing for the same reasons Kelsey, Owl, etc. have outlined: the way the Dianna and Lea are wrapped around Cory while he gropes them, the contrast in coverage. Also, not only are the ladies dressed as stereotypical porno schoolgirls; one of Cory's outfit resembles that of <i>a teacher</i> (almost identical to the typical clothes of the show's main teacher,) positing him in an automatically dominant position over them, to say nothing of the grown-man-seducing-teenagers fantasy it implies. The infantalism doesn't even make sense as an "exaggeration of their characters," given that on the show all three are the same age. The problem is not that the photos are suggestive, and it exists with or without back knowledge of Terry.


Very very inappropriate. I think it's really sad that these actors thought it would be good PR to do something like this; I am very disappointed.


I don´t get it. They are young attractive people showing it off in a fun way. Why are you all so bitter?

Well, if you'd bother to read

Well, if you'd bother to read the article and the responses, you'd see that the only people "showing it off" are the females. The males are all fully dressed and not posed in sexually provocative or submissive positions. If all parties were represented in the same way, the photo shoot would not be so offensive and would not reek so much of misogyny, but there is a clear differentiation in the roles of the male and the female sitters, with the males being in dominant positions and the females serving as accessories. If you're still wondering why Terry Richardson is so disgusting, I recommend you do some background research on him and his history of sexual misconduct with models, including underage ones.

Not that what richardson is

Not that what richardson is like matters anyways. If you believe the pictures are sexist, you should be able back up your position without bringing up any details on the photographer.

Yeah, because what does a

Yeah, because what does a photographer have to do with /anything/ about photos? It's weird how people are so quick to shift blame to the people involved in the pictures but never the ones behind them. Yeah, weird. Do you even read what you type? Also, notice that you didn't refute anything that was actually said. Where's the back-up to your position, on how it's supposedly /not/ sexist? (And has a creepy pedophilia vibe due to the actors playing /teenagers/ and all. I guess it's awesome to see we're still sexualizing the idea of underage girls and making excuses for it!)

Yes, I'm calling for complete

Yes, I'm calling for complete death of the author. Isn't postmodernism screwy? I hate to bring up polanski, since he's everyone's favorite whipping boy but a good example. His rape case has nothing to do with my enjoyment of his films.

My opinion of the pictures is that it's a comment on sexism and the sexualization of teens, not an example though the two are often hard to distinguish. Like I said...

"the photos are comparing the show to porn (women playing younger characters, particularly high schoolers, etc) and in doing so, it's saying the show (or maybe the plot involving these characters) is a type of male fantasy, just like porn."

Terry Hatred...

Terry Richardson is on most of these ladies hate-list and despite the fact that he's quite a good photographer they refuse to see this work as art because they disagree with his life-choices.

The objectifying women stuff is all bluster because objectifying subject matter is the <b>DEFINITION OF PHOTOGRAPHY</b>.

I disagree, obviously.

Hi Anonymous,

Clearly, I disagree with you here. Not only do I not consider Terry Richardson to be a good photographer (the work of his that I've seen is derivative at best) but his personal history of sexual harassment on the job makes his work that much more off-putting to me. I don't think that an artist should ever be completely divorced from what s/he produces, nor do I believe that objectification is the definition of photography. We can agree to disagree, of course, but I have to tell you that you'll never convince me that "the objectifying women stuff is all bluster." I guess one person's bluster is another person's blatant sexism in this case.


...the definition of photography is "the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a radiation-sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor." Objectification is something that can happen as a result of the photographer's (or, for that matter, the painter's, or the sculptor's or the director's) artistic or aesthetic choices. Clearly there's much left to personal interpretation when it comes to who is or is not objectified (is the Mona Lisa objectified? I have no idea), but Richardson's photos follow a clear pattern of misogynist imagery--and not just this collection. His earlier work shows the same (redundant) themes. And no, the photos are not terribly good or groundbreaking in the artistic sense. They are derivative, they show no evidence of artistic evolution, and all they seem to do is to bludgeon us with images of Richardson's "life-choices."


I don't understand why people keep promoting underage girls as sex-meat. The difference between how they treated the sexes in this photo shoot is blatant. I'm disappointed that the cast agreed to this, like others have said. Especially the brunette who plays a somewhat repressed role on screen--reminds me very much of porn plots: "In public, she's practically a nun...in the bedroom, she'll rock your world" type of thing.
Extremely disappointed.

Glee Q

Well, it is the darling of public opinion of late and can afford to stir things up a bit, so why not basically shoot the cast as would-be American Apparel models and fuel the pre-holiday consumption fest? Yep. Business as usual.

Hustler comes to mind

Several shots of "The Brunette" look like they came straight out of Hustler magazine. Particularly the crotch shot of her in between the rows of lockers.
Shoving her tits out with the push-up bra pretending to be a High-school girl. Basically it is a "classed-up" version of a Hustler spread.
So all kinds of people will find it "shocking" to look at. The mere skin and flesh is not the so-called "shocking" thing we see here. We all see starlets stripped all the time now, whether it is reality stars like Kardashian, Heidi Spencer etc.. or even "serious" actresses like a Zoe Saldana and a Rosario Dawson. ( Follow the Entertainment section of the Huffington Post to see what I mean. It's similar to the British Tabloid that has the "page 6" girl every day, but X10)
What makes these particular photos stand out is the lack of subtlety; the "in-your-face-ness" of Hustler-esque style and positioning of the women, their faces, their clothing, their facial gestures mannerisms, the undressed women contrasted to the fully clothed male and this all adds up to the forthrightness of sexualizing High School under-age girls. They are not trying to hide it, they are "celebrating it."

(And no I am not talking about the fact that the actresses are 24 years old, I know that)

I think it is a calculated move on the part of GQ and Richardson to be "provocative" and "edgy" by broaching this forbidden territory of the High school girl fetish.
( And I must add the lolli-pop prop is referencing much younger than HS girl-ness.)

To me it brings up the fact that a discussion needs to take place about: Is this all OK? Why or why not?

Jery Shore PhotoShoot

Have you seen "Uncle Terry's" photoshoot with Bar Rafeli and the boys from Jersey Shore. Same thing...half naked woman subservient to a dominant man and apparently loving it.

The main problem for me is that this is as far as he goes with famous people...and this is pretty far. Look at how far he goes with naive young models who want to impress the big photographer.

He says that everything that happens on a shoot is organic and evolves naturally. What about those those models who are asked to give Uncle Terry a hand job in the middle of a photo shoot. What do you think would happen is he rang an agent to book a model and said "Look, I want her to let me come on her face" before the shoot, or said to the model BEFORE she signed the release form..."In this shoot, you'll be giving me a blow job".

It's an insult that he shot a show like Glee. The guy basically in prostitution, not modelling, and it's horrendous that he's being let lose on the general public.

Add new comment