Miley Cyrus... why?

[ThreeMusketeers]

OMG! I am outraged!! This is borderline child porn to me. She is a 15 year old girl, that this magazine has photographed in a sexual way. =(
Shame on her!
Shame on her parents for letting her!

This all just seems like what happens to all young girls in the "biz". She is naming excuses now why she did it, when obviously the ADULTS in her life should have said.."artsy or not, this is not something a 15 year old girl should be taking part in!!!!" THIS IS DISTURBING!

 

[transparant]

You might or might not win. You might think you are winning in the house. But I have seen too many of my teen's friends with very strict parents change in the car, at school, on the way to the prom.
I think there is a character on one of the Disney shows that does this? She is a foreign girl whose parents insist she wear her country's clothes - clothes that are completely not cool. Then she changes as soon as she gets to school.

Just be careful. The "I Will Win" attitude with a teen will usually guarantee rebellion.

Oh trust me - I'll win. I have NO worries about my girls changing once they are out of the house - in fact, 9 times out of 10 I'm the one driving them to dances...OR their friends are hanging out in my house almost every single day. I know what they are doing ALL the time - as a parent...that is MY responsibility. In fact - they truly have no desire whatsoever to dress like tramps in revealing clothing. They prefer dressing a bit more conservatively. And for what its worth - I have older teens and have never had an issue with rebellion in regards to skimpy dressing or promiscuity.

The adults that allowed Miley Cyrus (a child) to post nude were wrong in my opinion. But...I guess thats why we have opinions. Maybe in their opinion allowing a child to pose topless and seductively is just fine.

 

[transparant]

OMG! I am outraged!! This is borderline child porn to me. She is a 15 year old girl, that this magazine has photographed in a sexual way. =(
Shame on her!
Shame on her parents for letting her!

This all just seems like what happens to all young girls in the "biz". She is naming excuses now why she did it, when obviously the ADULTS in her life should have said.."artsy or not, this is not something a 15 year old girl should be taking part in!!!!" THIS IS DISTURBING!

Exactly!

 

[AmberDaClown]

15 year old girls shouldn't be watching Elvis wiggle his hips like that. It will only lead to impure thoughts.

WHATEVER!

 

[Wishing on a star]

I wrote: "this was not 'Miley's mistake'... this is premeditated and controlled and approved by the adults around her."

And you wrote the below.. (most of which is wayyyy of topic)

First of all, let me say that I am NOT a Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus fan. The girl cannot sing, cannot act and for the life of me, cannot see where her fame comes from.

That said,

You were at the photo shoot? You know this was premeditated and previously controlled? You know that the parents went in and said "Let's do a nude photo of her back?"

I spent a few of my teen years in NYC. One of my best friends was an up and coming model. I went to a few photo shoots with her.

I remember it was a very flowing thing. There was an idea of what they wanted to capture, but it was more like free-association. One pose led to another as the photographer got ideas as the shoot progressed.

I remember he told her to strip down to her underwear. This was not planned nor was it ever discussed. Thankfully my friend said no, but I can completely understand the seduction of trusting a very famous photographer to look out for the interests of your child and being in the heat of the moment of the photo shoot.

I am sure all of you who are saying that Miley is going to become a trashy tramp from this one incident have NEVER had a "Could have had a V-8" moment.

You have NEVER in your life done something that you are now embarrassed about? There is not a single incident in your lives where you say "Wow, what was I thinking?" Luckily for us, our V-8 moments are not in public view and only those closest to us may remember a few years down the road.

While I didn't like the picture and definitely think Annie L. took advantage of a young girl and her family, I will reserve judgement about how trashy Miley becomes when she emerges from puberty.

And I agree that the photographer should shoulder the blame for this. She was the expert the parents consulted to take pictures of their daughter.

The mistake was in trusting this particular photographer. She has also not always shown the best judgement in public relations, etc. Remember the flak she created when she asked Queen Elizabeth to remove her crown? Not a smart move, but shows that Annie will go to any lengths for her OWN personal gain.

Sorry, but I do stand by my post...

I didn't have to be present to make this determination...

