In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

This photoshoot definitely makes the Grilled Cheesus cry.

Glee photo by Terry Richardson

So noted model-molester and general skeeze-ball Terry Richardson shot the cast of Glee for GQ. Or at least, the young white members of the cast who don’t play gay teens or teens with disabilities. That’s cool. Very edgy. Very cool.

Richardson, as usual, was highly original in his concept: Mostly-naked chicks. Or, more specifically, have all the men fully clothed, but make sure the girls are in their underwear (and when they aren’t in their underwear, make it clear that they aren’t wearing panties). And make sure everyone in the photos is nice and white and young and thin.

Now, look: I’m not outraged because there are OMGSexyLadies in a magazine (I’m not really outraged at all, actually). This is just some tiresome shit. These actresses are lovely and talented ladies, and if they want some sexy photos of themselves in magazines — photos which will hopefully also boost their ratings and get them new projects — more power to ’em. But there are other actors and actresses on that show, too, who are just as talented (in the case of Amber Riley, I would say significantly more talented), but because they don’t fit the Terry Richardson aesthetic (or the Hollywood aesthetic generally) they’re left out of these kinds of features. (They’re also left out of a lot of the show, and not as fully developed as characters, but that’s another post). Not that I think all would be well in the world if Amber Riley were also sucking on a lollipop on the pages of GQ; the point is that exposure, generally, is good for actors, but the exposure available for female actors skews towards the Sexy. And while there’s nothing wrong with the Sexy, it’s limiting — for the Sexy actresses themselves, who may have other talents (and whose Sexiness is not going to last forever), and for actresses who don’t fit the current model of Sexiness and are therefore ignored in the pages of magazines. Unless it’s a lady-magazine writing a feature about Loving Your Curves.

It’s also the concept behind the photo shoot that’s just exhausting. More thin white girls in underwear! Except we’re edgy, so let’s make it American Apparel underwear and throw in some high socks! And then let’s put a fully clothed dude in the scene with his hand on each girl’s ass, because that sends a clear visual message that (a) he’s powerful, and (b) that, dear GQ gentleman, could be you.

Oh Terry Richardson, you are such a groundbreaking new titty photographer artist. At least no one got a carnation stuck in their vagina this time (and yes, that link goes to a photo of exactly what it sounds like, which is definitely NSFW).


43 thoughts on This photoshoot definitely makes the Grilled Cheesus cry.

  1. This guy fucking sucks, and it irritates me that celebrities are willing to work with him.

    Also, I think I’m officially over Glee. If it wasn’t where they oked Finn’s use of the f-bomb because Kurt was harassing him or where I learned that the only way I can bring my dad out of a coma is by allowing my religious friends to bully me about being an atheist while forcing me to come to terms with their beliefs, it was probably when I saw that they were going to murder Rocky Horror Picture Show next week.

  2. Any photo depicting men fully clothed and women in their underwear is “subtly” hinting at the “status” of men above women.

    Infuriating.

  3. I think that the show does a good job (for Fox, anyways) of tackling relevant social issues, like bullying, coming out, etc. But I have to agree with your critiques of the photo shoot. Two thumbs down.

  4. Oh my goodness, that photoshoot with the girl and the flower. I feel physically ill, and that’s a rare occurrence.

  5. love this from Jezebel: “The real question is, given the incredible, mind-numbing predictability of his results, why do magazines keep hiring Terry Richardson?” no kidding. enough of this tiring shit.

  6. Wow. This is why Americans are viewed as stupid and shallow. We need to really do something about coming across like that unless we just simply don’t care.

  7. C…: Wow. This is why Americans are viewed as stupid and shallow. We need to really do something about coming across like that unless we just simply don’t care.  

    I think it’s actually just as bad, if not worse, in most of the world. Maybe not Iceland.

  8. On top of all the sleaze, white/thin/young focus and the fact he’s a completely horrible person, one of the things I find annoying about his photos is that they’re so BORING. Like, how do you even make breasts boring? That takes a rare skill, but not one that should be cultivated.

