Public, Disney, NYT Outraged Over Absolutely NOTHING!

Published on April 27th, 2008

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!”

152 users responded in " Public, Disney, NYT Outraged Over Absolutely NOTHING! "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Jeff said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

I’ve seen worse in textbooks and in People Magazine. There’s not even a breast or curve to be seen here.

Who’s running Disney these days, Mike Huckabee?

All I can say is, “idiots!”

Jeff

# 2 Staryx said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

I’d be more upset that she looks like a drug addict in that pic over the fact she’s showing some (back) skin.

# 3 Richard J. Anderson said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

It’s a vaguely sexual pose featuring someone aimed at children. Heaven forfend that the kids learn about sex before they turn 18. The same people outraged about this are the same people who endorse abstinence-only sex-education in schools, namely prudish idiots.

# 4 andy said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

hannah montana is a sanctuary for children? lol

# 5 RojoFreako said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Why is anyone shocked that a young adult woman wants to show off her body? Britney Spears did it, just not in as classy of an avenue as Vanity Fair. Lindsey Lohan’s mom approved of her recent topless photoshoot, what’s the big deal here?

# 6 krazykritter said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:18 pm

I disagree. My daughter, 7, is avid fan of Hanna Montana. This image is overly suggestive for someone with an audience so young. It would be different it she were 18+. if she were an adult while I would object if her audience were those still that young but I could at least respect her choice as a person. Call it what you want but the suggestive nature is not appropriate for her core audience and sets a bad example for a generation that already grows up too fast. I’m not a conservative person but this is the wrong image for girls this young.

# 7 Scott said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

You would see a lot more if she was at a pool in a bikini…

# 8 the_leander said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

“Last week, Gary Marsh, the president of entertainment for Disney Channel Worldwide, was quoted in Portfolio magazine saying, “For Miley Cyrus to be a ‘good girl’ is now a business decision for her. Parents have invested in her a godliness. If she violates that trust, she won’t get it back.”

Now, not being an American this whole obsession with “godliness” just escapes me. Seriously, could someone on the other side of the pond explain this one to me, please?

Also, the photograph puts me in mind of a painting I saw about 5 years ago in the Tate modern. I thought that was classy, as I think this picture is classy. Given how most starlets end up looking in their birthday suits when in magazines, I would argue that this girl has a great deal more class then most of her contemporaries.

If she is a role model, then I’d say she is setting a good example if this picture is anything to go by, rather then the trashy crap that is plastered on every newspaper and music video that we’re bombarded with daily.

# 9 djbrettb said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Sadly, the parents’ reactions are not hard for me to believe. While I’m not a fan of Miley Cyrus (even as a club DJ, you’d be surprised at the amount of requests that I decline), I think the photo in question is artistic. It’s very cliché to say this, but “negative” publicity like this from the NYT is exactly what’s making her such a big deal.

# 10 Jack Carlson said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Prudishness has become nonsensical. Wow, she has a back, how scandalous. If this keeps up, we’re going to overprotect our kids to the point where they won’t mature at all until they’re 20.

How many years has it been now that Donald Duck hasn’t worn pants? And living with his nephews? Please…

# 11 andy said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

i’m suprised everyone is missing the main point. this is a very deliberate and orchestrated stunt designed to “transition” this belle-du-jour into the next phase of her “career”. we see it time and again these days as starlets/handlers want to avoid the pitfalls of typecasting etc. things like this have always happened – it’s just manufactured these days.

# 12 Nick said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

I agree. This is just another classic example of using sensationalist language and deceptive reporting to stir up controversy where none exists in the hopes of pumping the ratings a bit, if even for only a couple days. I saw a similar headline on some news site about Miley Cyrus being in trouble again for more “controversial” pics that apparently she put on her myspace page or something. Of course like any concerned citizen I clicked the link to check them out and let me tell you, they are about as exciting as looking at pictures of… well… something not that interesting. WHAT?! HER SHIRT IS PULLED UP AND YOU CAN SEE HER BELLY?! SHE IS LYING ON THE SOFA NEXT TO SOME BOY?! OMG!!! CRUCIFY SOMEBODY!!!!!!!

If she just goes to the beach wearing a standard bathing suit, you’ll be seeing a lot more of her than any of these pics.

Give me a break.

# 13 the_leander said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

The only time I can see this has being a problem is if you let your daughter go through a copy of Vanity Fair. In which case I’d argue strongly that you have bigger problems then this to consider…

I’d also wager there are “innocent” pictures of her in say a bathing costume that are far more revealing then this.

# 14 bellasera said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

She’s not the first, nor the last to pose for Annie, but at least she’s not acting like Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears. I don’t see what the big deal is, honest.

# 15 Esteban said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

#6. I agree that this isn’t the kind of image you’d want to put on a Hannah Montana poster, but this particular image isn’t even from the Hannah Montana franchise. It’s a picture in Vanity Fair, a magazine that few seven-year-olds read.

# 16 Dave Tong said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

What’s sickening is that if she was fully clothed and holding a gun or a knife, hardly anybody would have bothered. The US is so hung up on sex and yet gives violence a free pass.

