Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
The latest issue of GQ has some highly sexualized photos of select members of the Glee cast.
Namely, the white, straight ones.
I'd say they've created a new public controversy but really it's the same old argument about
whether images of sexualized women is acceptable or not.
The reason this photoshoot is different from the thousands of photos of half naked women that
grace the pages of men's magazines is that it's crossing the line into simulating pornographic
***. Frankly, I'm really sad that there is even a debate as to whether these images
are disturbing or not. The Parent's Television Council released a statement against the
photoshoot saying, "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 ***."
In response GQ released this statement, "The Parent's Television Council must not be watching
much TV these days and should really learn to divide reality from fantasy. As often happens in
Hollywood these 'kids' are in their twenties, Cory Montieth's almost 30! I think they are
old enough to do what they want."
First of all GQ, it doesn't matter what age the actors are they are known for their portrayal
of high school students on a very popular television show.
This photoshoot is specifically representing fictional TV characters in a high school setting.
This photoshoot is no different from the countless pornographic style images that infantalize
adult women and fetishize young girls.
How many times do we see in the mass media women dressed up as young girls with lollipops
and catholic school girl outfits just so straight men can live out some disturbing dominator fantasy
about corrupting innocence.
GQ isn't kidding anyone, they were absolutely clear on what the spread was and who
their audience is and the fact that people are actually defending it just goes to show
how desensitized we've become as a society to the widespread, pervasive sexualization
of young girls. It's important to remember the GQ is a business
whose sole desire is to make a profit in selling magazines and more importantly in
selling the ad space inside their magazines.
They know that these images will appeal to their male audience, they know that it will cause
a controversy, and they don't care nor do they take any responsibility for promoting and
encouraging images of sexualized young people, and they don't care about the larger
social impact that that has. Secondly, what is this ridiculous nonsense about 'fantasy vs reality'?
That is really a stretch GQ, it's a television show about high school students that millions of
people watch every week and you've taken those characters and turned it into a male pornographic
fantasy. This isn't an issue about if an 8 year old picks up a magazine and sees it, this is a public
health issue about the way that women are sexualized constantly in the media.
By help of the media young men and boys are being trained to view and expect certain
behaviours from women such as the willingness to submit to their *** desires at anytime or
any place and the right to complete access of a woman's body.
The pervasiveness of these types of images clearly harms women and women's sense of
self respect but it also hurts men and boys because they are being taught to have no sense
of *** integrity or empathy, and that women's bodies are something to be used sexually
that they aren't whole and complete human beings.
The less schools are teaching *** education the more the media becomes a critical tool
that helps shape gender identities and that can really hurt both genders capacity for love
and healthy *** relationships in the future.
It is not enough to talk to women and girls one on one, it has to be addressed as a widespread
problem that affects both men and women. A key component of addressing this issue is a
separation of Sexualization and Sexuality. Sexualization turns people into objects
and teaches women that their only values comes from their *** appeal.
Sexuality is the capacity to have and express *** desires and emotions and that should be
harnessed and encouraged and explored in all sorts of health, positive ways.
Often it's the anti-everything religious right that criticizes and dictates the terms of how we
talk about what is and isn't acceptable in the media. Progressives and feminists need
to actively reframe the message to be about the equity and equality of women as whole fully
realized human beings and not about the patriarchal teachings of some old religious book.
Many people do not criticize the sexualized images of women in the media being
debased and dehumanized because they fear being slapped with the totally useless
and ambiguous term anti-sex. It was a term that was created during the feminist
*** debate in the 80's to create a false dichotomy that feminists who were against
*** were actually against sex altogether.
I'm not necessarily against *** or *** video or images of people engaging in healthy ***
experiences and lives, but I am against the patriarchal objectification and sexualization
of women. So next time you see images of half naked women in movies or magazines or
advertising, ask yourself what you are really looking at. Is it a healthy full and complete
human being being represented? Or a woman who is nothing more then a *** object?