In the 24/7 media world of tween celebrities, maybe it was only a matter of time before wildly popular Disney star Miley Cyrus found herself overexposed.
The 15-year-old Cyrus has seemed squeaky clean and down to earth — a large part of her G-rated appeal. But an upcoming Vanity Fair photo spread that shows her bare-backed, clutching a sheet and looking bed-tousled has many people asking, “What were they thinking?â€
Cyrus apologized to fans, saying she thought the shot was “artistic.†But she — and more to the point, her parents, who attended the photo shoot — aren’t media innocents. They should have known how fans would see the photo.
59 Comments
“I would never want to put the blame on victims or fault the person who is hurt,” Williams said. “We’re sexualizing children, and it seems like such a weird place to be. No one wants a pedophile living next door, but we’re okay with sexualizing kids. We don’t seem up in arms about it.”
“We aren’t letting girls be girls. We’re encouraging them — through permissiveness, through ignorance, through our own example — to dress in ways that reflect the values of a world that wants to prey on them.
And then we’re shocked when a predator steals their innocence.”
—————-
Mark McCormick has a very good column in the Eagle today.
http://www.kansas.com/201/story/388617.html
Sorry this is from memory so it may not be exact:
“I expose myself with the eyes of a fawn, innocent and wide open without knowing the sins of the world.
IT IS you who case a wary eye over my exposed form“.
Whether they are artistic or indecent is purely up to you. An image does not have a soul, it can not be sinful or innocent. It is the viewer who is the one that puts such labels on an image. You will either look at it and see something that logic told you was there and it is no big deal. Or you will look at it and suffer a reaction that make you uncomfortable. But your reaction is in your mind not in the image, are you shocked that she has a back? Or are you shocked because somewhere deep down it excites you? Are you dismayed because she has skin? Or are you dismayed because you see more then just skin? She is what she is, something that everyone else is too. A human being….
I agree with Outlander on this one. Little girls should be allowed to be little girls not exploited in a manner such as this. Shame on her parents for letting this happen. Millions of tweens look at this girl as a role model. This is very sad.
You have to be kidding right?
BillO the B rate porn novelist is all hepped up about this too.
It is a bare shoulder for crying out loud. You see way more than this watching Nickelodeon or Disney. Get a life.
I still fail to see what the big f’n deal was over her back being exposed. There is nothing sexualized about that photo unless you in your mind want it to be.
I swear, you all read into things far more than you should. It was a photograph, the body is beautiful artistic masterpiece, it’s not like she had her legs wide and up in the air, and you see more skin at the swimming pool.
I think that there are other societal problems that are causing or contributing to increased sexual assaults, including mindlessly violent and sexually explicit video games, and readily accessible internet porn. Listen, some freaks just can’t handle it and they are going to try to turn fantasy to reality.
What do you think? Seems to me that we have decided that rapes of women and girls are the price of “free speech”. A price we seem to be willing to pay so that we can have our “fun”.
My kid watches her Disney show “Hannah Montana” with Miley and her one hit wonder Dad Billy Ray Cyrus.
You will remember him from the popular and then played into the point of hated “Achy Breaky Heart”.
She does stuff WAY more “racy” on that show than this pic.
Second call. Get a life.
J R–
Mega dittos.
The shot is artistic. It looks like a watercolor from 1840. `
More “manufactured outrage” by people whose sexuality is expressed through pruient condemnation of sex.
Bill Orally is the guy who forced female subordinate to listen to his heavy breathing while he masturbated. So that would be lewdness, lust, fornication, adultery, and sexual harassment.
Now he is all bent out of shape about a bare back photographed in profile?
Give me a break, wing-nuts. And I second the motion to get a life.
“contributing to increased sexual assaults”
Actually, outlander, sexual assaults like all violent crime have gone down, not up from the 70’s.
There’s no correlation between porn and sex crime. In fact, porn may give potential sex criminals a relatively harmless outlet that reduces sex crime.
I have a life… I have a good life. I also have a 9 year old daughter that does not think this incident was a good thing… her take on it… not mine. And if it was not a big deal - why is she apologizing for it? And before you answer with your standard “because wing-nuts like you made a big deal out of nothing”… the answer is because IT IS WRONG… a 15 year old girl (a minor) should not be in pictures like this.
When one is a celebrity like “Hanna Montana,” there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
Obviously, she’s positioning herself for a career that is a little bigger than screaming 9 year old girls.
Click on that picture above.
She looks like something from a poster for “Les Miserables.”
You really have to be a sick, twister b@st@rd to see sex there . . .