# 17 bobbo said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Seems to me that the next step is to characterize this as child porn and arrest anyone coming into the country with either the magazine or a copy or rss feed on their hard drives.

That’ll keep the godless heathens out of the USA!!

BTW–a stupid business decision unless she is ready to jump to the young adult market. She should milk her current market as long as she can. Somehow I think that is what is motivating the “real” concern–ie==money.

# 18 KyleG said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

@Krazy Kritter: Your 7 year old daughter reads Vanity Fair? If so, you need to worry more about the fact that you’re turning your 7 year old into a fashionista at SEVEN FRIGGIN YEARS OF AGE.

# 19 David said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

I agree with you John. Must have been a slow news day. But what’s sad about this is that showing your back is now considered to be sexually suggestive by the closet ped-I mean, social conservatives. Where does it end? Are we headed back to the days where to show your
ankle in public would be considered scandalous?

# 20 MikeN said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

#11 has it right. I have a problem with a magazine and the photographers deciding that women need to be sexualized at every opportunity, and starting when they are young. Calling it ‘artistic’ is one way they get women to go along.

# 21 Winston Smith said, on April 27th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

“Posed topless with her chest covered!”

Reminds me of the newspaper a few years ago that reported that an accused guy “had no weapons in his arsenal.”

# 22 anonymous said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

I looked forward to reading Cracked.com tomorrow

# 23 Peter S said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

This is artistic and done with the approval of her parents. Annie L. is a very good photographer and there is nothing suggestive here a all.

I would have to agree with the other commenter’s here that if your seven year old is reading Vanity Fair, there are bigger problems than this photo.

My daughter loves Hannah Montana, but if she saw this photo, it would not trigger anything for her since it doesn’t really look like her on the show. (She won’t see this photo.)

No big deal for me.

# 24 Graham said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

What a beautiful picture. Barbie & Bratz are far more damaging than that picture. People finding the picture too sexual, should really be concerned about their own perceptions.

It bewilders me that a country so accepting of the commercialization of the tween market, finds such an image offensive.

# 25 Jägermeister said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Daniel Radcliffe was nude in Equus… did it screw up the Harry Potter fans? The photo of the girl is nothing. She shows a little bit skin and that’s it. People who get excited about that ought to seek some professional help.

# 26 andy said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

a multitude of double-standards there, not to mention the cultural hangups. frankly, americans don’t care what some uk actor does on stage. yet you’ll rarely see male nudity in hollywood cinema.

# 27 agp said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Annie Leibovitz Rocks!

# 28 Joshua said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm

I absolutely share your outrage at this potential dilution of the topless genre.

# 29 bac said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

The things you learn by reading the news can be interesting.

First, it is the responsibility of a real human being to protect the image of a fictional character.

Second, some parents let their young children read Vanity Fair.

Third, Entertainment Tonight is still around!?

# 30 acme said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Pretty interesting how emotional people get over this either way. We’re in a culture pushing borders every day, and maybe someday my grandkids will see public masturbation during Super Bowl halftime. Don’t act shocked. And don’t tell me VF wasn’t trying to sell sex here because it wasn’t “just a bathing suit”. So in terms of magazine profit, where’s the current border for suggestive sexuality… 18 years old, 15yo, 12yo, 9yo?

Back in our tribal days we had more peer pressure to keep us “in line”. In another contemporanious culture, the Taliban enforces female skin cover so much you’d think those macho men must be afraid of *privately* masturbating.

Ha, things can get weird with all this “cognitive surplus”, and people feeling a need to pass judgement one way or the other without really understanding the origins of animal/human nature well enough, and how it led to men writing moralist dogma. (Yes, some people had cognitive surplus even way back then. A few slaves helped with that.)

# 31 martymankins said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

100% agreed with KyleG. I understand why a parent like krazykritter needs to keep their 7 year old daughter wholesome, which is admirable. But at 7 years old, it is the parent’s responsibility to know what her daughter is doing. And I would hope that would include not letter her read a magazine like Vanity Fair.

As for Dvorak’s reaction, mine is the same. I don’t get the outrage. She’s not topless. She’s covered up. BFD that her back is exposed. I’ve seen more implied acting on some Disney Channel shows, and no one seems bothered that their 7 year olds are watching those situations.

# 32 tj said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

while she is not completely topless, it isnt the kinda photo a 15 year old should have taken of her. if she is part of the disney channel image, which is for the most part pure and innocent, and she has girls much younger than her looking up to her than she shouldnt have taken pictures like this.

shes 15, come on now, if you had a daughter and she had a pic like this on her Myspace, im pretty sure you would freek out, i know i would. much less in a magazine.

she is setting the standard for tons of young girls, and this was a major slip of for her career.

its Britney part 2

# 33 the_leander said, on April 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

If my daughter was intending to go topless, I would much rather her do something like this, which at the very least has artistic merit, then Britney or Li lo’s commando escapades, or any of a multitude of young starlets dropping trou and lifting tops at the slightest hint of a camera. Or worse, getting ozzed over in a music video by the “artist”

This at least is somewhat classy. Not to mention, you see far less in this then you would if she were in a bathing costume on a beach.

