Lea Michele of Glee Fame: Too Sexy For Her Teenage Fans?

It is confession time. I have not yet sat down and watched anything Glee related. That said, I have an idea of what it is about based on my travels through cyber space. So, it is interesting that at least one Glee star, Lea Michele, finds herself the subject of a little more controversy.

The main characters of Glee did a very sexy high-school themed photo shoot for GQ. The GQ shoot ruffled quite a few feathers and was slammed for promoting pedophilia. However, this latest storm is a storm in a tea cup and is not really worth the space that will be devoted to it.

Here is the nuts and bolts of the latest controversy/ Glee is a high-school themed show where the lead actors are not high school students but adult actors playing teenage roles. One of those actors, Lea Michele, recently did a sexy cover shoot for Cosmopolitan Magazine. It was only sexy because the cover shot was Michele in a plunging neckline dress which accentuated her breasts. Sadly, this has left some 11, 12 and 13-year-olds dazed and confused as to why none of their classmates are so sexy and able to carry off a dress of that calibre. Parents are up in arms all over the place. It is almost as if the principal sat down with Kindergarten and told them that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not real.

Lea Michele is a 24-year-old adult. If she wants to pose in a plunging neckline dress that accentuates her assets, then so be it. She is an adult and the target audience of Cosmo magazine is contemporary adult.

Any parents with confused teenagers, rather than blaming Michele, how about you sit them down and explain a few things. Perhaps, one could start with Glee being fiction and that the people playing the parts are actors, and some of those actors are in fact adults.

Ho hum...

Australian Kids Banned From Hugging At School...

The beauty of blogging, and perhaps its danger as well, is that I do not have to be fair and balanced. I can, if I so desire, spout off on any old thing I want and argue my point of view. Well, almost. As a teacher, I am told in no uncertain terms that I am a teacher 24/7 and this means that anything I do or say outside of school will also be counted against me, either positively or negatively.

Such is the teacher's lot.

Now, on with the show!

Students at William Duncan State School in Nerang (on the Gold Coast) have returned to Term 4 to find that the school has adopted a "no hugging" policy. Nope, this is not some anti-green movement to stop kids from hugging trees in these times of climate change. It is a policy to stop the students from hugging each other.

The policy does not start with hugging. The policy, in essence, outlaws all touching; male-male, female-female, and male-female. Any student caught in breach of the policy will find themselves on detention.

This begs the obvious question, "Why?"

Well, it seems that the school in conjunction with the Parents & Citizens Council has decided that there is a need for this. I am all into protecting out children from bullying, including cyber-bullying. I am also in favour of adopting a policy that prevents students from touching each other in violent ways; they need to keep their hands and feet to themselves. Yet, the William Duncan policy is for a primary school. It appears that the need to ban hugging is to protect the innocence of the students and to not allow them to be sexualised at too young an age.

I have to admit, if that is the reason and rationale to this policy, then I am a little confused. Since when has hugging been solely a sexual act? And, doesn't the policy run the risk of alerting kids to the idea and concept of sexualisation by teaching them that there is something inherently wrong about hugging in that it is in some way dirty or wrong and needs to be avoided?

The policy seems at odds with how we conduct ourselves in the real world. People hug all the time. Let's face it, I was watching the tennis the other night on the idiot box and at the conclusion of the game the players hugged at the net. Nothing wrong with that is there? Or even more recently, I was watching the English Premier League (EPL), also on the idiot box, and when a goal was scored, the goal scorer was mobbed and hugged by his team mates. Nothing wrong with that is there?

Perhaps, there needs to be a little bit of a rethink. Perhaps the school needs to think about when and where hugging is appropriate and teach their students the difference. If two students are involved in a lingering embrace that includes some passionate kissing (not that this is likely to happen in primary school) then that becomes a teaching moment for inappropriate hugging (and additional activity).

If the overall idea is to teach our children responsible behaviours and how to behave responsibly, then we as teachers, parents, and adults need to be responsible in how we go about teaching those behaviours. Banning hugging in a universal and uniform manner like it has seemingly been done here, is not about teaching responsible behaviours and behaving responsibly, it is about avoiding teaching what is appropriate touching and when it is appropriate to touch another.

