outrageous.jpg 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!”

  1. bobbo says:

    #126–Mustard==I agree with your take on the Mullet “if” he weren’t her dad. With any other man/woman posed that way, sex would be apparent==so, its actually gawd that is reading into the plain meaning of the pic.

    I have to assume Mullet & Daughter don’t lounge around at home like that? Makes me think Ms Liebowitz posed them and is pimping for Vanity Fair trying to boost circulation.

  2. Mister Mustard says:

    Bobster, the Mullet/ Miley pic is a sexually provocative pic of what appear to be a man and a woman. The fact that it’s a tween girl and her daddy (something that might not be apparent to all Vanity Fair readers) doesn’t diminish the sexually provocative nature of the pic. It just makes it creepy.

    On the other hand, here’s Jamie Lee’s “scandalous” pic.


    Until I read I read in her posting about it being “scandalous”, it never even entered my mind that there could be any scandal attached. A physically fit 50+ year-old member of the American Association for RETIRED People posing in a swimming pool showing some shoulder? No scandal.

  3. bobbo says:

    #128–Mustard==now we just need to photoshop Jamie into the pose with the Mullet. What “emotions” might that evoke?

  4. Mister Mustard says:

    None, Bobster. Jamie Lee is not an underage Lolita, and that’s the whole “appeal” of the perv Annie L. photo series. Taboo. Forbidden. A shame that the guardians weren’t guarding her.

  5. acme says:

    Ha, 125 comments for this “non-story”. But there’s actually more to learn here than I first thought.

    Obviously, a definition of “child porn” not only varies by culture, but in the mind of the beholder. Can you people accept that much, without outrage, instead of pronouncing without a doubt your personal opinion?

    Our *real* problem is with predators, and people intentionally making a profit from child porn. This picture looks intentionally provocative to me, even though I’m not personally provoked by it. There is a *gray* line here. It’s not 100% obvious, or absolute.

  6. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:

    #124, Mustard,

    If you were Billy and you did the same, in many jurisdictions you’d be registering as a Level 3 sex offender.

    Well, let me see. On the weekend my kid wasn’t feeling well and we sat on the couch together watching TV. My arm was around her and ended on her thigh. Her one hand was on my hip and her head against my chest. Now is that a little too sexually provocative for you or can you picture it as a father comforting his child.

    The “come fuck me in bed” photo is a little skeavy, but that Mullet Daddy/Tight-Jeans Baby one is just sick.

    I guess that answers the question of how you would view a protective father comforting his daughter.

    Sick fuck.

  7. bobbo says:

    #133–Gawd. Your kiddie is younger. Your activity is domestic. Your activity is not posed and put on a magazine cover. Your intent and history is known by you and your kiddie. See any distinctions?

    You want to judge the picture as innocent because you in the same position (distinctions not in mind) would be innocent. Do you project yourself into every situation? I’m sure if you were in a bank with a gun, you would not be there to rob it.

    You want to believe there is “absolutely nothing there” even when several good folks post otherwise.

    Can you separate yourself from the universe or is it all your creation?

    Come to daddy.

  8. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:

    #134, bobbo,

    I’m sure if you were in a bank with a gun, you would not be there to rob it.

    How right you are. I will always take donations though.

    Gawd. Your kiddie is younger. … See any distinctions?

    Yes. If my wife takes a picture of our daughter and myself that is fine, but if Vanity Fair takes the picture, …

    It is hypocritical to put different standards on the same thing. If it is fine for me to hold my daughter, it is fine for Billy Ray to hold his daughter. If you or anyone else wants to insert some Lolita conception into the picture, then that is your own sick fucked up sexually repressed mind doing it


    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. A small dog has pulled her bottoms down enough to show her distinct tan line. Is that a cute commercial or kiddie porn?

  9. bobbo says:

    #135–gawd==you say: “It is hypocritical to put different standards on the same thing.” /// that’s correct. Now I outlined for you several ways the pictures are different. Are you being obtuse out of some other motivation, or are you just obtuse?

    Try this==your wife taking your picture at home with your younger daughter is NOT THE SAME THING as the mullet and offspring being posed on Vanity Fair===UNLESS you live on a Vanity Fair cover? Is that where you live gawd?

    I’ve always taken the Copper Tan ad as a cute commercial. So what?

  10. Mister Mustard says:

    >>I guess that answers the question of how you
    >>would view a protective father comforting his
    >>Sick fuck.

    Did you even look at the fucking picture??? If you think that looks like a “protective father comforting his daughter”, you’ve got more problems than I realized.

    As to the Coppertone ad, that’s just ridiculous. A cartoon dog tugging at the bathing suit of a cartoon toddler is a far fucking cry from a carefully arranged photograph of the Virgin Queen dressed up like a tween slut, draped over the lap of her “father” (who could be, if you didn’t know the players, her boyfriend) with his hands all over her and her elbow in his crotch.

    Are you really this stupid, or are you just jerking our chains??

  11. Mister Mustard says:

    >>I’ve always taken the Copper Tan ad as a
    >>cute commercial. So what?

    Don’t forget Bobster, the Coppertone ad was a CARTOON.


    Not a real-life 15-year-old girl looking like she’s in heat, slutting it up in bed, or draped in a suggestive pose over a skanky-looking guy with tats all over him.

  12. bobbo says:

    #137–Mustard==I haven’t seen gawd be funny elsewhere (or none of it stuck in my mind) and gawds in general aren’t known for humor. So, I think he is serious and like too many intelligent people, hates to back down from an initial position taken in error.

    Know what I mean?

  13. Mister Mustard says:

    >>I haven’t seen gawd be funny elsewhere

    I’m going to have to agree with the local Atheists in this case, Bobster. “Gawd does not exist”. At least, I HOPE he doesn’t exist. Otherwise, we’ve got another Level 3 offender on our hands. Zounds!!

  14. Mister Mustard says:

    >>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?

  15. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:

    #143, pedro,

    You have always been a asshole. Nothing has changed. I don’t expect anything to change either.

  16. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:

    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

  17. Mister Mustard says:

    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.

  18. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:


    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.

  19. Mister Mustard says:

    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.

  20. Mister Mustard says:

    Arrgh. The batteries in my wireless keyboard must be going bad. I meant “Mr. Almighty”. No disrespect intended, your Holiness.

  21. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:

    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.

  22. bobbo says:

    #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.

  23. 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/


Bad Behavior has blocked 5545 access attempts in the last 7 days.