  9. At this point I’ve read enough about Richardson to just be grossed out by the pictures as part of his own f’ed up world view.

    Wow. This is why Americans are viewed as stupid and shallow. We need to really do something about coming across like that unless we just simply don’t care.

    Have you seen ads in, say, Italy?

  10. If you’re insufficiently innovative to do anything other than combine American Apparel ads with a narrative borne out of Letters to Penthouse from 1987, you should not be getting work for a major magazine. These photos are boring, annoying, and cater to some mighty sketchy predilections. I can’t believe anyone hires Richardson.

  11. Terry Richardson is boring.

    There’s a ton of other photographers out there who do naked better – and don’t treat their models like shit.

    That Dianna Agron, though! *Love* her.

  12. “Now, look: I’m not outraged because there are OMGSexyLadies in a magazine (I’m not really outraged at all, actually). […] These actresses are lovely and talented ladies, and if they want some sexy photos of themselves in magazines ”

    This isn’t just about women choosing to have pictures made which show them pandering to a male sexual gaze, though. We can critique this without critiquing the women (who, like you said, have limited career options -because- of sexism). Instead, we should call out the men who paid them to do this, and the men who buy the magazine. And yes, I do find it objectionable that there is a significant population of men in this world who consider it their right to treat women as playthings, and who demand access to pictures of women acting sexually submissive. There’s something seriously screwed up about that.

    “And while there’s nothing wrong with the Sexy,”

    This isn’t “sexy”, though. It’s a show of sexual availability.

    BIG difference.

  13. “Glee is a show that represents the underdogs, which is a feeling I have embraced much of my own life, and to those viewers, the photos in GQ don’t give them that same feeling. I understand completely. ” Dianna (Quinn)

    She is so freakin’ awesome. No wonder Quinn is a secret smarty pants.

  14. There’s nothing wrong with being sexy. What’s wrong is that all the women are wearing next to nothing and posed submissively, while all the men are fully clothed and strike powerful poses with implications of sexual ownership over the women (grabbing her ass, really?) These same pictures with the genders reversed, that would have been provocative and edgy. This is just the same old sexist bullshit.

    And although they are actually in their twenties, I don’t think it’s right to have a sexy photoshoot of people dressed up like underage high school kids. Not to mention lacking in creativity, considering they play high school kids.

  15. He keeps getting work and shooting these shots because it sells. The vast majority of the target audience apparently doesn’t get bored or care about the gender politics or the aesthetic banality.

    All this tells me is that GQ is interested in chasing trends to sell magazines, not about leading trends or being an agent of change with regard to concepts of beauty. Raises fewer (zero) questions about the photoshoot itself, and many more about our collective expectations that other people fight the fights we want them to.

    GQ didn’t sign up to be a culture warrior, it exists to be a guide to blending in- being distinctly non-challenging. Flagging the letdowns is an important part of the process, but only as a barometer of where the middle is. And that progress is much slower and comes in much smaller increments than movement at the edges.

  16. Am I missing something, or is GQ a men’s magazine? People are understandably squicked out by the idea that the man is fully clothed and the women are mostly unclothed, but I understand that if their demographic is mostly men, then a partially unclothed guy would make the feature more unpalatable to their core demographic. Sure, it’s sexist, but so is an image of a muscular jock type in a shaving commercial.

  17. I think these are great points that can all be summed up with the fact that GQ uses ironic sexism: they “talk the talk” of the target audience. In this case, it realizes the fantasy of GQ’s target 33.4 year old audience – school girl and/or girl-on-girl porn – and recreates the images in a way that makes you feel as if you’re seeing these characters in a male fantasy. Would these men watch the original high school drama/musical TV show? Only if it involved high school girls playing ‘teachers pet’ and striping in the locker room.