# 34 Chris said, on April 27th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

I don’t know why anyone is surprised that Disney would react this way. But then, I’m old enough to remember the beach party movies where Mouseketeer Annette Funicello was never allowed to show her navel!

# 35 duraace said, on April 27th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

What SHOULD she be waring, a burka??

# 36 mattlink13 said, on April 27th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

What’s worse…this photo or the useless crap Disney is pushing down our throats with the Hannah Montana label on it!

# 37 pytho said, on April 27th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

tj, I wouldn’t want my daughter to have a picture like this on myspace, sure, but I wouldn’t be freaked out by having her having it in Vanity Fair. Context does make a difference. This is art and it is not aimed at her core audience of tweens.

# 38 tj said, on April 27th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

“the leader”: a true parent wouldn’t allow either. its a provocative picture of a 15 year old girl, a real parent wouldn’t allow it. yes a bathing suit shows more, but its the idea behind the photo that truly makes it provocative (the bed sheets, the fact that she appears not to be wearing clothing, rather covering up). the name of artistic merit can find older girls. i dont blame her tho, i blame the money grubbing caretakers that call themselves her parents for this.

i dont think it would be inappropriate if she was of age and didnt have thousands upon thousands of preteen girls looking up to her. but she isnt and she does, so its simply not ok.

# 39 Jean-Sebastien Dussault said, on April 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

I don’t think the problem has to do with nudity itself. It’s basically absent. I mean, we’ve all seen dresses as or more revealing than this.

The picture, though, is very sexually charged: A drape, implying we’re on a bed, is very suggesting and is only a step away from being dropped. The teasing look of the subject and makeup also adds an easily bed-inviting intent.

I don’t denounce or approve it, but this is definitely not an innocent picture. This picture has way more sex-appeal that if she were full-frontal naked, gardening.

I don’t know this actress, but I can understand a teen/young adult’s desire to grow out of a child or perfect teen character casting, and naturally exploring the experience of growing up.

I also understand Disney’s discontent if they had kid-targeted projects planned with her and see them short-circuited by this, but I also believe that Disney, being “experts” on child, should stop being so business about this and learn to deal humanly with their child actors when they come of age earlier than predicted.

# 40 Ah_Yea said, on April 27th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Let’s do a quick reality check. Hanna Montana is not Miley Cyrus. Hanna Montana does not exist. It is a vehicle created by the Disney Channel to make money.
Hanna Montana is coming to an end, and Miley Cyrus wants a career afterward.

So she has to put some distance between her and Hanna Montana to become “sellable” to an older audience.

Others have posed in magazines to break out of the Goodie-Two-Shoe stereotype. Jessica Biel posed practically nude in Maxim, Lindsay Lohan posed practically nude in Vanity Fair, and now Miley Cyrus poses practically fully clothed, also in Vanity Fair.

Hanna Montana has one, maybe two seasons left at best. She wants to have a career afterward and is planning on the transition now. I guess you could say she wants “the best of both worlds”.

# 41 acme said, on April 27th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

I don’t get the outrage, either. Who thinks VF did this for “artistic reasons”, without thinking about it sexually at all?

Sex sells! End of mystery.

# 42 acme said, on April 27th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I meant to add (sorry)… there’s a scene in Memoirs of a Geisha where they make a big deal out of the sexuality of showing a little extra skin… we’re talking about a few square inches of wrist skin.

People saying that “sexuality” is all about how much skin is showing are missing the point.

# 43 GF said, on April 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

What’s outrageous is that they put an ugly 15 year old where a hot 20 year old should be.

# 44 JPV said, on April 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

What do you expect from a PSYCHOTIC and completely IDIOTIC country where sex is a forbidden topic but killing hundreds of thousands of darked skinned people is considered heroic?

# 45 JPV said, on April 27th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

krazykritter said:

I disagree. My daughter, 7, is avid fan of Hanna Montana. This image is overly suggestive for someone with an audience so young.

—–

Your 7 year old daughter reads Vanity Fair?

COOL!!!

# 46 M Garrett said, on April 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

I think it’s much ado about nothing. but heaven forbid kids have a frikkin’ childhood that isn’t spoiled by the obsession to force sex ed down their throats.

# 47 stephen_c said, on April 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Three things-
1. It’s a cultural reference–lolita anyone?
2. I has been Aperturized.
3. Any publicity is good publicity. In the NYT article, Mylie Cyrus has distanced herself from the photo. Either she did not understand the context of the presentation or she is playing the media game–do something notorious then vehemently deny it.

Either way, Disney has nothing to worry about.

# 48 acme said, on April 27th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

The underlying, UNSPOKEN, sensitive subject is about child porn and their predator producers, and how to keep kids from getting STDs or pregnant too early. We still have a lot to fix in humans. The big question is, HOW.

THEN someday everyone might be able to sit back and enjoy this as “art”.

