Written by Alexandra MacAaron, originally posted on Women’s Voices for Change.
The sexification of schoolgirls is nothing new.
From Humbert Humbert’s masturbatory musings on nymphets to Britney Spears’ pouty parochial school student in “Hit Me Baby One More Time,” apparently there’s something about a short pleated skirt and pigtails that drives men wild.
So why are so many people upset by the pictorial in the current issue of GQ?
Because of “Glee.” Those half-naked schoolgirls with the come hither eyes aren’t just any models. They’re the girls of “Glee.”
I’m a Gleek, I admit it. In fact, I was an early adopter, faithfully following the scrappy show choir at McKinley High before it became so fashionable. My tween daughter and I curl up together to watch it every week. We even made a pilgrimage down to Radio City Music Hall to catch them in concert (which I wrote about for Women’s Voices for Change). The show has always pushed the envelope, but has also dealt with a lot of difficult topics — teen homosexuality, teen pregnancy, racism, kids with physical and mental disabilities — and done so with candor, understanding, and affection.
Now, with more Billboard Chart toppers than the Beatles, the “Glee” kids have become an entertainment phenomenon. In fact, they’re everywhere you look.
And, if the place you happen to look is the current GQ, you’ll see even more of them.
What could be better than a slutty high school girl? Two slutty high school girls. In a move so unoriginal it’s almost funny, fashion photographer Terry Richardson has depicted the stereotypical adolescent boy fantasy. Glee’s golden girl cheerleader Dianna Agron and its brassy diva Lea Michele hang on hunky Corey Monteith. In virtually every picture, the girls are undressed while the boy is fully-clothed. Quelle surprise!
As an aside, which makes the whole thing even creepier, Richardson is facing multiple accusations of sexually harassing and exploiting underage models. Nice.
The GQ pictures themselves are uninspired. The school locales are overlit and practically sterile. The costumes are silly, such as the combination of over-the-knee athletic socks and high-heeled pink pumps. Really, who styled these? The boys of Delta House? Legs spread wide in the locker room with a wet red lollipop, Michele seems to be channeling her inner blow-up doll. Agron looks uncomfortable. Monteith is grinning (hey, he’s got two half-naked chicks hanging on him), but he’s hardly present.
In contrast, the much ballyhooed Annie Leibovitz Vanity Fair portrait of a sleepy-eyed Miley Cyrus was far more interesting — and beautiful. While her tousled hair hinted at a recent romp, the photo didn’t actually expose much. At the time, 15-year old Cyrus said, “I think it’s really artsy. It wasn’t in a skanky way.”
Well the GQ pictures are not artsy. They are, in fact, fairly skanky. Most of all, they are just plain dumb. But they’ve created quite an uproar.
One Comment
Is it really acceptable to refer to them as “skany”? Because feminists don’t believe that word or concept even exists – it is equivalent to slut-shaming. I don’t think your criticisms are valid within a feminist context.