« Fathers Are Not Optional | Main | The New Abuse Frontier »

November 03, 2010


A Man

"society's fascination with child porn"?

Really? What society is that? The one I live in seems to be very clearly of the opinion that child porn is rather bad. Just so that we're clear, you're talking about child pornography. Kids. People with no secondary sexual characteristics.
Because the leap from a couple of twenty-something women dressed as schoolgirls in a photo shoot to a society fascinated with kiddie porn seems a tad hysterical. You could've just said.

"Why is this condoned and does it contribute to society's sexualization of our teens?

Don't you think? If you're going to point your finger at everyone at least accuse us of something we're actually guilty of.

Regardless, it's a provocative photoshoot by one of the most provocative photographers working today and it did what it's supposed to do. No matter whether you love it or hate it, you're talking about it, which is the whole point.


Yeah, those are definitely women in their 20's. Dressed in a school girl style yes, but that fetish/fantasy has more to do with general youth/fertility. Also some of it has to do with the whole repression/good-girl-gone-bad thing you get if you make it a catholic school girl. Remember, if you make something bad or forbidden, you make it all the more tempting.

I agree that the sexualization of (everything) teens is a problem. And I'm not all that fond of this photo shoot. ( I found it a bit cliche, and honestly, the guy should have been half naked too, but it's a mens magazine, and that would be "gay". Oh. and Terry Richardsons a word that I feel no problem saying, but would not be appropriate for this site) But this isn't child porn, and should not be used in the same sentence as child porn. There is a big difference between looking at a 23 year old "dressed" like a 17 year old and looking at a 10 year old. We're not going to get anywhere with combating the sexualization of teenagers, if anything sexualized is lumped in with child porn.


I find all of Glee to be rather porny and creepy (recently showed two high school girls making out in bed). I think the show itself--not just this shoot--definitely contributes to a fascination with sexualizing the under-age because that is who these actors are playing. No one is saying it IS child porn but it contributes to the problem. Good point, Cady.

Cady Driver

I find that the sexualization of our teens and preteens is a form of soft child porn and a culture that condones or excuses adult women who try to act or dress like sexy children also has a problem.

Everyone excuses these stars and magazines and photographers by saying that they're "adults and just having fun"....well, I ask, where does the fun end and where does the responsibility start? The bar gets lower and lower and we sink deeper and deeper into the mire. Who will stand up and say enough is enough?

When adult stars who act in a show where they are portraying teens and whose audience is mainly young people....when they dress and act that way, our young people justify that behavior and mirror it in their own lives to their own detriment?

Why don't more people take a stand for this and say it like it is? This is a problem in our society. Our young people are heading down a dangerous path and the adults all sit back and say, "Oh, kids will be kids...here's a condom, here's a camera, here's unlimited internet access."

Children are mimicking these stars, posting pictures of themselves online....videos of themselves! It is downright scary and alarming to see the degree of degradation that our culture is wallowing in.

I wasn't saying that this particular shoot is child porn. I was saying that when women take what is innocent and twist it in a sexual way, it encourages the culture to look at children in a different light and to excuse away sexualizing our children. Can't anybody see that?

A Man

I don't get the hate for Glee. It deals with homosexuality, tolerance, teenage sexuality disability, religion, race and a host of other social issues in a adult, straightforward way that's rare for television. The girls making out in bed? It's because one of them is lonely and substitutes sex for emotional attachment. It catches up to her later, when she sleeps with the kid in the wheelchair, and he's angry because, as he says "maybe sex doesn't mean anything to you, but it means a lot to me". And that moment was a long time coming, but you knew it would happen eventually, and you could tell that that moment was an epiphany for the girl, and that she realized that she needs to change how she deals with life. So yeah, you can see two "high-school" girls kissing and scream "kiddie porn" but if you bother actually watch the show, and give it some thought, you might be surprised. I'd much rather have my kids watching Glee than, say, 90210, or most of what's on TV for that matter.

"I was saying that when women take what is innocent and twist it in a sexual way, it encourages the culture to look at children in a different light and to excuse away sexualizing our children."

I think the definition of 'children' makes a big difference in whether or not I agree with this sentence. To me, 'children' means pre-puberty and I don't agree. If to you 'children' means 'under 18', then I would have to agree with Shanna (who's posts I love, Shanna please keep posting) in saying that lumping anything sexual in with child pornography is probably counter-productive to your cause.

Cady Driver

The problem with shows like Glee is that it normalizes destructive behavior and teens mirror that behavior in their own lives. Adults might be able to watch that show and see the lesson in it (if there is any lesson to be had, which I seriously doubt), but young people have difficulty with projecting future consequences in their lives b/c they don't have the life experience or maturity to deal with these adult issues.

Here's a question, how do you justify watching a show where two "teenage" girls are making out and then say it's okay b/c there's some sort of lesson in the end? To me it's trash in....trash out. The "sleeping with the kids in the wheelchair" scene....seriously??? Even if the girl "learned a lesson", these aren't lessons that kids need to be learning at this age.

This is exactly what I'm talking about...the normalization of teens having sex with multiple partners, unable to emotionally connect with anyone. These kinds of behaviors will follow them forever. If kids watch this junk, they'll imitate it, it's simple cause and effect and anyone who's telling it differently is lying or avoiding the facts.

It is morally irresponsible for adults to be condoning and supporting lewd shows that aid in the destruction of young lives.

Where are the adults who are teaching our young people to be hard working, honorable, honest, respectful citizens? Where are they? Kids don't need to be handed a condom and a "lesson" on how not to have sex with handicapped people.

If we only allow our kids to watch Glee so that they can learn some sort of sick lesson, then we are farther down in the gutter than I even imagined.