# 49 acme said, on April 27th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

One more and I promise I’m finished…

I’m not preaching anything here other than to stop acting outraged as if you’re the only one who has a handle on the big picture. I’m just so fricken tired of “righteous” people on both sides who can’t connect to each other any more.

# 50 Major Jizz said, on April 27th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

My best friend Leslie said, “Oh she’s just being Miley…”

# 51 Whoaa said, on April 27th, 2008 at 10:37 pm

What if she has posed nude to the photographer… and the photographer releases the pictures to the ‘under world’ …..

The photographer may even blackmail her at a later date..

# 52 888 said, on April 27th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

The only really disturbing part of this “newz” is:

““Parents should be extremely concerned,” Ms. Burress said in an interview. “Very young girls look up to Miley Cyrus as a role model.””.

Such so-called parents ought to be castrated or sterilized ASAP!

I don’t have any teenage daughter (“thanks God” so far, and hopefuly never will ) but if I had – certainly I would show her MUCH better “role models” than some stupid teenie-wannabe-singer LOL

#51
“What if she has posed nude to the photographer… and the photographer releases the pictures to the ‘under world’ …..

The photographer may even blackmail her at a later date..”

so what?
Because she is teenager? What a big deal!

The “best” whores in India, Asia and even in Europe are teenagers, they can and do much “better” stuff than posing nude.
Only in dumb America girl showing her naked arm and back can make it to the “news” ROTFL
However, judging from such behaviour, Billy Ray Cyrus’ daughter is on a good path to become a paid slut, aka whore (and shame on Billy Ray – I always thought he’s a nice guy and a good father, but apparently he is neither).

# 53 Stu Mulne said, on April 27th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Laws vary, but I would think that parental permission to be completely nude would be all that was required as long as there’s no sex involved.

(Brooke Shields was implicitly nude in “Pretty Baby”, at about age 14. Didn’t seem to hurt anything. She wasn’t actually nude – at least in the scenes that display her bare bottom. Anybody’s guess on the frontals.)

Overall, a cute girl, and a superb photographer, putting something together that is of interest.

If we’re trying to protect the girl, that’s her parents’ job, and there’s nothing wrong here. She’s certainly got enough exposure to “show business” to be aware…. If we’re trying to protect our children, IMHO, this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

If we’re trying to protect Disney’s money….

A cousin of mine worked for Annie some years ago. He learned a lot. I’m rather Conservative, but this stuff just doesn’t bother me when it’s art, or nearly so.

Just IMHO….

# 54 Jean-Sebastien Dussault said, on April 28th, 2008 at 12:07 am

“Brooke Shields…”

Different story. Pretty Baby was Shields’ entry door to cinema. She wasn’t known and did not have an audience full of teen fans before that, and never did any material targeted to teens or children after that either (far from it). Pretty Baby’s underlying subject was also on morality and child abuse itself, so it was actively dealing about this, and not using it only as a selling tool.

That photograph, unless it accompanies an article of some sort on the subject is a gratuitous selling tool.

Technically, it’s not pornography, but it is using sexually-charged material (no nudity or sexual depiction, but still very so) involving a known minor, and that, only as a selling tool.

On the other hand… I don’t know how USA laws work on age v.s. rights or if she had legal emancipation, but one way or the other, someone, somewhere (parent, judge, law) said she was mature enough to do this.

# 55 Mister Mustard said, on April 28th, 2008 at 1:07 am

Jesus. People who are frothing at the mouth about this photo have WAY too much time on their hands.

That said, I don’t think the photo is all that great.

# 56 Stu said, on April 28th, 2008 at 1:35 am

Well lets see. I am about Annie’s age I take “artsy” pictures. If I have a 15 year old child posing nude or evan percieved to be nude I most likly will get arrested for child porn. I do not think the local prosecuter whould see the “art”. Of corse I am not Annie and vanity fair is not calling.

# 57 Cursor_ said, on April 28th, 2008 at 2:20 am

The only thing that springs to mind is a caption for this photo:

“What do you mean I don’t get to drive the porsche daddy?”

All I’m sayin’

Cursor_

# 58 jescott418 said, on April 28th, 2008 at 2:47 am

The problem is parents worry more about what Cyrus is doing. Then what their own daughter is doing. I myself see a lot worse role models out in the media. For example the Olsen Twins.

# 59 Uncle Ben said, on April 28th, 2008 at 2:49 am

Magazines should not publish pictures of people under the age of 18 in sexually explicit poses. We have to draw a line somewhere, and 18 is reasonable enough. That gives girls somewhere between puberty and then to learn about their sexuality before pervy older men exploit it.

I’d hate to see us degenerate into a place like Yemen where men can have sex with their 8 year old wives and not be considered criminal.

# 60 888 said, on April 28th, 2008 at 3:23 am

“Magazines should not publish pictures of people under the age of 18 in sexually explicit poses.”

For some, a baby lying in the bed is sexually explicit enough.
For normal people a NON-NUDE picture of girl (like M. Cyrus on VF) is just what it is – a picture of a girl.