“They should have known how fans would see the photo.”
Of course they know how fans would see the photo!!! That’s the whole point!
All this manufactured “surprise” and “regret.” Please. These folks are not media neophites. They knew exactly what they were shooting - a bedroom shot - and knew exactly the reaction it would get - publicity to move Miley from kid star to more adult roles. And they’re claiming they only thought of the shot as “artistic.”
Riiiiight.
And Janet’s Super Bowl appearance was just a mistaken “wardrobe malfunction.” Riiiiight.
And right on cue, the media gives the “Hanna Montana” brand the wider media exposure it wanted in the first place.
This was a miscalculation, you say? Not on your life.
You won’t see this from me very often.
“GMC70,” I think you pretty much nailed it this time.
Have to agree with GMC, this is a publicity stunt.
Oh, damn!
I agree with “Regular!”
(I’m gonna have to rethink my position.)
Don’t think so. If it was a publicity stunt, it was a dumb risk. Miley Cyrus is about the hottest thing in show biz. Disney show, sold out tour, hosting CMT awards, etc.. Her image is more important than a little extra pub’. Last thing she needs is for people to start thinking of her as just another Britney.
Is Hannah the next Brittany?
In about two years outlander she’ll be 18; now then, how would she look in a Kids teevee show. No, she’s positioning herself for the big time. Quite possibly with Disney’s input.
“a 15 year old girl (a minor) should not be in pictures like this.”
This pretty much explains your 9 year old..
“that does not think this incident was a good thing.”
Your kid is exhibiting your hang ups.
I have the misfortune of having heard the TV show the Cyrus’s are in about 9 million times.
Just off the top of my head a line from the show.
Miley is advising a friend on how to get a guy to notice her.
“First ya put out the cheese. Then ya snap the trap!”
And no one has issues with the show. But let her bare a shoulder or muss up her hair and Billo and crowd go all Puritan.
I do notice that the apology came out BEFORE publication.
I wonder how much of a stir there would have been, had the Cyrus clan kept quite about this until after publication?
Anyway, I agree with nearly everybody on this thread.
How can that be?
Because I am conflicted as hell.
I have young daughters who come home and tell me about their friends whose parents watch pretty rough stuff right in front of the kids. It makes me want to put the girls back in Catholic schools, but that would be no guarantee either, would it? (They have learning disabilities, that is why we moved them.)
I think the sexual pressure on young girls is way too high.
However?
This picture was pretty mild.
Suggestive and a little weird?
Yes, but it was still mild.
I have heard people say that the parents and Vanity Fair and Disney should be prosecuted for child abuse or sex crimes.
That is, obviously, over the top.
Take a look at any child beauty pagent. Girls much younger than Miley show a lot more skin, and wear a lot more make up. Not an excuse, but —
On this subject, everything seems relative.
Anyone who is unable to see that this picture is sexually suggestive must be a virgin. I’m guessing those that are defending it so hard just enjoy looking at suggestive pictures of underage girls.
I personally have a problem with the “great” Annie Liebovitz on this. This photographer is so respected in the industry and is such an icon that who would dare question her motive, let alone a 15 year old? Or her father?
Instead of the “15 year old embarrased by photographs” headline, how about “acclaimed lesbian photograper takes provacative photos of 15 year old”?
I just see 2 sides to the story and can certainly understand why the Cyrus’s got duped.
Miley Cyrus who? And why should I care if someone gets a photo taken?
“this picture is sexually suggestive”
Dude, go to an art gallery. Or even a library.
You sound like you ought to live in Saudi Arabia where shame and guilt is used for maximum repressive effect . . .
It just dawned on me–Michaelangelo’s “David” is kiddie porn!
Bluejay… My child is a very intelligent little girl. She told me about this and how she didn’t like it. You make pointed accusations about me and you know nothing about me or how I raise my children. Do not assume that you do based on two posts. I will not stoop to your level by calling you names or saying things about you that I could not possibly know. But my opinion… or in this case… the opinion of my daughter is just as valid (if not more so given her attachment to this girl and her show) as yours.
Scandalous, women in chairs.
http://cartersfineart.com/assets/images/WOMAN-IN-CHAIR.jpg
Where is the controversial Cyrus photo? The one at the top of the forum can’t possibly be it. People show more in swimwear.
A valid point was brought up earlier, these “Child” actors out grow their roles. Though she is still young enough to have at least three more years playing such roles. What then? I look at the Olsen twins and wonder what have they left? Now they have enough money that if they did not find work again I doubt they would have to turn to Prostitution. But they have outgrown the cutesy twin roles and that was their gimmick.