To successfully teach our children, and students, the difference between right and wrong we have to teach them what is right and wrong, and not just ban anything and everything we can think of.

Hopefully, no one is offended by the hugging kittens.

Taylor Momsen...

To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of this girl until a couple of weeks ago. Or if I had, then it had not really registered as being anything special. However, it seems that it is getting increasingly difficult to avoid knowing more than one wants to about this 17-year-old with a penchant for trouble and going beyond the edge of the "appropriate" line.

Yet, the latest antics which involve exposing her 17-year-old mammary glands to a whole lot of music fans attending The Pretty Reckless concert at Don Hill's in New York City last week. The idea of an underage girl flashing her 'assets' is disturbing. However, it would seem that Momsen had thought this through sort of as the most naughty bits of her assets were covered with gaffer tape. So, this begs the question "did she really flash or not?" I ask this question in a strict legal sense. If you cannot see the naughty bits, then has she committed a crime by doing what she did.

It is a desperate act of sensationalism, agreed. But, is it illegal?

Needless to say, there has been plenty of outrage in the cyber-sphere about how bad and evil this is, and why it is high time her parents intervened and brought her under much stricter parental control. Maybe they should. Sometimes it is easier said than done. There are plenty of parents out there in the real world who will attest to that!

Momsen's antics sort of make the attempts by Miley Cyrus to portray a more adult image look pretty tame. In fact, the recent kerfuffle about the of-age GQ photo shoot by the stars of Glee look almost angelic in comparison.

I have no qualms about posting the picture of the gaffer-taped breast bearing shenanigans of Taylor Momsen. Simply, what is under those pink little stars is gaffer tape. There is nothing to see!

However, whether these sorts of actions are appropriate for a 17-year-old is a different debate to the strict legal one. Whether Momsen has any obligations to behave in a particular way because she is a role model is worth a thought. Ultimately, though perhaps the consumer is the one who needs to be pro-active here. Is this a case of supply and demand, the larger the demand for the sensational from her the more she strives to satisfy that demand. Chicken or the egg?

I wonder whether the producers of Gossip Girls are going to reprimand her for her silliness and stupidity? Or, do the ratings outcomes justify the means and the ends in this case? If what Momsen did was bad, then advertisers could conceivably pull the plug on all the advertising that they do on the show, right? This might make a statement that would have people taking notice for all the right reasons; certain behaviour is not tolerated and will cost you.

The final point is that perhaps this stupidity on Momsen's part will lead to a more sustained argument about the sexualisation of our children and who drives this, adults or the children themselves.

Glee & Promoting Pedophilia...

Hmmm...

Glee is a TV show that airs on Fox in the US. It is classed as a musical comedy-drama, and it follows the trials and tribulations of high school teenagers as they wend there collective ways through some good old teenage angst issues. Interesting a lot of the cast are not teenagers at all but adult actors playing the role of teenagers. Apart from being a pretty popular TV series, Glee has come in for some closer scrutiny after a recent photo-shoot of some of the 20-something actors (Lea Michele, Dianna Agron, and Corey Monteith) from the show appeared in GQ magazine.

The controversy arose because the Parents Television Council in the US has labelled the photos as "bordering on paedophilia". This in turn raises some interesting legal issues as to how one should proceed when adult age actors who are play the roles of teenagers then pose for sexy photos. Can the sexy photo of a 20+ something actor ever be an image that promotes pedophilia. It would seem that the assumption is that because these actors play the roles of not yet of age teenagers then any image of them that sexualises them is promoting pedophilia.

The reality is that if these young people use their fame to promote themselves through sexy photo-shoots, even ones that overtly sexualise them, don't they have a right to do it? After all, the people involved are all of legal age, and by any definition of the law have a right to make the decisions that they have. The photos themselves are not pornographic and do not violate any decency standards or norms for television or for print media.

Nevertheless, this is an interesting legal issue that extends beyond this particular instance. For example, can purveyors of porn be arrested and jailed for the upload / download of images of adults wearing, or part wearing of, school uniforms? In a lot of jurisdictions the law has been amended or worded in such a way as what the image attempts to convey or the content as being the key determiner in whether an image is classified as child porn.

So, simply if the point is to provide sexual gratification through the belief that one is looking at a naked or near naked child, even where the "child" in question is in fact an adult, then a crime has been committed. At least this is how I understand the law to work (time for more research and update myself on the laws in this area).