Anyone:
You need to see shrink ASAP if this picture is sexually explicit to you! For crying out loud, what will you say when pictures of her in a skimpy bikini showing will print in magazines this summer? (and they will)

# 61 amodedoma said, on April 28th, 2008 at 3:44 am

American sexual values are so conservative they’re twisted. I’m in the what’s the big deal camp. Only in America do you find so much sexual repression that people have actually become obsessed. Here in Spain you see topless young females every time you go to the beach. When I first moved here from the US it was distracting to say the least, but after 20 years of seeing breasts everywhere (TV, billboards, beach, etc.) I got used to it and it’s no big deal. It only becomes a big deal if you make it a big deal.

# 62 Mister Mustard said, on April 28th, 2008 at 3:46 am

>>For crying out loud, what will you say when
>>pictures of her in a skimpy bikini showing
>>will print in magazines

She’s been there, done that:

http://tinyurl.com/5s7zmx

http://tinyurl.com/3npq2h

Looks like she’s boarded the Britney train…

# 63 pedro said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:06 am

And then, people complaint about muslims havig sex with 8 year olds.

So, is 15 ok? What about 10?

# 64 SN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:06 am

If it truly is pornographic then isn’t the New York Times guilty of disseminating child pornography? Maybe we should call in the Feds on this one.

# 65 bobbo said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:08 am

JCD–you ask: “EXACTLY WHAT was revealing about this photo?” /// Her back and side was nude. That’s what was “revealed.” More relevantly, she has a come hither look about her, or she just got thru forming the beast with two backs. She looks to be naked with a satin sheet around her.

No observant person can say she has not been put in a sexual pose. Here’s the PROOF: you are having party with your office mates and boss coming around. Your daughter is sitting as pictured in your living room. Appropriate or not?

Is this a big deal?==no. In fact, when I look at her, I wonder if she were my daughter, how much her allowance would be, and then I get a woody thinking about the fact that she would be paying me. Money does that for me, so the picture turns out ultimately to be quite salacious.

# 66 SN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:10 am

65. “Her back and side was nude. That’s what was “revealed.””

So teen age girls can’t wear bathing suits in your world?

“Your daughter is sitting as pictured in your living room. “

Because you are unable to show how this picture is bad you have to create an imaginary situation where it is bad. Good luck with that.

# 67 bobbo said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:23 am

#66–SN==are you capable of understanding, if not producing yourself, a direct answer to a direct question?

Whether teen age girls can or can’t wear bathing suits is irrelevant to what is revealed in that picture.

You agree my hypothetical situation would be bad for her. Well, thank you for admitting the truth of my position. No luck needed.

Candy from a baby.

# 68 SN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:31 am

67. “Whether teen age girls can or can’t wear bathing suits is irrelevant to what is revealed in that picture.”

Yes it is relevant. It’s relevant to show that merely showing your back is not wrong.

“You agree my hypothetical situation would be bad for her. Well, thank you for admitting the truth of my position. “

I totally agree that your hypothetical situation is bad. But that does not support your position that this picture is bad. Your position is still wrong. I can take any picture and make up an awful story to go with it, but that does not make the picture awful. Only the story I made up.

# 69 Mister Mustard said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:35 am

>>Yes it is relevant. It’s relevant to show
>>that merely showing your back is not wrong.

Aw, come on, SN. It’s a slutty picture, just like the pictures I posted links to where she’s giving us a peek at her Eire-green brassiere are slutty, and the one with her posing in her panties with a “come fuck me look” on her face are slutty.

Why anyone cares is beyond me, but if it were MY daughter, I would not encourage her to pose for any of those photos.

# 70 SN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:40 am

69. “It’s a slutty picture, just like the pictures I posted links to…”

So if we accept your argument, that this picture and the pictures you linked to are “slutty,” does that mean they are child porn?

# 71 jccalhoun hates the stupid spam filter said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:42 am

I didn’t see any posts linking to the blog in question. Here’s the post from Lin Burress: http://www.tellinitlikeitis.net/2008/04/miley-cyrus-aka-hanna-montana-going-topless-for-vanity-fair.html
It seems as if she didn’t even see the picture before posting. So like a lot of people she is stirring up controversy based on the idea of something rather than the reality.

# 72 Mister Mustard said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:46 am

>>So if we accept your argument, that this
>>picture and the pictures you linked to are
>>“slutty,” does that mean they are child porn?

Not at all. They’re just slutty pics. I think the “panties” pic and the “Eire-green brassiere” pic are sluttier than the Annie L. one (which I think is more unattractive than slutty).

If they were child porn, I could see where people might get all het up, but they’re not. They’re like pics of that murdered beauty queen kid in Colorado. Trashy, sexualizing young girls, but nothing to get all THAT worked up about as long as the starlet is not a family member.

# 73 Mister Mustard said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:48 am

High beams are ON!!!

http://tinyurl.com/5b238j

Not a picture I’d want my daughter posting on the internet. Tsk, tsk.

# 74 Personality said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:54 am

Yeah, she’s not that hot… yet.

