 |
Revealing Photo Threatens a Major Disney Franchise – New York Times — Note the New York Times headline. EXACTLY WHAT was revealing about this photo? What? Can someone tell me WHAT!?!? I do not get this at all. |
Fifteen years old, topless and wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet in the June issue of Vanity Fair. Did Miley Cyrus, with the help of a controversy-courting magazine, just deliver a blow to the Walt Disney Company’s billion-dollar “Hannah Montana” franchise?
Some parents reacted with outrage over the weekend when the television program “Entertainment Tonight” began showing commercials promoting a scoop: Ms. Cyrus, the star of the wholesome Disney Channel blockbuster “Hannah Montana,” had posed topless, albeit with her chest covered, for the Vanity Fair photographer, Annie Leibovitz.
Screen grabs of the photo quickly popped up online, sparking a blogosphere debate. “Bonfire anyone?” wrote Lin Burress on her marriage and parenting blog, Telling It Like It Is, referring to the mountain of Hannah Montana retail items — makeup, shoes, clothes — in the marketplace. “Parents should be extremely concerned,” Ms. Burress said in an interview. “Very young girls look up to Miley Cyrus as a role model.”
QUOTE OF THE YEAR: “Posed topless with her chest covered!”
I didn’t know god was so dense
>>Let me leave you with this to think about. 40 or
>>50 years ago Copper Tan had this billboard
>>commercial. A very young girl with a two piece
>>bathing suit on a beach.
If you remember the ad, Gawd (or looked at the picture I linked to), you will know that the toddler was TOPLESS. The difference compared to the current debacle is that the girl was a FUCKING CARTOON, and she was about 4 years old, not a tight-jeaned, bare-midriffed smoldering cauldren of budding sexuality, like Hannah Montana. And she wasn’t polishing her father’s knob.
Get it?
He won’t. God trolls
#143, pedro,
You have always been a asshole. Nothing has changed. I don’t expect anything to change either.
Bobbo & Mustard.
You are both sick fucks with a solo mission to cast Mylie Cyrus as a slut. I have no idea if she is or not BUT neither have you. The both of you have taken a posed photo and condemned the actors based on your sick, sexually deviant opinions. You have attributed actions and pieces that exist only in your minds.
There are many on this blog who I would have expected such a closed mind from, you two aren’t included. Let me correct that. You weren’t included.
Bobbo, I already knew you love to argue just for the sake of seeing your handle and diatribe posted. Mustard, You have usually taken a measured view and sound response until you get hung up on such obscure (and often wrong) details such as “atheism being a religion” and Mylie Cyrus being “slutty and polishing her father’s knob”.
For Bobbo I recommend getting another hobby. For Mustard I recommend upping your Xanax
Lawdy lawdy, Mr. Gawdy! You might want to up the Xanax too! You’re getting WAY to het up about th is.
I have no interest whatsoever in casting Miss Cyrus as a slut. If a 15-year-old Jody Foster or Brooke Shields or anyone else had made such photos, I wouldn’t have given them a second look. But Jody Foster and Brooke Shields are pulling in $1,000,000,000,000.00/yr promoting themselves as the Virgin Princess, devout Christian, family-values advocate, and wannabe role model for every girl from 4 to 14. It’s the HYPOCRISY that I object to.
So come on, oh Holie One, do you REALLY not see that those photos were intended to be sexually provocative? In bed? Mussed hair? Satin Sheets? Come-fuck-me look? Draped across Daddy’s lap like he’s her little lover boy? Sheesh. And how about the one where she’s giving us a peekie-boo at her Eire-green bra?
http://tinyurl.com/5c2eye Hark! What light through yonder filmy fabric breaks? Could it be Miley’s highbeams are on? I knew girls who did that in junior high, and I can GUARANTEE you they were trying to be sexually provocative! They didn’t usually show nip, though.
By the same token, I have no objection to horny homos doing the hokey pokey under airport bathroom stalls in search of a little Airport Action (like Larry Craig). However, when they’ve spent their entire adult lives decrying the evils of homosexuality and trying to legislate it out of existence (like Larry Craig!), the hypocrisy grates on my nerves.
Mustard,
I think you finally hit on why you are upset.
But Jody Foster and Brooke Shields are pulling in $1,000,000,000,000.00/yr promoting themselves as the Virgin Princess, devout Christian, family-values advocate, and wannabe role model for every girl from 4 to 14.
You’re are upset because your idol suddenly doesn’t meet your standards. Instead of pretending she is a virgin princess, appealing to your Christian, “family values” sect, she has let you down. I can see your pain.
NEWS FLASH: Miley Cyrus is a person. Hanna Montana is a fictional character on television. Miley Cyrus does not live in a single parent home with one older brother. Her parents are happily together and she has five siblings. If you are having difficulty differentiating between the two, then you have big problems.
The ones most upset would be Disney. They, and their sub-divisions, are the ones that stand to lose the most money from negative publicity. Yes, Cyrus will be paid, but a small fraction that. The Disney company will earn the vast majority of that $Billion.
And lastly, a quote from Ms Liebovitz:
“”I’m sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted,” Leibovitz said. ” The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful.
I agree with Ms. Liebovitz.
Sorry Mr. Almight. What I meant to write was that “NEITHER Jody Foster NOR Brooke Shields are pulling in $1,000,000,000,000.00/yr promoting themselves as the Virgin Princess, devout Christian, family-values advocate, and wannabe role model for every girl from 4 to 14.”
I’d thunk that perhaps in your omnipotent omniscience, you might have been able to fill in the blank. I guess I overestimated your powers.
Arrgh. The batteries in my wireless keyboard must be going bad. I meant “Mr. Almighty”. No disrespect intended, your Holiness.
LOL, I put little importance on Foster or Shields and took the billion as a purposeful exaggeration.
My wife loves her wireless keyboard but I’ll stay with my wired MS Internet Keyboard Pro.
OK, I got to 150 first so that means I won. I apologize for calling you a “sick fuck” and hope we can find better things to agree on.
#145–Gawd, pot meet kettle. All I said was “Its not absolutely nothing” which was the original question posed. If you read something other than that sound conclusion, its mistaken by you, misstated by me, or taken out of context. There is a lot of room inbetween “not absolutely nothing” and a slut. Failure to recognize that gray area of interpretation is your failure.
BUT–if I had to go batshit crazy to one end of the spectrum or the other as you force the argument, I would go for slut over innocent.==and again since you constantly confuse the issue, I am talking about the posed photo on the cover of Vanity Fair. I am not talking about the actual people in the photo.
Oh yeah. You can see her hot, sexy…spine?
Is vertebrae hot?
For a little more hypocrisy, check out Disney’s lingerie ads in china: http://www.slate.com/id/2190209/