I say rise above this. Leave Glee behind. Our kids are worth more than what the world and the media is offering them. It's a dead end street with lifelong consequences if we allow this constant lurid fair to be permitted in our homes and on our television screens.

Just a thought.

Nurit Weizman

What adults do and how they portray youth has a direct effect on how children feel and think of themselves. There's no such thing as innocence anymore. There is no longer a space where a child can run freely without having to worry that that space will eventually become sexualized.

Nurit Weizman

I understand that "sexual health" is an important value in today's society. But wouldn't it be better if we were trying to shape ourselves and our men with articles on how to be better fathers and parents, how to be honest in business, how to treat our neighbors with respect? I also would argue that there is no mainstream show out there today for teens who do not wish to have sex until they are married. Not only are we leaving out a large population, but we're illustrating to them that they're non-sexualized life is neither real nor "mature". And isn't today's society all about celebrating options? Where is the option as Cady said for "teaching our young people to be hard working, honorable, honest, respectful citizens" that doesn't play the sex card?


Im a young girl myself and I dont know what Glee" is, but im already pretty disgusted just reading these comments. Just like when I have to reach page 50 of an online shop looking for a decent halloween costume that doesnt make me look like a slut


Well, until someone can come up with an interesting show about teaching young people to be hardworking, honorable, honest, respectful citizens, get a sizable audience and depending on the age demographic its aimed towards, be successful for merchandising, there isn't much out there now. I mean, when was the last *good* show that was, well, *good*.

(I nominate Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman. I loved that show as a kid. Hmm. actually that was more for adults too. The Simpsons, being a satire is supposed to be somewhat offensive, but during it's golden age at least had fairly sound morals. I think of shows actually on the air, Brothers and Sisters does a good job of stressing the importance of family and love, however it's definitely aimed towards an adult audience, not a teenage and younger. )

And Luci. Yeah, Halloween costume shopping sucks. Rebel, make/thrift/otherwise assemble your own.

Darla Gaylor

So much to say, so little time.

I have been an avid Glee watcher since day one, liked a number of the characters, adored the music, Sue is a killer. But it HAS just gone over the top. Every show has become a "tolerance" fest. If you aren't comfortable with Kirk dressing like a girl or stalking the quarterback, well, you MUST be a homophobe.

If you find the aggressive and non-committal sexuality pervasive among too many of the teens, well, you're just repressed. And heaven forbid you be a Christian.

We can sing about "losing or religion" and explore faith on a superficial level, just make sure Kirk's atheism doesn't get pushed to the back. No, no it must be first and foremost in our minds. For it to be otherwise would certainly show a disregard for the mysterious "separation of church and state."

No, Glee is not about tolerance. Any lessons buried deep within it are so drowned by the leftist dogma being preached to kids that it passed amusing after the second episode of this season. I finally once & for all deleted it from my DVR after the episode with the freakish teenage cheerleaders making out and the prostitot perversions on parade in GQ.

It is just too much fluff & sex and not enough substance anymore. Netflix downloads of shows from the good ol' days is where it's at. And if that doesn't work, there's always Dirty Jobs, Myth Busters, Ghost Hunters, and House Hunters!

Now, let me get started on the "new" kind of family the ABC "Family" channel is catering to.....

Darla :)


I say 'yes' too. As a mom to nine daughters I am sickened by the images that are out there and the messages those images offer. Thankfully we do what we can by having no tv, magazines, etc in our home but unless I shelter them 24/7 they see it. Unfortunately.

Nurit Weizman

Okay this is going to sound cheesy Tricia but...
You're not sheltering them, you're actually setting them free. Unfortunately, I think it's common for many people/institutions to disagree with that idea. I think the idea makes logical sense.

A low version of freedom is having everything open to you. A much higher version of freedom is using limitations as a means for true creativity and growth. Are students considered sheltered when their professors select specific assignments and learning structures for them? Would it be considered admirable to "set them free" by letting them study however and whatever they like? Of course not--a professor uses structures and restrictions in order to bring out each student's maximum and unique potential. Should that not be the way of a parent as well?

Cady Driver

Brilliant observation, Nurit! It's almost like the difference between a nation ruled by anarchy (which isn't freedom, but chaos) and a nation ruled by a just government. That might be a bit of a stretch, but really with anything, there are rules to follow and the rules give structure, order and purpose to the learner.

Do we have sports teams who play with "freedom" (no rules?) No...that wouldn't be any fun b/c nobody would know what's going on or who's winning. Why do we take our kids sexuality and sacrifice their future b/c we want them to be able to "express themselves" through having sex? There are rules and there are consequences to this kind of absurd freedom. Studies show that if your kids watch shows like Glee, then they are statistically much, MUCH more likely to reenact what they see.


You know, technically, the one lesson from Glee that's been discussed on this board DID point out that sex has consequences.

Are kids really more likely to reenact what they see on Glee? Do teenagers now en masse break into song and dance?

Nurit Weizman

I do believe that this part of glee, the song and dance, makes everything seem much more attractive. Even if sexual experiences end up in feelings of deep sadness and confusion, glee has glorified the drama and consequences of these experiences. Self development and growth in maturity is not as "cool" or "real" if it's done without having sex. If you're not having sex or involved in the hook-up/break-up culture, there's nothing real to sing and dance about--unless it's about mocking the virgins.


All shows glorify drama. All Glee does is add glitter to that drama.


@Shanna: True. Glee does add glitter to that (uneccessary) drama. But unfortunately, many of today's youth (my age group, in fact) believe that all that glitters is really gold. And Glee is nothing golden; it's fools gold in fact.


A new study finds that underage girls are more sexualized than their adult counterparts by Hollywood.


The comments to this entry are closed.