Therefore, if that interpretation of the law is accurate, then is it possible to mount a child porn case with images like the ones in GQ? I would argue not. Any reasonable person would know that the young people depicted in these images are adults and not children.

I am not sure how these particular photos promote pedophilia. I must be missing something.

The Birds & The Bees...

Life used to be so much more simple when the conversation was really only about when to have that "talk". You know, the one about the birds and the bees. However, the conversation is no longer a conversation hut a fully-fledged debate, and perhaps rightly so. There has been an increasing trend, courtesy of the internet, for our children and their youth to be tested by the bounds of what is 'right'.

Some of the more interesting debate centres on child stars as they grow into adulthood and begin testing the waters with respect to finding themselves, finding an identity that they are comfortable with, and moving from the relative safety to the less safe world of being an adult. This is exacerbated by the youngsters themselves when they avail themselves of the technology at their disposal and post pictures of themselves. Miley Cyrus as the childhood sweetheart of the Hannah Montana series is a prime example of this need to adult-me-up crossover from childhood star to wanna-be taken seriously adult.

Another 17-year-old looking to have a much more adult image of late is Taylor Momsen.  Her recent appearance on the cover of Revolver magazine is tribute to that desire to ratchet-up to the next level the desire to be an adult.

As I was looking for some images that were tame enough to attach to this post, it struck me that once an image is posted to the internet then it forever remains "out there".

I guess the point of this post is really to ponder why there is a need to sexualise our children through the media, how we should deal with it as a community when these youngsters bring it on themselves by posting pictures of themselves, and should this topic be addressed in schools as a means of trying to prevent the most negative outcomes of what seems to be out of control at the moment?

Miley Cyrus vs. Hannah Montana

It seems that little Hannah Montana has decided that being Miley Cyrus requires a much more adult look. Although, it would seem that adults are not buying her records in the same numbers that the child fans of Hannah Montana were.

Anyways, this is what Miley is up to now. The photos were found at the above link under the heading "Miley Cyrus Gives It To Her Fans Doggy Style". It is certainly a different image for her. I hope it works out for her.

Here are the happy snappies showing the new look. These photos are sure to reinvigorate the debate about the sexualization of children, particularly when one considers that traditionally the Miley Cyrus fan base is predominantly tweens. It has been suggested that her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, approves of the more contemporary adult look.

I will leave you to make up your own minds.

Art Monthly Australia -- Child Pornography Update

This was something that I posted on previously and posed the question as to whether the photo should be considered to be child pornography. Not many comments, which is more indicative of my limited readership than the importance of the issue, however it would seem that the Classification Board in Australia has made this decision for us.

After Art Monthly Australia chose the picture for its cover as a protest on the recent seizing of images from an exhibition of Bill Henson's work in Sydney, the magazine was reported for a possible violation of the law. The Classification Board was asked for an opinion and it has now given one.

That opinion is to classify the picture with an M rating. This translates to "suitable for publication, though discretion is advised for viewers under the age of 15."

The photo in question of Olympia Nelson was taken by her mother, Pollixeni Papapetrou. Olympia's father Robert Nelson had this to say after the Classification Board came back with its decision, "I think she's feeling very happy because her argument has always been there's nothing wrong with the picture" and "the idea that it's pornographic is absurd."

It is worth noting that the Classification Board decision was not unanimous as several members arguing that the magazine should have been given a Refused Classification rating. The magazine did have additional graphic sexual images inside. A Refused Classification translates to the magazine being prohibited for sale.

At the time the politicians from all parties sensing blood in the water began circling like sharks around a defenceless surfer. The majority were jumping up and down describing the image as pornography, the sexualization of a child, the theft of Olympia's childhood, and that Art Monthly Australia should have all its public funding removed. Now that the Classification Board has issued an M rating I wonder how these same politicians feel about the Classification Board. Are we going to see a full-scale spill at the Board?

Life goes on!

More on Naked Kids as Art

The girl whose picture sparked the latest outbursts in the sexualization of children / child porn debate has come out in her own defence. The girl, Olympia Nelson, at the time the picture was taken was a mere six years old. She is now a much more commanding 11 years old. At 11 years old I am still not convinced that she knows or understands the implications of the photo or the debate that surrounds them.