1. There were adults.. professionals, parents, agents, etc... who WERE present. They were 'calling the shots'... And, I do mean 'calling the shots' in every sense of that phrase.

2. Miley is a 15 year old minor...

The adults are responsible.
To try to absolve the adults of any transgression by allowing this to be blamed on a 'teenagers mistake' is not realistic or appropriate in any way.

NOBODY can tell me that Annie and many of the others present did NOT have this premeditated idea. NOBODY can tell me that they did not pursue this, approve it, and carry it out, in print.... A premeditated and conscience decison on their parts. That photo was not taken 'by accident', and it did not go into print and full circulation 'by accident'.

That is the reality... No matter what kind of excuses or spin one might wish to put on it.

 

[disneyfantotheend]

I don't really get the big deal being made of this. I do think the parents and the photographer were both in the wrong. Even Miley was in the wrong. Some 15 year olds can make good decisions. It was not nude. It was inappropriate, but if it wasn't for the publicity it is getting from the talk shows, radio stations and computer, my 11 year old daughter would not be buying a Vanity Fair magazine or even seeing one.

 

[bicker]

The adults that allowed Miley Cyrus (a child) to post nude were wrong in my opinion.

This kind of misstatement of the facts in the premise of your assertion discredits the point you're trying to make.

 

[transparant]

This kind of misstatement of the facts in the premise of your assertion discredits the point you're trying to make.

How does adults allowing a child to pose seductively with nothing but a sheet covering her (its pretty obvious that she is topless) discredit the point I'm trying to make?

 

[Charade]

Only as you see them.

Good grief man, stop being so obtuse! I didn't "see" anything different that what was actually in the photo.

And she alluded to that in her statement. You're welcome to ask her for more details, personally. Regardless, there is no reason not to take her at her word. She's a professional.

She alluded to nothing. She stated it explicitly.

It says what I said it says. I suppose, then, the only thing the photograph says to me are technical aspects. That, itself, is probably as good of an explanation of why I feel the photograph isn't very good.

Apparently obtuse is the word of the day...

I doubt that.

No, I really think you did.

 

[bicker]

The adults that allowed Miley Cyrus (a child) to post nude were wrong in my opinion.

This kind of misstatement of the facts in the premise of your assertion discredits the point you're trying to make.

How does adults allowing a child to pose seductively with nothing but a sheet covering her discredit the point I'm trying to make?

See the problem here? One is an assertion about the facts, which is what was erroneous, while the second is an assertion which is a matter of opinion, which you're entitled to though I disagree with it.

 

[transparant]

See your mistake? One is an assertion about the facts, which is what was erroneous, while the second is an assertion which is a matter of opinion, which you're entitled to though I disagree with it.

Spin it however you see fit - but its quite obvious that she is topless which to me would be nude (on the top half).

Quite frankly...I'm confused as to what your opinion is What I;m gathering is that you think it is okay for minor's to pose this way??? Could you clarify if I'm wrong?

 

[bicker]

Good grief man, stop being so obtuse! I didn't "see" anything different that what was actually in the photo.

You've belied yourself. Read some of your earlier messages about the "message" in the photo. You chose to see something in those photo which I don't believe is there. Now maybe current day innuendo is lost on me, perhaps because I look at things in that way, but regardless, what you're asserting "is there" is actually only what you chose to see. It is not objectively there. That's not "being so obtuse". It's the reality of the situation, and the distinction is important and relevant, even though it undercuts the assertions you're trying to make.

She alluded to nothing. She stated it explicitly.

I don't think this distinction is important enough to argue about. She said that she thought the photo was a beautiful and natural portrait. That was the best indication of what her stated intention for the photo was.

Apparently obtuse is the word of the day...

Again, you are choosing to label assertions that you don't like as "obtuse". We disagree. You're not supposed to like the points I'm making. And it seems to me that you are working very hard to come up with an interrogation that would get me to say something that you could distort into saying something else. I refuse to let you interrogate me in that manner, but instead I choose to present my points. That doesn't make my replies obtuse. What constructive purpose is there in wasting bandwidth trying to assert that they are?

No, I really think you did.