    But GQ also knows that you’ll think these images aren’t so bad because the women are self-objectifying. For the record, self-objectification is harmful not only to Leah Michele and Dianna Agron who participated in the pseudo-porn shoot, but also to other women who realize that this is completely sexist but have to go along with it in order to be ‘one of the guys’ and/or to avoid being called a feminazi. Kind of like when we justify the porn industry by saying they pay women really well to be objectified.
    I just blogged about this and am definitely going to include your article. Such a great discussion!

  18. David:People are understandably squicked out by the idea that the man is fully clothed and the women are mostly unclothed, but I understand that if their demographic is mostly men, then a partially unclothed guy would make the feature more unpalatable to their core demographic.  

    Um…why? GBQT men don’t read GQ? Even so, aren’t most men unclothed in straight porn? In the shaving commercial you mentioned, aren’t men usually only in towels? Why would an unclothed guy be unpalatable to men?

  19. konkonsn: Um…why?GBQT men don’t read GQ?Even so, aren’t most men unclothed in straight porn?In the shaving commercial you mentioned, aren’t men usually only in towels?Why would an unclothed guy be unpalatable to men?  

    Good point, I hadn’t considered the GBQT men. I have a feeling however, that by men’s magazine we are referring to a primarily heterosexual male demographic. Not in that only heterosexual men are real men, but in the sense that a misleading term has come to represent that type of magazine.

    The second issue however is slightly trickier. I really am no expert in this area, but I imagine that a nearly nude male in the shoot would like you say, imply something more pornographic (Not saying that the shoot is trying to be classy, which it obviously isn’t, but this is at least what the photographer seemed to be going for). I also know that while some men wouldn’t be bothered with the nudity, others might be turned off by it. (People’s sexual proclivities are indeed, sometimes different).

    On the count of shaving commercials, yes, men are usually only in towels. They are also all male models. The sexism comes in when we try to portray that man as the norm for all men.

  20. God, this post is making me crave grilled cheese. THANKS. Now I have to buy bread.

    These photos are awful (and so is everything else of his I’ve seen). It looks like they were deliberately staged to look amateurish (a riff on adolescent spontaneity?), and thus manage to come off as simultaneously static and boring as well as unpolished and technically crude. Kind of like bad porn! It’s clear that the only reason this guy gets work is because of that very association.

  21. Lucas: He keeps getting work and shooting these shots because it sells. The vast majority of the target audience apparently doesn’t get bored or care about the gender politics or the aesthetic banality.All this tells me is that GQ is interested in chasing trends to sell magazines, not about leading trends or being an agent of change with regard to concepts of beauty. Raises fewer (zero) questions about the photoshoot itself, and many more about our collective expectations that other people fight the fights we want them to.GQ didn’t sign up to be a culture warrior, it exists to be a guide to blending in- being distinctly non-challenging. Flagging the letdowns is an important part of the process, but only as a barometer of where the middle is. And that progress is much slower and comes in much smaller increments than movement at the edges.  (Quote this comment?)

    Yeah not a good reason IMO when the guy is sexually assaulting models.

  22. I think it’s actually just as bad, if not worse, in most of the world. Maybe not Iceland.

    No, I think they mostly worry about financial fraud and getting scalded in the shower.

    So now we’re looking for equal opportunity objectification?

    Works for me.

  23. David: Am I missing something, or is GQ a men’s magazine?

    The point is that it’s a sexist straight men’s magazine. Amber Riley is a woman but was not featured partially clothed. Why?

  24. PrettyAmiable: The point is that it’s a sexist straight men’s magazine. Amber Riley is a woman but was not featured partially clothed. Why?  

    American standards of beauty. I presume that they think they will have more readership by presenting women with “model level looks” in their features, and I wouldn’ t be surprised if they’re right considering their demographic. Whether or not one can consider this discriminatory is another matter.

    The major point that I see in this article, and which I definitely sympathize with is the fact that female actresses are much more dependent on their looks in order to get publicity and employment, whereas male actors get a much bigger variety of roles and more complex characters to portray. This IS a double standard.