Do either one have enough acting ability to go it alone? Worst yet what if one can make it and the other can not? I brought this up over a year ago, if Ashley Olsen could sing like an angel but her sister could not carry a tune in a bucket. What would she do? You know as a matter of predictability that Playboy has a standing offer for a photo shoot of one or both.
I have not watched Hanna Montana enough to even judge whether she can actually sing? If not what is after this? The down side of being famous so young is once the novelty wear out what is left for the rest of their lives?
We must condemn and crucify all of those horrid people who attempt to imply that someone famous actually sits up in bed!
I think it was too suggestive for a 15 year old, but hey, she’s not my daughter, so I don’t care. It’s not like it’s illegal or anything, or too porno. And yeah, you can see way more at the pool. But that’s another story. Not my family, not my concern.
Certainly not national news. SO now that I have added to it, I need to ignore this, which I will.
Thanks for that link, MP.
If I had a color printer, I would have printed that out and put it on my office door.
Very nice.
When I lived overseas in a Muslim country, our TIME and NEWSWEEK magazines would arrive with every picture of a woman who wasn’t fully clothed defaced with a black magic marker.
I wondered what kind of a person could take pride in a job that was the very embodiment of philistinism.
Now I know.
Must be hard being so sexually repressed all the time. Seriously. I’m glad I’m not religious.
I had someone chastize me for pictures, one a picture of when my daughter was about 12, my hubby took her out to do test shots, and she’s leaning back against a tree, fully clothed, with her arms across her chest. Someone saw that and said “oh my god you let your husband take photos of her like that”. I said..like what? Because she was reclining against the tree, someone thought that she looked like she was trusting her pelvis towards him suggestively. WTFE.
I will say this though. I had a picture of my son up on a profile picture shirtless, he was all of about 5 months old. and I had some guy message me for child porn. I was never so disgusted in all my life. And I did reverse lookups on his ID, reported him to the KBI…and I don’t know if they ever caught this guy but I sure hope they did. He told me that he didn’t get to look at his daughter’s breasts since she had gone off to college ICK!
American pop culture needs to quit sexualizing kids…Our country has become a pedophile’s dream. There is nothing wrong with encouraging kids to stay innocent and it’s wrong for young girls to base their self image on their sexuality when they should be developing a sense of self respect and healthy boundries.
I’m sick and tired of seeing women and children exploited for the sake of male sexual gratification.
Where the hell is the outrage?
Tell me what is so sexual about that photo Mary because I don’t see it.
Think about it, PMom…it’s the message or intention behind the image….there is a difference between a picture of a young girl wearing a swimsuit at a pool and another image of a young girl who is topless with a satin sheet draped over her and “the look” in her eyes. One image isn’t sexual, the other is.
That sort of image is fine for a young women in her 20s…but not for a 15 yr old child.
it’s the message or intention behind the image…”
that just proved my point.
I think the image is really beautiful actually.
Right…if you’ve seen the image, it’s pretty apparent what the message is.
I do too, but I think it’s inappropriate because of her age.
She is just trying not to be the next Amanda Bynes.
Amanda Bynes was a big star on Nickelodeon. Then she grew up.
She still gets roles. But it aint a patch to what her career was.
What we see here is Miley’s and her parets attempt to carry her career in singing and acting out of her teen years. Yeah they are getting started a little early. But like I say, the Nickelodeon show she is in has racier stuff than this photo.
She is just trying not to be the next Amanda Bynes.
Amanda Bynes was a big star on Nickelodeon. Then she grew up.
She still gets roles. But it aint a patch to what her career was.
What we see here is Miley’s and her parets attempt to carry her career in singing and acting out of her teen years. Yeah they are getting started a little early. But like I say, the Disney show she is in has racier stuff than this photo.
Oops.
Posted my first and the slight correction.
I hate the idea that our culture teaches young girls that in order to beautiful, they have to be sexual. It’s just plain wrong. A woman shouldn’t have to be sexualized in order to be considered beautiful. Why do you think there are so many girls dressing like streetwalkers and starving themselves to be skinny? It’s because of this stupid body image that is impossible to achieve but they are encouraged to feel worthless unless they can achieve it. Most women don’t look like Barbie..and whatever happened to the idea that INNER beauty was more important than looking like something out of Playboy?
I miss the early days of the women’s movement when women were striving for self respect, independance, and self worth…not judging themselves by how attractive they were to the opposite sex. Somewhere, somehow we’ve lost our way.
“What we see here is Miley’s and her parets attempt to carry her career in singing and acting out of her teen years. Yeah they are getting started a little early.”