With respect, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

 

[Master Mason]

Spin it however you see fit - but its quite obvious that she is topless which to me would be nude (on the top half).

Quite frankly...I'm confused as to what your opinion is What I;m gathering is that you think it is okay for minor's to pose this way??? Could you clarify if I'm wrong?

1nude
Pronunciation: \ˈnüd, ˈnyüd\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): nud·er; nud·est
Etymology: Latin nudus naked — more at naked
Date: 1531
1: lacking something essential especially to legal validity <a nude contract>
2 a: devoid of a natural or conventional covering; especially : not covered by clothing or a drape b (1): of the color of a white person's flesh (2): giving the appearance of nudity <a nude dress> c: featuring nudes <a nude movie> d: frequented by naked people <a nude beach>

Notice from the definition, not covered by clothing or a drape. She was clearly covered by a drape.

If you want to argue that it was inapproriate, fine, but quit with the porn and nude statements, because it simply isn't true.

 

[transparant]

Notice from the definition, not covered by clothing or a drape. She was clearly covered by a drape.

If you want to argue that it was inapproriate, fine, but quit with the porn and nude statements, because it simply isn't true.

Could you make it bigger? I can't see it.

She's topless. How can you argue with that? So again I ask - you are okay with a minor posing in this manor?

 

[bicker]

Spin it however you see fit - but its quite obvious that she is topless which to me would be nude (on the top half).

Besides being inaccurate, it is also a very inflammatory way of presenting the information. "Nude on the top half" -- why not say "topless"? That is, at least, only partially inaccurate (since the term typically implies that the front is visible -- which is NOT the case). The point though is made clear in response to your next question:

Quite frankly...I'm confused as to what your opinion is What I;m gathering is that you think it is okay for minor's to pose this way??? Could you clarify if I'm wrong?

You missed the beginning of the discussion. My opinion is that this is a gross over-reaction to the facts, and that the over-reaction is the big problem. I think the photos and such are utterly insignificant as compared to the over-reaction -- so much so that I don't think it was even worth discussing the details about that. I object to the sensationalism (such as using the inflammatory term "nude" instead of "topless"). I object to the cavalier casting of judgment. I object to the casual imposition of one's own personal values onto others.

 

[Master Mason]

Could you make it bigger? I can't see it.

She's topless. How can you argue with that? So again I ask - you are okay with a minor posing in this manor?

Covered in a drape, can you argue with that?

I think it was a bad move on the part of a lot of people, I think it was pretty tasteless. But it was in no way a nude picture, nor kiddie porn

Also, if you take a look here Which is a major companies swimsuit section on their website you'll see a lot more pictures, which show a lot more and are more suggestive than the picture everyone is riled up about here, oh yea it is their teen section.

 

[Charade]

You've belied yourself. Read some of your earlier messages about the "message" in the photo. You chose to see something in those photo which I don't believe is there. Now maybe current day innuendo is lost on me, perhaps because I look at things in that way, but regardless, what you're asserting "is there" is actually only what you chose to see. It is not objectively there. That's not "being so obtuse". It's the reality of the situation, and the distinction is important and relevant, even though it undercuts the assertions you're trying to make.

I have not. I've made two different comments about the photo. One subjective and one objective. We can have different opinions of what the photo's "message" is but we should all be able to agree what's in the photo. IOW, the subject, the position, the props, etc. There should be little room for disagreement. Apparently you can't even agree with that. This isn't a Rorschach test. If you can't see a young girl turned slightly sideways exposing most of her bare back while holding a sheet to her chest and around her waist with tossed hair looking at the camera, then I can't help you.

 

[AmberDaClown]

Bwahahahhahaha

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1735807,00.html?cnn=yes

Tween Rorshach test indeed.

I slept nude or in just panties as a teen as did a lot of my friends. The photo could just as easily suggest being caught after just waking up. Alone.

 

[stevenpensacola]

 

[luvmy3]

I can't believe people are considering these photos nude. Since when is exposing your back (yes just your back) considered nude? If thats the case then what about the Limited too catazine my dd just recieved today. There is a heck of alot more exposed by the teenage girls in the photos on the swimsuit pages. Are we now going to consider those nude?