    However, I don’t see how we go from there to attributing the photos as sexist. The photographer is a skeezball but so far the most significant argument that portrays the photos as sexist is that the man is portrayed as dominant in the photos, and the two women submissive. But I think there is a HUGE difference between the words “submissive” and “demeaning”. For example, if we were to take a homosexual or heterosexual relationship where one partner is submissive and another dominant, would we tell the submissive partner that their actions are demeaning to them? I don’t think so. If behavior is consentual and people enjoy what they’re doing, then no harm is done.

    I can understand why people have differing opinions. I’m probably approaching this issue with a completely different set of experiences in mind. What I see is a cheesy photo shoot done by a men’s magazine with skimpily dressed women. It is obvious that the photoshoot was intended to grab more readers for the magazine and to be an enjoyable feature for the primarily heterosexual male readership of the magazine. I can understand why other people might consider it sexist, but the explanations I’ve seen don’t seem satisfying. Are we considering it sexist for featuring women in scant clothing? Are we considering it sexist for the dominant position of the man and the submissive positions of the women? Is it always sexist to idolize a man or a woman on the basis of only their beauty or sexuality? (and incidentally, is it sexist to idolize a man or a woman for only one aspect of their personality or body?)

    Oh, and this is in no way a jab at other people’s opinions or an attempt to start an argument. I was just thought this was an interesting issue brought up by the sometimes controversial balance of condemning degrading imagery/ condemning imagery on the basis of its sexual nature alone.

  25. Man, I use to like Glee, but fuck that, I saw this on CNN the other day and I so mad. All the men get to do things fun and interesting while the women stand around and be sex dolls.

  26. “So now we’re looking for equal opportunity objectification?”

    “Works for me.”

    Ditto. (well, sorta)

    Ok, what I actually want is what RD mentioned – for him to stop assaulting models.

    But aside from the that, the thing is David, that this is a pattern with Richardson – and the entire industry. The dude also recently did two shoots with a male actor who happens to be my current celebrity crush – and the actor was fully clothed the whole time in both of those shoots. (at least the ones posted on tumbler) Cuz, you know, he’s a guy. So this isn’t just about this particular shoot being for GQ, this is about there being immense pressure for female and younger* models and actresses to pose nude or barely clothed – and this particular photographer being especially known for this.

    *the “younger” part is really as key to me as the female part. Younger models in general AND female models in general (and younger, female models in particular) are asked and pressured to take off their clothes more than older models or male models (particularly older male models) are – and a big part of the reason why is because they have less ability to say no – both in terms of keeping their jobs and in terms of feeling sure enough of themselves to do so. That’s exploitation, plain and simple.

  27. “However, I don’t see how we go from there to attributing the photos as sexist. The photographer is a skeezball but so far the most significant argument that portrays the photos as sexist is that the man is portrayed as dominant in the photos, and the two women submissive. But I think there is a HUGE difference between the words “submissive” and “demeaning”. For example, if we were to take a homosexual or heterosexual relationship where one partner is submissive and another dominant, would we tell the submissive partner that their actions are demeaning to them? I don’t think so. If behavior is consentual and people enjoy what they’re doing, then no harm is done.”

    The difference is that women are pretty much ALWAYS shown in the media in submissive poses for the straight male gaze. Why do women always have to be shown as submissive to be seen as sexy?

    Submissive doesn’t have to be seen as demeaning, but it is always conflated with “feminine” and that is problematic. Just like “masculine” is viewed as meaning “dominant/aggressive.” This dichotomy helps keep a social hierarchy in place.

  28. So now we’re to believe that portrayals of women which strictly adhere to existing sexist norms IN NO WAY promote and uphold those same sexist norms? Thank you David, for sharing these stale rehashings of why the status quo isn’t so bad; we’d never have heard them without your valuable input, surely.