Again, why is it so important or necessary for a woman to be sexual in order to be succesful?
Doesn’t say much for her real worth, does it? Does she have no worth except as an object for male sexual gratification? I think that’s how today’s pop culture views women, and it’s hurting our young women and girls.
I’m really hurting right now, I had a long day at work and I need a hot bath and my bed…I’ll catch up with ya all tomorrow.
I’m not saying it’s “right” or anything Mary. And I agree with a lot of your points.
It just is what it is. This gal will have it a lot better than some waitress or barmaid.
Wait a minute Mary, I am a feminist and I despise the sexualization of women like you are claiming. Again, I see nothing wrong with this image.
Some women do like the attention they get from feeling beautiful, I find nothing wrong with that. Just as I think its fun to go with my friends to watch the guys strip, I don’t feel like they’re degrading themselves.
Think about it, wouldn’t it be great if a woman chose to wear something skimpy in Afghanistan that she wouldn’t get stoned to death for turning on men? HOw liberated are the FLDS women in their long dresses down to their ankles and having sex fully clothed? Does that stop men from demoralizing them there?
There is no shame in being beautiful, and there should be nothing SEXUAL about being beautiful.
Tell me, if that was a 40 year old, 300 lb woman, would you still have the opinion that it was a come do me pic? Or would it look rather like she just got off the gyno table?
A women’s liberation should come from being able to walk around and not be leered at PERIOD. But rather, be seen for the beauty that she possesses at all ages, weights, sizes of life.
Mary,
Probably because I misspent such a large part of my youth in life drawing classes sketching nude models, I find very little sexualizing of Miley in the photos so far published. I’ve certainly seem far worse!
What I have seen is that until the level of hard porn is reached, most of the sexuality in a given image is in the viewer’s mind. And when that mind is in the head of a preacher who makes a good living rooting out immorality even where none exists, he’s bound to find quite a bit.I can’t help but laugh out loud at how badly some of the work is distorted in ways that are designed to fill that plate come Sunday!
One of the true classics was when Anthony Comstock (the Jerry Falwell of his day) summoned the sheriff to confiscate a blatently pornographic painting entitled “Nude Descending Staircase” by Marcel Duhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_Descending_a_Staircase,_No._2champ
And of course it was painted by a Frenchman; how sexual that must be!
The photograph of Miley probably should not have been done for artistic reasons- It’s already been done way too many times to claim any kind of originality- but there are no reasons for claiming it to be immoral, other than the generation of a bit more clink on the old collection plate.
Let’s try that link again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_Descending_a_Staircase,_No._2
Sorry, I also managed to mangle the artist’s name- The painting by Marcel DuChamp is titled “Nude Descending Staircase#2″ It was exhibited in the landmark 1913 Armory Show in Philadelphia.
It is just a photo, and others have done worse and their careers are ok. I saw an episode of Samatha Who the other night and she went to her ex’s gallery showing of his photographs. It was quite racy, her covering her breast with her hand, and clearly not wearing anything else. He was praised for it’s “artistic” view, but her father was not happy. That is different because she was an adult, but Miley isn’t 5 and posing like that. But Miley is embarassed, so that settles it. If the subject isn’t happy with it, than it was wrong, but it is still just a photo.
None of you get the point…too bad.
I have nothing against nudity at all at any age, there is nothing more beautiful than a naked baby..I just believe it is immoral to sexualize a child for commercial purposes, and I doubt if this picture was Miley’s idea. The apathy about manipulating a child in this way is disgusting and a big part of what’s wrong with our culture. No wonder child porn is such a hot commodity these days…too many people saying “oh well, that’s just how it is”
Mary - agreed pretty much on all counts. No more skin is shown than I would see with a kid swimming in the pool. It is the sexualizing at thta early age that troubles me.
That same pose in a 20-year-old might be appropriate but not a 15 ear old.
I honestly think Disney is overreacting. Miley should not shy away from the spotlight because of the photo. They didn’t do that to Vanessa. She had full frontal nudity. This is just her back, but yes, I agree she is too young for that photo, and I blame Annie, not Miley. I didn’t like Britney Spears from the start, but when she “grew” up, I had made my mind up that she was never going to be a role model for my future daughters. Miley will be. At least she apologized for the uproar.
And what about Jamie Lynn? After this season, Zoey 101 will be cancelled and now she is on Miss Guided. No, it isn’t Disney, but she was still supposed to be the breath of fresh G-rated air in opposition to Britney. Now she isn’t, in my opinion, any better than her sister.