The photos were taken by the Olympia's mother, Polixeni Papapetrou. I am not sure this makes a difference to the idea or arguments relating to exploitation. However, it does add to the dynamic of the argument the question, who should be able to make decisions relating to the photographing of minor children?

Nevertheless, the interesting part of this story is that Olympia Nelson is "really, really offended" that the PM, Kevin Rudd, cannot stand the images of a naked six year old Olympia. I prefer Brendan Nelson's (no relation as far as I know) characterization of the cover of Art Monthly Australia being the equivalent of a two-fingered salute to the rest of society.

The arguments being presented from both sides have some validity but none seem to be structured with a view to finding or striking some balance between the value of protecting children and any artistic value such images might have.

Art Monthly Australia have missed an opportunity to advance the argument by including other images of bondage involving a Japanese schoolgirl and a woman on the receiving end of some oral sex from an octopus. Sounds a little fetishy to me but I am sure it will peak some one's interest. Nevertheless, this is hardly a good means of getting people on side with your position.

The idea that these publications receive federal funding and therefore must comply to a certain standard would seem that the government offers funding as a means of dictating norms. There are probably arguments relating to free speech on this front but there are equally valid arguments that if the government is paying for it then it perhaps has a right to expect certain content acceptability provisions are to be put into place.

It would seem that this debate still has a ways to go before any resolution is found.

Child Pornography Debate -- Reignited

Is this child pornography?

Internet -- The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

There is no doubting that the Internet is a powerful tool. There is also no doubting that once something gets posted online it is almost impossible to retrieve. So, if what is posted is embarrassing then it is likely to remain an embarrassment for the rest of your natural life.

It is not only the Internet that is a powerful tool in this age of technology, but the increasing sophistication of mobile phones to include cameras and streaming video means that just about anyone can be a conduit for news. This sort of takes citizen journalism to a whole new level.

When the Internet and increased sophistication of technology is combined with the increasing levels of sexualization of children, then we have a scenario for real trouble. This is highlighted in a Victorian case that has now involved the FBI.

A teenage girl, and only just a teenager at 13, has taken some sexually explicit photos of herself and sent them to her 17-year old boyfriend. Now, I am not quite sure what a 17-year old wants to be going out with a 13-year old for in the first place, but he was.

The whole story might have ended there but for the intervention of another 13-year old who happened to acquire the self-portrait images of the other girl and decided to create a fake MySpace account and post the pictures there.

Now the news are reporting the girl who took the photos as the victim. However, if the photos were taken voluntarily is she still a victim. In the eyes of the law, yes. The 17-year old should have known the law and steered well clear. This might be cut and dried in terms of interpreting the prevailing provisions but it might not be so cut and dried once the full story emerges (then again maybe it will).

The complaint was made by the "victim" and the police became involved. It is unclear as to whether the complaint was about the 17-year old boyfriend or the 13-year old that created the MySpace account and posted the happy snappy self-portraits.

The 13-year old that created the fake MySpace account was cautioned, which is nothing more than a lecture and a slap on the wrist.

The boyfriend on the other hand is in a whole different world of hurt having been charged with the sexual penetration of a child under 16 and procuring child pornography.

My views are clear on kiddie porn and a quick squiz through my postings here are elsewhere highlight that. Simply, kiddie porn is not on at any time. But, how are we as a community to deal with images of minors taken by the minors themselves and then posted by those minors on the Internet?

Art or Child Porn -- Some More Thoughts

The art vs. porn debate is likely to rage on for a while and then perhaps disappear until the next time someone wants to run an exhibition with provocative images. However, I have been following this debate because of the legal implications and because I enjoy looking at how the debate is characterized considering art is such a subjective area of study.

I was forwarded a link to a discussion thread at a place called "net-model" which has some interesting stuff about Bill Henson and others who have produced similar images in the name of art over the years.

Nevertheless, I do want to throw something else into the fray here, and that is; assuming that Henson did all the right things and asked for and was granted the consent of the parents for the photographs, then where should the blame be apportioned in this case?

If these images are in fact classified as pornography then why is no one talking about the parents who allowed these photos to be taken? Has the child been removed from the family home because she is at risk from sexual exploitation by her parents?