  29. Dymara: So now we’re to believe that portrayals of women which strictly adhere to existing sexist norms IN NO WAY promote and uphold those same sexist norms? Thank you David, for sharing these stale rehashings of why the status quo isn’t so bad; we’d never have heard them without your valuable input, surely.  

    Thanks; I was going to respond, but you summed it way more succinctly than I ever could. I’d probably point out that if you’re suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with able-bodied, white, cis, thin women are the “American standard of beauty” – there’s something clearly wrong and David is missing the point.

  30. Some very good comments and thoughtful arguments. First, I’d like to speak to what jennygadget said because I think she made the most valid and interesting point – that the main probably with the shoot is that it represents a standard of sexual exploitation in the industry. (and that it is tiring not having enough male nudity in these types of shoots)

    This is a point I wholeheartedly agree with and one that I think was made in the original article but not emphasized enough.

    I hope my arguments as a whole are not stale and I do not intend to come off as formulaic, close-minded or sexist. My entire point about the photographic content of the shoot is that, speaking of the content AND the context, there is nothing inherently sexist about showing thin white women in their underwear in a [b]men’s magazine[/b].

    For one, I imagine that most men who read GQ are relatively set in their sexual tastes (and by this I mean that reading this article will not turn them on to thin white women if they aren’t already interested in them, and neither will it turn them off). Moreover, GQ is not intended (as far as I understand, and if people see this differently, feel free to chime in) for a female audience.

    Because GQ does not have an extensive female audience, I don’t believe there is a great risk that many women will look at this article as an exemplar of what they should look like or what true beauty is. Neither, as stated above, do I believe that the magazine will cause men to change their views on female beauty or try to force the women in their lives to conform to this standard.

    If this shoot were in a more mainstream magazine where we had an audience that consisted of younger teens and children I might be more inclined to agree with the idea that the shoot is damaging. However, I can guarantee you that most men who view this photoshoot will probably evaluate the photos on a basis of whether or not they find the models/poses attractive and if they like it they’ll spend some time looking at them. If not, they’ll go to some other feature on GQ with women in skimpy underwear and look at that. In either case this shoot is not made as a commentary on gender politics, but rather for adult entertainment.

    In pure distillation of my point of view, this is what I see: A semi-erotic photoshoot intended to arouse men along the same lines of something you’d see in playboy, maxim, or another GQ feature.
    This is what I don’t see: I don’t see anything in the shoot that is explicitly degrading toward women. The male in the shoot is not depicted as coercing or forcing the females, the man is not violent toward the women, and his gesture of “possession” is subjective at best. In terms of erotica this stuff is really harmless.

    Sorry for writing a post more long-winded than my last. I’ve missed multiple points in other people’s posts that I’d like to respond to, but I think the main and most important ones are here. If I took the time to address them all, I could probably write a book. I’m also grateful for everyone keeping the conversation civil and interesting.

  31. David, I think the thing is that those men who are attracted to women who are reading the magazine aren’t being presented with any other kinds of representations of women. So it’s acting to preserve and create this idea of what is attractive, and sell it to the audience, which is really what a lot of magazines are all about! What people find attractive is, alas, shaped by cultural ideas of attractiveness, as I’m sure you’ll agree. Also, a lot of men who are partnered with women do ask them to change their appearances to fit better into this dominant standard. The shoot might not be made as a commentary on gender politics, but any gendered text inevitably has political implications. Lots of women here are finding the shoot degrading, and personally I’m finding the possession narrative pretty potent.

  32. Right! The idea that straight men should like skinny white able women dressed as teens, that this is the epitome of What Straight Men Should Want, is NOT some natural law passed down from the heavens – it’s a cultural construct that *has changed across time and cultures* and *has been constructed.* This *is* the kind of sexuality that American men tend to idealize nowadays, but that is specifically because we’ve all been trained to like it and taught that it’s what proper sexuality looks like.

