I've made it pretty clear that I don't normally base what I choose to write about on what kind of angry reaction my thoughts on a specific topic might generate. In other words, I don't try to rile people up just for the sake of riling people up. That said, I fully expected the regulars in the Huffington Post peanut gallery to eviscerate me for my quickie piece on the Glee girls-GQ photo spread-- and I have to admit that I'm actually kind of disappointed they didn't, since their special brand of pious indignation is usually damn entertaining. Anyway, here are the best of the bunch:
"Why are so many Americans such hysterical prudes? So many are into fundamentalist religion, or violent sports, or support needless wars--yet are rabidly fanatical against even the suggestion of sexuality, or nudity, or affection, or 'PDA'? What a sad, sick society. I thought the 'Glee' shoot was fun and well-done. And no one in the photo shoot was in their teens. Now--how about that collapsing economy? Unemployment? Expensive and seemingly endless war? Running out of cheaply extractable oil? Racism? Ecological issues? Homophobia? The need for expanded scientific education? Aren't there any REAL issues to tackle?"
"I'm curious as to whether there is any limit to the writer's beliefs that what these women do on their own time is strictly their own business. What if this was a sex tape with these outfits on? AT what point do you think the producers of this show would say...this is hurting the brand ...if there is any point? People will argue that...there is no drop in ratings....except ratings don't tell us exactly who is watching. Will it still be young girls, or will it be mature GQ men? Surely you agree it is unlikely the same show would appeal to both audiences... These girls, whether they like it or not, are in a show targetted to young teens. As public figures, they have to decide whether they have any responsibility to their audience. Lots of public figures like athletes and actors and politicians truly believe their private lives have nothing to do with their public lives. These women obviously fall into that camp. There are, however, many of us who feel that a public figure with a defined audience has a responsibility to their audience. In the photo shoot, these girls elected to wear and sexualize 'school girl outfits'. They deliberatly CHOSE to ride on their GLEE roles as school girls. I hope and expect they will be fired for sullying their professional uniforms... Oh, and by the way...'hysterical prudes' like me have, by expressing outrage, made cruelty to animals a crime, child-labor a crime. These women were used by people who did not have either their best interest, or the best interest of school girls in mind... This is a very simple arguemnt: either you believe public figures such as sports figures, politicians, actresses etc., have a responsiblilty to provide a positive leadership role to their audiences ...which alot of us believe...or you belive the public can go to hell, and these people have no responsibility (which is your belief)."
-- PM Gaffney (who seems to be obsessed with the concept of uniforms, saying that the girls' clothes are their uniforms as actresses and that they're wearing school uniforms and that all this means that they've violated some kind of sacred trust established by the wearing of a uniform and that they're contaminating our precious bodily fluids. Or something like that)
"Conservatives are doing everything in their power to make sure all our childrens understand that the human body is evil, especially the female body, which is why it needs to be regulated."
"I'm as left wing as you get...I'm not American, and I have a problem with this photoshoot. So it's not accurate to paint this as conservative opposition. It's not the 'nakedness' that is the problem or the actresses ages. Doesn't anyone understand context??!! It's the fact that they are portraying underage highschool students, Lea Michelle is in her undies spread eagle on a school gym locker bench. It's the story the photo is telling."
And my favorite comment because it's just that crazy:
"a wholly sophistic and disingenuous argument... the subtext of nudes in classical art has ALWAYS been a celebration of beauty and innocence using nudity to symbolize their uncovered radiance... the subtext of this (as with all contemporary popular culture sexploitation 'art') is to promote the mass consciousness maxim: 'Everybody Get Naked and F--K. All The Time. And That Means You Kids, Too!' ...i personally don't care what other people may want to do to desecrate their temples. they'll have to answer to the landlord when the lease comes up. i keep the sanctity of mine intact. and i do it by remembering the story of the Jewish man who, while digging his own grave and just before being shot in the head by a Nazi soldier, courageously turned to his murderer and said simply 'God is watching what you do.'"
If the ratings are any indication, no, God isn't watching -- because he's watching Glee.