Posted on 05/05/2008 5:16:13 AM PDT by Invisigoth
This week, tween star Miley Cyrus shocked America when she crossed over to the dark side of adulthood. When Vanity Fair released photos of 15-year-old Miley draped in a sheet, concerned parents and Disney execs were aghast that their sugary pop idol had become a sexualized young woman.
Parents told reporters that they were no longer going to let their daughters watch Hannah Montana, Miley’s Disney-produced television show-turned-musical-act-turned-brand-phenomenon. Internet message boards, populated mostly by furious mothers, advocated for a massive Hannah Montana paraphernalia bonfire. There are rumblings that Disney might even replace Miley with her up-and-coming co-star, Serena Gomez. Miley insisted in a statement that the photos were meant to be “artistic” but was sure to cover-up (no pun intended) for her mistake by saying that she was “so embarrassed” once she saw the sexual nature of the finished photographs.
I have to wonder though, why all of this uproar now? Why Miley? It is troublesome that Miley’s career should take a hit when the problem goes much, much deeper than one girl posing for one magazine in a marginally sexual way. She’s become an unwilling scapegoat for a problem that can’t be fixed by an outraged bonfire or a cast replacement.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
I disagree. It's not just "a 15-year-old with a bare back." It's a 15-year-old who is known to be a cult figure to girls as young as 6, whose personal life is, as far as we know, chaste, being portrayed in such as way as to indicate that she just had sex. The intention is clearly to titillate, in a pretty sick way, imo.
I think the picture is morally wrong, but I’ve seen the show many times when babysitting my cousins. I have not seen anything in it bad personally. Of course, I haven’t seen every episode, so there may have been something.
“The human body is not a dirty or shameful thing”
You could be no more right
“A photograph created as a work of art without any attempt to appeal to the prurient nature of the viewer is not pornography.”
When the person is underage, you could be no more wrong.
There are plenty of Miley Cyrus pics that shows her in a good and respectable manner.
“I think the picture is morally wrong, but I’ve seen the show many times when babysitting my cousins. I have not seen anything in it bad personally. Of course, I haven’t seen every episode, so there may have been something.”
The show is lame but harmless. I have seen practically all of them.
When my niece leaves, I usually have to clense my eyes and watch 300 and Rambo.
The fact that people are upset by these utterly sexless images is, in my opinion, telling. Only a person with a dirty mind would find these photographs to be dirty.
as i said, i have no problem with the terminology used by my daughter, it fits with the term as i hear it used TODAY. you can feel free to feel differently and to raise your children to use different terminology and i won’t object : )
I think that the belief that Disney had no idea about these pictures is incorrect. No matter what they say, this whole thing was about “growing” her up, and it’s kinda backfiring/kinda working. That’s it. End of story.
You're doing a good job making your points, but I still have to disagree. My FIRST reaction to the Miley Cyrus pic was that she'd just had sex -- IOW's the message that "Vanity Fair" wanted to convey is that the little girl was all grown up. I don't really consider myself to have a 'dirty mind', btw.
As another poster said: they are repositioning the Miley Cyrus 'brand' to another group of consumers. The first group of consumers -- pre-teen girls -- is getting dumped on in the process.
It’s not the photogtapher’s fault unless he drugged her and shot the photos. Let’s be clear about responsibility. Cyrus and he grandmother went. They are responsible for the pictures unless there was a hidden camera in the dressing room.
Really? I mean no personal insult, but that's troubling. Maybe I'm just naive, but I honestly didn't (and don't) see anything the least bit sexy about that photo.
That's the funny thing about straw man arguments: They completely misrepresent the viewpoints of someone else so they can have an easy time knocking down an idiotic argument that nombody is even making.
You sound a little like Rosie O'Donut who defended Miley and said the picture is not pornographic. Of course, most rational people who thought it was very poor judgment for Miley to pose for the picture have not said anything even close to calling the picture pornographic, but rather criticized her judgment in posing for a picture where she was clearly nude from the waist up even though she did have the sheet covering her front. Apparently, you and Rosie share the same lack of ability to distinguish between the two positions.
Wow, I had just castigated one poster for misrepresenting the views of people who recognize the poor judgment involved here, and then immediately see a comment calling the photo "porn". The pictures did not reveal any private parts; nor did the pictures portray anyone engaging in sexual activity. This could only be considered child porn by someone who is also offended by the children's underwear section of the Sears catalog.
He didn’t say he found it “sexy”; he said he felt the picture conveyed the idea that the subject just had sex. Can you suggest another scenario, so to speak, that would have a young girl, naked at least from the waist up, wrapped in a bedsheet, with disheveled hair and a deer-in-the-headlights expression?
As both a woman and a mother of daughters, I can say from experience and observation that this is not a position in which a girl finds herself in the normal course of events. For example, girls generally sleep in nightgowns or pajamas, and use towels when they have taken a shower or bath.
Her dad was there for most of the photoshoot, but had to leave for another engagement. As soon as he was gone, the photographers some up with the idea of getting her shirt off for some sexy/artistic photos, and Miley did not have the good judgment to say no.
They waited until after he left to suggest pictures without the shirt.
I can deal with my own hang-ups, hopefully, so I don’t take any offense.
She is certainly far more sophisticated than the average 15yo kid. Any budding athlete or entertainer would be, so I’m not even sure that she is being taken advantage of in any basic sense. Her father was certainly OK with it, if not encouraging it. If anybody could have put the brakes on this Billy Ray could have. Disney was behind it. “Vanity Fair” was certainly going to push the limits of taste as far as they could. All-in-all I can’t get too excited about the whole affair, though I can see the point of those parents of pre-teen girls who think otherwise.
Good point. Whether or not use of the word "slut" was appropriate, the picture in question conveys an air of sluttiness. By all accounts, Miley was surprised that the picture looked so slutty, and was mortified at the image it projected. She failed to recognize at the time, what a girl two years younger immediately saw. That is sad for her, but perhaps she will learn from the experience and avoid worse mistakes in the future.
I hadn't heard that. If true (and it's not Billy Ray's way deflecting some criticism) I may have to re-assess some things here.
In my day, one of the ways we recognized girls as "sluts" was by the way they dressed and presented themselves -- as if to advertise that they would give it away to anyone who wanted it. Many of the girls who were recognized as "sluts" probably did not meet your extreme deep discount whore definition of the word, but they presented the appearance of doing so. It was all perception. The PERCEPTION conveyed by the bareback picture of Miley -- fair or not -- is a sexually provocative one. That some young teens recognize that as sluttiness is simply reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.