    So, is GQ pandering to the desires of a straight male audience? Yes and no – it’s also an agent in shaping *what* those men desire. And you should be paying attention to the fact that you use “men” as shorthand for “straight men,” as if it’s okay to assume that all men are attracted to women and not attracted to men.

    Further, you really need to check your fucking privilege. You’re surrounded by women talking about harmful sexist themes in this shoot, and then you respond by saying ‘there is nothing inherently sexist’ about it, ‘this stuff is really harmless’, and my personal favorite, ‘I don’t see anything in the shoot that is explicitly degrading toward women.’
    Yeah. You don’t. David, male privilege. Male privilege, David. Get to know each other.
    You are not the arbiter of what hurts women. When you’re a man surrounded by women pointing out sexism, and you bluntly proclaim that something isn’t sexist, isn’t hurtful, doesn’t degrade women – you need to stop, step back, and realize that you’re the one who’s missing something. How absolutely ridiculous is it to tell someone ‘no, you’re not hurt by that’? This is common to all forms of privilege, and when you find that you’re dictating what other people must really be feeling about something, that’s a pretty good sign that you’ve fucked up.

    Step back, check your privilege, don’t talk about your intent, and pay attention to what other people are saying.

  33. I wasn’t saying that you’re not hurt by it. I’m not invalidating anyone’s opinion. I can see that most people have a different opinion about certain aspects of the shoot and I was sharing my opinion, which I understand is different. I felt that it was important to share my opinion because I thought it added an extra dimension to the discussion. I’m not commenting on my privilege, either, because I don’t feel as if I need to qualify everything I say, or qualify any of my ideas with who I am rather than what I’m saying. I only mentioned intent in an attempt to not come off as accusatory, hostile or abrasive. I would do the same when I, an atheist, would argue with a christian friend for example. I agree with you that trying to qualify my arguments is stupid- arguments should stand on their own weight and should live or die accordingly. I also assure you, that I read other people’s posts and consider their arguments carefully.

  34. I’m not an arbiter of what hurts women, and neither did I pretend to be. I’m sorry so many felt offended.

  35. I really am glad I refrained from reacting to these photos until I came here. I think this thread has been brilliant so far, but one thing it reminds me of is the particular yuck factor our culture has of fetishizing underage girls. Cheerleading costumes! Babysitter themed porn! School girl uniforms! Our culture sends very mixed messages about young girls being sexy on one hand and off limits in others. Taking photos of legal actors while they’re possibly in character strutting around in thongs and stockings in a high school? Not helping that murky grey area at all. That, and one of the reasons I prefered GQ to say, Maxim, is that I was operating under the impression it didn’t pander to wank fodder to sell stories. Guess I was mistaken.

  36. And back to the “intended audience” aurgumetn about GQ…isn’t it just as problematic that the male viewership it is likely intended for can make these assumptions about the young women in question (that they’re fun, pliant and eager to please and if not there’s something wrong)? The male gaze is an interesting phenomenon primarily because of arguments like this. “Most guys looking at this would find this attractive. And we really really don’t want to sexualize Finn the same way we’re sexualizing Rachel and Quinn.” Its acceptable to have Finn be the leering horndog while the women squeee in their panties to the men in the readership because it confirms and reaffirms the idea that men are the ultimate consumers of the entertainment media and that everyone is supposed to find this sort of presentation ideal and pleasurable. The fact that until this photo shoot made Perez Hiltion a smaller number of teenage girls were going to internalize it isn’t as big a problem in my mind as the idea that many many more young adult men are.

  37. I don’t know if it’s just me, but in the library picture in the article at Jezebel Lea looks like a 2 year old going, “Whee look I threw a big book all by myself mommy!” which doesn’t speak to Lea’s character as much as Terry’s.

    Is it too much to ask that we don’t sexualized the type of playfulness one might find in a really young girl, it’s totally squicked me out. It’s like Terry’s just skirting the line of what could be considered sexy to pedophiles. Although, I’m guessing that’s not new territory for him.

Comments are currently closed.