# 75 MikeN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:55 am

This idea that 7 year olds don’t read Vanity Fair. Well yes, but a number of fans will read the magazine with her on the cover.

# 76 MikeN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:57 am

‘posed topless, with her chest covered’

Not a bad description, since she wasn’t wearing a hat.

This is much better description than Teri Hatcher posing nude wearing nothing but Superman’s cape(it’s wrapped around her)

# 77 MikeN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 4:58 am

When I was in school, they showed us videos of people who would suggest that a kid take off some clothes. I had no idea that photographers were an exception.

# 78 Mister Mustard said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:01 am

>>Well yes, but a number of fans will read
>>the magazine with her on the cover.

She’s not on the cover. Bobby Kennedy is on the cover.

http://tinyurl.com/6gluat

Only the truly dedicated 7-year-old reader of Vanity Fair will ever see the picture in the first place.

Sheesh. Talk about a tempest in a teapot.

# 79 MikeN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:01 am

Definitely a very revealing picture. Are those ribs showing?

# 80 bobbo said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:02 am

#68–SN==gee whiz, is English your third or fourth language?

You say: “Yes it is relevant. It’s relevant to show that merely showing your back is not wrong.” /// Who said it was wrong? If it is wrong, how is that relevant to what is revealed? I don’t know what has your motor running, but words have meaning. Revealed means what is showing? It does not mean what is sexual, child porn, wrong, or anything else. Those are related issues much dependent on “values” and social mores.

Again–I did not say the picture was bad. My hypothetical “proved” in a slightly kiltered way that the picture was not appropriate as would a non-sexualized picture of a young girl.

The original question I was responding to was posed by JCD==what is revealed. and before that==was there “absolutely nothing wrong” with the picture.

When a pose is not appropriate for the living room in a party for your boss, then “something” is wrong.

YOU admit something is wrong. What would that be SN?

# 81 jbenson2 said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:10 am

Wow – 80 responses so far and counting!

A semi-nude 15-year old girl – speaks volumes on what excites Dvorak’s typical readers.

# 82 pedro said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:10 am

All i know is that, if someone gets his computer searched and found pictures like this, this person would be in serious problems.

Yes, it is child porn. And this girl has been around running the edge of this for some months already. So this is not like the first “alarm”. She’s been feeding the media with this kinds of pics taken by herself and friends, for sure adviced by whomever is managing her carrer to start looking adult before actually being one.

I think this is the first one where there’s evidence an adult has taken the pics, or at least an adult payed for those pictures to be taken and publicized. I say time to stop it.

# 83 SN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:11 am

72. “Not at all. They’re just slutty pics.”

Then that means they’re perfectly legal. So what the frick is the big deal?! Some actress is showing her back. John’s right. This is a non-story and everyone who thinks otherwise should get over it.

# 84 Mister Mustard said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:15 am

>>This is a non-story and everyone who
>>thinks otherwise shoudl get over it.

Hey, I don’t know about Disney and the NYT and parent who can’t prevent their children from reading Vanity Fair, but I was “over it” before I even read about it. It’s a TOTAL non-story.

If I were Billy Ray, I’d be disappointed in my daughter for posing in slutty pics, but other than him, it’s hard to believe that anyone even gives a fuck. Just another symptom of the decline of civilization. What’s next, Dakota Fanning doing cameltoe shots?

# 85 bobbo said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:19 am

#83–SN==is there any gradation between black and white in your understanding of the world? Between appropriate and inappropriate? Is there no middle line difficult to discern or open to debate?

In my view, the pictures are more “immodest” than anything else. The girl is not, or is not posed sufficiently, to evoke “sexuality” in my jaded eyes.

Still, from previous threads here, I see it as totally possible for an arrest and conviction of child porn violations should this picture be found in your possession==maybe a different girl would be needed to avoid the “purely artistic” defense==but, once the black/white holy rollers get going, hard to make such distinctions.

# 86 SN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:20 am

80. “Who said it was wrong? “

You did. In fact you made up a disgusting story to go along with it to show how bad it is.

“I don’t know what has your motor running, but words have meaning. Revealed means what is showing?”

You’re right that words have meaning. There are millions of pictures of actresses revealing their faces, wrists, and necks, but yet no such articles are written about them.

Therefore in this particular context “revealed” meant something else. In this context “revealing” means that something was revealed that should not have been revealed. So even the New York Times is saying the picture is wrong somehow.

“My hypothetical “proved” in a slightly kiltered way that the picture was not appropriate”

Now you’re playing with words. An inappropriate picture is a bad picture.

“When a pose is not appropriate for the living room in a party for your boss, then “something” is wrong.”

I’ll say it again, you can’t just make up a context for a picture and then proclaim the picture bad. I probably have pictures of my daughter in her bathing suit, but that does not mean I want my boss fucking my daughter in her bathing suit. It’s just nonsense to make that leap from nothing to something and draw a conclusion on that made up something. You must be a theist. Only a religious nut would accept such an argument.

# 87 bobbo said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:36 am

#86–SN==you make me laugh. You accuse me of things I don’t think are true while erring that same way yourself.

