Pedophilia or Just Porn?

[JBeukema]

Ms. Michele had one with her legs spread wide and it offered some reflection too. Of course, since she was wearing panties at the time, it wasn't technically porn.

And no. It's not pedophile-type material either. The actresses are not minors.

It is sexism and exploitative.

I hadda check twice to make sure.

The OP itself says they're in their 20's

 

[JBeukema]

I'm with you Madeline insofar as I think the photos are inappropriate. Glee is one of my favorite shows and aside from the "girl on girl action" last week, I think it's a great show for the whole family. These young ladies are not famous for their modeling skills. They are not even pretty. They are profiting from their fame on a family show and I see that as sleazy and opportunist.

As Spiderman says "With great power, comes great responsiblity". You can't tell me they need the cash.

Not even pretty? Someone needs to do a poll. I think you would find that about 99.0% of the men here would disagree with you.

she has no hips. might as well be a boy.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Three actresses, all in their 20's, who portray high school students on the television show "Glee" have done a highly sexualized photo shoot for GQ@ magazine that has parents in an uproar.

If these actress and the magazine had not been trading on the "Glee" story line, I'd have no problem. But given the images....yes, this is further pop culture sexualization of minor girls and it was over the line.

Shame on GQ@, these actresses and the "Glee" show for this series of photos.

What say you?


Parents Group Rips 'Pedophile' Glee Shots - 'They're old enough to do what they want,' says GQ editor

I've never seen the show, but it is obvious to me that this woman is not in High School.

 

[JBeukema]

this is trying too hard.

I second that

 

[zzzz]

I don't believe it is porn anymore than all the other suggestive pictures put out there musicians, and other actors. Just because they are underage girls on the show should not preclude them from other work.

Now the picture you have chosen to show is very suggestive with the sucker posed just outside of her lips and some may take this as porn. Others require nudity not suggestive poses.

I do have to say a woman that is dressed right can be very sexy. That and the pose they take ...

 

[Madeline]

SFC Ollie wrote:

I've never seen the show, but it is obvious to me that this woman is not in High School.

Point taken; she is not particularly youthful.

 

[Revere]

It's creepy. They are in character for those photos. Their characters are teenagers.

Not the first time Glee swerved into this. There was an episode with John Stamos as a dentist where there were anesthesia induced fantasies one group claimed were masturbation.

I think they know what they are pushing.

 

[Madeline]

syrenn wrote:

It is neither.

Do you know what porn is?
Do you know what pedophilia is?

Porn, no....nobody can define that I dun think.

Pedophilia, yes. I agree this is not that (an image of one person likely never could be).

But it makes me uncomfy because the magazine is directed at grown men and the image is reminiscent of a character on a popular tv show which is a HS age girl. Since (almost) everyone has disagreed with me, I am considering this POV creeping fussbudgetry and will attempt to address it in my next therapy session.....with Gunny.

*Laughs*

 

[JBeukema]

Pedophilia, yes. I agree this is not that (an image of one person likely never could be).

So, no, you don't know what paedophilia is..

 

[ABikerSailor]

If there's no penetration, then it's not porn, it's erotica.

If they're over the age of 18 (regardless of the character they play), it's not pedophilia.

Besides, doesn't Playboy and Penthouse do photo shoots of college age girls in locker rooms and hallways? They call their shoots "Girls of the Big 5" and shit like that.

Nope. No porn, just erotica that was badly thought out.

 

[Zander]

Porn?

Not even close.

Pedophilia?

Sorry, try again.

Sexy? Hell yeah!!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Bottom line is it survives. It supports itself while staying just shy of that arbitrary line that bounces through our social history, evolving into actual freedom.

Was it design or chance that 'sex' is a success?

 

[syrenn]

syrenn wrote:

It is neither.

Do you know what porn is?
Do you know what pedophilia is?

Porn, no....nobody can define that I dun think.

Pedophilia, yes. I agree this is not that (an image of one person likely never could be).

But it makes me uncomfy because the magazine is directed at grown men and the image is reminiscent of a character on a popular tv show which is a HS age girl. Since everyone has disagreed with me, I am considering this POV creeping fussbudgetry and will attempt to address it in my next therapy session.....with Gunny.

*Laughs*

Does she have clothes on or not?
Is she wearing LESS then a bikini?
Is it a child or an adult in that pic?
Is it an adult playing a teen in the pic?
Is it a child playing an teen in the pic?

 

[Samson]

I'm with you Madeline insofar as I think the photos are inappropriate. Glee is one of my favorite shows and aside from the "girl on girl action" last week, ........

Excuse me, what episode was that?

 

[Sheldon]

If there's no penetration, then it's not porn, it's erotica.

If they're over the age of 18 (regardless of the character they play), it's not pedophilia.

Besides, doesn't Playboy and Penthouse do photo shoots of college age girls in locker rooms and hallways? They call their shoots "Girls of the Big 5" and shit like that.

Nope. No porn, just erotica that was badly thought out.

I would consider a picture of a girl's nipple getting tongued to be porn, even though there's no penetration.



The pictures are obviously neither pedophilia nor porn.

 

[syrenn]

Now just for comparsion

Was this ad aimed at men or women? Which is worse?

 

[xotoxi]

Humm, seems as if I am becoming a tad fussbudgety. I really did think it was entirely inappropriate.....

But to get objections from the three of you, I have to assume I was 100% wrong-o on this issue.

isn't it against some usmb policy to admit you are 100% wrong so easily ??

It violates the ConHog Doctrine.

 

[syrenn]

 

[AVG-JOE]

Now just for comparsion

Was this ad aimed at men or women? Which is worse?

Men. Definitely men.

What the hell was the product being advertised...?​

 

[Sheldon]

Now just for comparsion

Was this ad aimed at men or women? Which is worse?

Men. Definitely men.

What the hell was the product being advertised...?​

As best as I could read the fine print, it's some kind of womens' fragrance that smells like a baby?