How far is too far? A couple of dicey articles came to my attention today. 1. The actors who play Glee highschoolers are posing all sexy-like in GQ. Stripping in high school hallways and a questionable pose in the locker room in these photo shoots. A parents' group is saying its pedophilic. GQ says she's in her twenties. *WARNING - This links to a couple of pics of a woman in underwear. Maybe NSFW* 2. This is an old anti fur ad. Women wearing furs holding a bloody knife. Blood on their faces and/or body. So no actual gore, but still a jarring image. TAKE THAT AS A WARNING. Anyways, I don't have a direct question. What are your thoughts on these images? Dirty, sexy, violent, forbidden....? effective?

good conversation starter, BB. The only thing that pisses me off about the glee photos is that the guy is fully clothes while the girls are half naked. If there's going to be sexuality & partial nudity, it's got to reflect equality. Girls hanging off of a guy with his hands on their asses is like the guy saying "yo, check out mah bitches." The fact that these characters are in high school doesn't bother me. Don't objectify women or sexualize girls, but high school "girls" are actually young women, many of them sexually active. Let's not pretend anyone under 18 is a virgin. But let's not *objectify* young women either. There's a few things they could have done in this photo shoot that would've made it okay for me, like having a fiery boyfriend-girlfriend moment instead of dude fully clothes with two half naked chicks hanging off of him. Also, the horny girl on E who can't stand to be clothed one moment longer is trite, untrue and overdone. Bad job GQ. I would not it pedophilia at all, and the idea that some people are ing it that is insulting. Pedophilia is horrifying, this is just sexist, misogynistic and in bad taste.

correction: Let's not pretend EVERYONE under 18 is a virgin. I realize that there virgins over the age of 18

The GQ are lousy photographs and the color coordination on that locker shot is totally wrong. I didn't look at the fur ones.

I wouldn't it pedophilic... (link NSFW) but I would it poor judgment on the part of the participants since many pre-teens look on those performers as idols. But then, we have this... Oye!

More of the same The old adage is sex sells and they are in the business of selling magazines. The models in question are in the business of selling an image. And if that is pedophilic then where they on Lolita? If those images push someone to commit a crime, then they were a ticking bomb in the first place, if not those images, then our world is full of other images that would do it. I do not think the fur pics are very effective, I kins of feel the people that would be effected by them are already not wearing fur because of the previous efforts.

She needs a sandwich other than that, she may well be in her 20's, but she portrays a HS kid. I don't think HS (and younger) need this kind of attention drawn to them, as yes, it gets pedophiles all revved up... and they can't access her, but they sure can access the school down the street. It's her body and she has the right to expose it, but I think it is irresponsible to .

Dont ask opinions if you dont want em

I didnt even look at the animal one violence against animals is more than I want to absorb, even if the point is to stop people from wearing fur (which is a good goal), to show it so graphiy is a bit much for me.

animals are so innocent and vulnerable. Hard to even think about.

indeed I might add how I saw a little dog bark at me and then express the jitters around people and the noise of cars and even after I interacted with her for a half hour her tail was slightly between her legs. I continued to love her and finally she covered my entire head with her body with licks and her warm sweet paws and tummy. She's not mine but adopted by a store owner. They're just like people yet we often don't treat them like that.

As advanced as our society thinks it has come, Hollywood or the entertainment sector still uses sleezy stunts to get our attention. I agree with pretty much that has been said about these pics. I am a very basic person but this is just trash.

it's GQ I would expect nothing else than what is there. it's a men's mag, why would the male actors be showing any skin? they are only there so that the man looking at the photo knows where to imagine himself being. and the anti-fur ads are designed to get your attention. and they did that.

half assed apology The photos in GQ did not surprise me on GQ's part at all. It made me question the taste or integrity of the actor. "If I offended you, I'm sorry." Not that she is sorry she DID it.