You say: “It’s just nonsense to make that leap from nothing to something and draw a conclusion on that made up something.” /// Putting the girls nudity in a different context is not a leap, it is trying to demonstrate the point by shifting perspective. Now, here is leaping======= as when you say: “I probably have pictures of my daughter in her bathing suit, but that does not mean I want my boss fucking my daughter in her bathing suit.”

Is that your problem bucky? You think any admission of inappropriateness is permission for people to have sex with little girls?

Maybe this will help. The picture is revealing or showing too much of the girls body. It is immodest. A swimsuit is appropriate only when swimming. Undwear revealing no more than a swimsuit is immodest when swimming. Is it the worst thing that will ever happen in the world?–no. Is it wrong?==yes.

In America are you allowed to be immodest, inappropirate, bad, and wrong?==yes.

Is the way she is photographed illegal?===I can’t say. Too many people would say yes for me to be too sure.

# 88 KenHansen said, on April 28th, 2008 at 5:59 am

Since when does topless mean no sleeves? I *always* thought topless meant, you know, *no tops*. She has covered up any uniquely female parts she usually keeps under her top, so what, exactly, is the fuss about? I honestly suspect that since the “High School Musical” star was shown to have created naked (that’s REAL naked photos, where the uniquely feminine bits ARE visible), the press is looking for the next chance to take another hit at a major Disney franchise. It’s easier to tear a franchise down than to build one up. Trivia Question: What ever happened to Zoey Spears and her pregnancy – why did that that fall off the radar?

# 89 gquaglia said, on April 28th, 2008 at 6:05 am

People need to relax.

# 90 SN said, on April 28th, 2008 at 6:05 am

88. “The picture is revealing or showing too much of the girls body. ”

“A swimsuit is appropriate only when swimming. “

That makes no sense. Are you saying the swimsuit catalogs are child porn?

And as I’ve said over and over again, you cannot make up a context for the pictures. You desperately want to make up a context to fulfill your prurient interests, no doubt.

But if it’s acceptable for a female to wear a bathing suit on a public beach, then it’s acceptable to take pictures of the girl in the same outfit. A back is hardly considered a sexual organ in the US.

“Is the way she is photographed illegal?===I can’t say.”

If can’t say it’s illegal, then what are you arguing about?

# 91 bobbo said, on April 28th, 2008 at 6:22 am

#90–SN==I’ve heard comedians joke about beating off to pictures in the Sears Catalogue underwear section, or to National Geographic.

But, I’m bored. You take the common meaning of words incorrectly and project your own issues onto them as if I had said them. Tedious to correct them more than twice.

Maybe we can discuss words, meaning, and logic when the subject doesn’t excite you so.

# 92 Brandon said, on April 28th, 2008 at 7:08 am

I think the real crime here is that in all these low quality jpg’s getting passed around, she looks like a zombie. I guess that’s what happens when you photograph the spawn of Satan. (For those who doubt me, go listen to Achey Breaky Heart again.)

# 93 Mister Mustard said, on April 28th, 2008 at 7:39 am

>>she looks like a zombie.

Well, she may be a little sleepy-looking in this picture, but she doesn’t look like a zombie:

http://tinyurl.com/5b238j

In fact, if physiology has anything to teach us, I’d say she’s sexually aroused. Tsk.

# 94 OhForTheLoveOf said, on April 28th, 2008 at 7:56 am

#18 – Your 7 year old daughter reads Vanity Fair? If so, you need to worry more about the fact that you’re turning your 7 year old into a fashionista

When did Vanity Fair become a fashion magazine?

At 7, I only wish my kid were interested in writing as good as what is normally on display within the pages of Vanity Fair.

———

I’m stunned to wake up this morning and find so many posts about the Mousekateer Du Jour and a benign Annie Leibowitz photo in a well respected magazine.

For reasons that cannot be comprehended, there are actually people who care about this… issue? Is this an issue? Is there not a better word to describe whatever this is?

I guess small minded busibodies will get in a tizzy over anything. I just hope she goes the way of her father, because just how mediocre a talent she really is.

Were it not for the amazingly bad taste of 12 year old girls and the number of idiot parents who tried to buy their kid’s fleeting love by buying amazingly overpriced concert tickets, I’d have no freaking clue who this singing and dancing automaton was.

# 95 JimD said, on April 28th, 2008 at 7:59 am

Hey !!! A Tempest in a Tea Cup !!! But a lot of free publicity for Disney !!! And it might even get some BOYS interested in “Hannah Montana” !!!

# 96 Jennifer said, on April 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am

#46: I think it’s much ado about nothing. but heaven forbid kids have a frikkin’ childhood that isn’t spoiled by the obsession to force sex ed down their throats.

Don’t be ridiculous. Kids have a curiostity about sex, and a LOT earlier than people like to pretend. By witholding vital information, you’re not keeping kids wholesome, you’rer keeping them ignorant. Or worse, allowing their peers to educate them. Nothing “spoils” childhood faster than a pregnancy or disease brought about by a parent’s refusal to treat their children as intelligent human beings.