When is too young for nude modelling work? Not a question I can or want to answer at this point in time or one that I need to answer. However, before a child reaches legal age to make decisions for themselves (legal capacity) then these decisions are made by the parent(s) and as such the parents must also be responsible for the consequences of the decisions made on behalf of their child.

Will these images do any irreparable psychological harm to the teen models that are the subject of these pictures, who knows? Only time will tell, won't it?

I wonder would we be having this debate if the pictures in question were the happy snappies from the family album and included photographs of kids in the bath, frolicking on the lawn or at the beach, or doing any other myriad of things that kids do and that their parents photograph them doing? What would be the arbitrary line in the sand that we as a community would draw to determine when a naked picture has a sexual context and when it is nothing more than an innocent family happy snappy?

Art is such a subjective thing and I guess this is why this debate had to happen...one person's art is another person's porn!

More to follow...

Art or Child Porn

An exhibition of Bill Henson photographs depicting 12 an 13 year old children fully naked and in poses that have been described as being sexual (includes some of the offending images) is about to open in Paddington (NSW, Australia) at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery. The invitation depicts a picture of a young girl in her full nakedness and one hand covering her crotch.

So, have the prevalence of images of naked children in the mass media meant that those things that were shocking in the past for our parents are now no longer shocking? It would seem so!

Children must be afforded special protections from exploitation and specifically from sexual exploitation and in that sense the purpose of this protection is to allow children to be children. The reality however is that children are being sexualized at much younger ages and being exposed to adult themes at much earlier ages than ever before. If you do not believe me then simply go to any newsagent or place that sells magazines aimed at the teen girl market and read a story or two.

The issue has become just that an issue and has sparked a Senate enquiry in Australia. The Report is due some time next month and I might post some excerpts from it once it has been released.

Does the ever-increasingly earlier sexualization of children do them long-lasting mental and psychological harm. I guess the answer to this question is going to depend on who you ask and how you characterize the question presented.

It is being reported that Clive Hamilton, former executive director of the Australia Institute, whose 2006 report Corporate Pedophilia, authored by Dr Emma Rush, brought the sexualization of children issue into the mainstream, said yesterday:

"They have a very postmodern agenda, [with] an old fashioned feminist view that girls should be able to explore their sexuality and any attempt to stop them … is perverse."

This seems like that it is a debate that is going to continue for some time as there are distinct and competing agendas at play here.

For me, at least on a personal level, this is a sad indictment of the world in which we live that children can no longer have the right to be children. But, then again, perhaps this is the nature of the beast. The beast in this case being increasingly sophisticated technologies for providing information which in turn forces children to "grow-up" more quickly.

Nevertheless, the question that I want to leave any readers who have made it this far with is:

"when does art cease to be art and become pornography, or is pornography art?"

Miley Cyrus + Hannah Montana

The controversy surrounding the photographing of teenagers in provocative poses has raised its ugly head again in relation to pictures of Miley Cyrus of Hannah Montana fame. By all accounts the shots in question are part of a shoot conducted by Annie Liebowitz and involved the whole Cyrus family. The head of the Cyrus family being one Billy Ray, the once famous Achy Breaky Heart guy!

By all accounts the whole process was warm and fuzzy and presumably nothing out of the ordinary occurred. The fact that the photos are to be (or already have been) published in Vanity Fair suggests that the Cyrus family is happy with the shots and happy for them to be published. Any one who knows anything about Vanity Fair knows that it is no stranger to controversy or provocative covers and photos.

The photo above is from the series of shots taken by Liebowitz. My personal opinion is that it is not provocative and knowing that she is 15 does not change my mind on that. I really do not like the photo because of the composition of it. Let's face it most people would look at this photo and their first thoughts before any consideration of provocativeness is that the subject of the photo looks a little washed out, an almost deathly paleness about her.

Yet, my take is that if her parents are happy for her to be portrayed in this way then so be it. The photograph is not pornographic and it is not sexually explicit! Is it exploitative? Perhaps it is but perhaps this was a conscious decision on the part of the Cyrus family and was about "growing up" her image. Whether this is the right image to portray is a different debate.

Nevertheless, the images have proven to be provocative as they have provoked much debate about the pros and cons of such photographs.