# 97 RBG said, on April 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am

0. JCD
Topless refers to apparel.

Let’s see, what else do I have to explain to you?

What’s revealing about this photo is that it reveals a Disney kids’ icon to be a bedroom slut. Hopefully you wouldn’t let your own daughter go to school that way just because all the correct bits are covered. It bothers me that you get the pleasant charge out of it that you do.

And somehoe I’ll bet you can find that photo elsewhere than Vanity Fair.

RBG

# 98 brendal said, on April 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am

I have a 16-month-old daughter who is tall for her age and already stops people (mostly men) dead in her tracks. I also used to be a professional model. That said…

The image is age-inappropriate. It is suggestive – far too suggestive for her age. But I’m not Grayden Carter…he can publish whatever he wants. I don’t have to buy it. First Amendment, ya’ll.

However, class — unlike a magazine — is something that can’t be bought.

# 99 nikar said, on April 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

OMG before you know it all 15 year old girls will be running around naked under their clothes.

# 100 RBG said, on April 28th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

How unfortunate when actors like Julie Andrews and Daniel Radcliffe feel they must expose themselves to be taken seriously.

As you can tell, I’m still emotionally scarred for seeing the undulating Sandra Dee in the Dunwich Horror at the drive-in.

RBG

# 101 RBG said, on April 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

99 nikar. You wish.

RBG

# 102 RBG said, on April 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Wait, I’m not finished…

“Most of all, I have let myself down. I will learn from my mistakes…” CNN.com

The problem with sexualizing young girls is that too many old boys think its ok.

RBG

# 103 bobbo said, on April 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

JOHN C DVORAK–slight majority here think the ad sexualizes the young girl.

Do you still think there is “absolutely” nothing here?

Absolute is rather a high standard?

# 104 monty said, on April 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Hang on…

*whack… whack… whack*

Nope, nothing.

# 105 pedro said, on April 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

#102 Yeap. Something #96 seems to totally miss.

# 106 OhForTheLoveOf said, on April 28th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

#103 – JOHN C DVORAK–slight majority here think the ad sexualizes the young girl.

What ad?

Do you still think there is “absolutely” nothing here?

I can’t speak for John, but the majority of Americans believe in guardian angels, therefor sheer force of numbers will never win this argument. Majorities are often, in fact, usually wrong.

Whether these photos do or don’t sexualize the subject isn’t important to anyone except those whose small minds think this shit matters. It doesn’t. She’s a Disney property. She’s not a role model. She’s a product. If kids do see the photos, it will not cause their heads to explode or for them to give each other blow jobs in grade school. This is a non issue.

The only thing remotely interesting here is that the principles, Hanna or whatever her name is, her parents, her management, were all on set, all involved, all saw the digital photos at the time they were made, were very excited and positive about them, and approved of them.

Now some prudes are bitching so they’ve circled the wagons and attacked Vanity Fair. Well… too bad… Annie Lebowitz can’t take a bad picture and Vanity Fair isn’t a smut rag, and the manufactured goody two-shoes pop diva for kids is way out of her league, and on her 14th minute.

Our economy is tanking. Our government is sending young men and women to die in the desert. Religious zealots in the middle east want to bomb America. Religious zealots in America want to bring about the end times. Industrial agriculture products are poisoning us. The sky, as it has always been, falling.

Shall we address problems or shall we have a fight about a goddamn pop tart?

# 107 bobbo said, on April 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

#106==OFTLO==everything you say is exactly correct but irrelevant. The question posed for this thread is NOT as you seem to think “what is the relevance/importance of a pop teen commodity having photos taken.”

The question of this thread, the discussion to be “OT” or “On Thread” is “EXACTLY WHAT was revealing about this photo” in the context of the issue being about “Absolutely nothing.”

Now, Kurt Vonnegut once said ((Gee, I’ve talked more about him since his death than while he was living)) humans talk about nothing for practice in case something important to discuss comes up, they’ll know how to talk. Maybe this blog prooves that is not true?

Anyway, pop culture issues is a cleansing midi-apertif. If all you want is filet, you will get bored quickly of that too and start looking for empty carbohydrates.

You already know this and have posted the same many time. Stop trolling.

# 108 Greg Allen said, on April 28th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Maybe it’s no big deal, but it’s not “absolutley nothing.”

That photo does suggest pedophilia. She still a girl, afterall.

(sexualizing girls is nothing new in America media, of course.)

# 109 Niall said, on April 28th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

A seven year old may not read vanity fair, but they’re quite likely to search google images for the actress.

# 110 Stu said, on April 28th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

EXACTLY WHAT was revealing about this photo? What? Can someone tell me WHAT!?!?
I do not get this at all.
Still say if I was taking these pictures I whuld be arrested.

# 111 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on April 28th, 2008 at 11:22 pm

#107, boobo

You already know this and have posted the same many time. Stop trolling.

What the fuck are you babbling about??? You have been on this kick about how the picture isn’t suitable for your bosses party. Well sheet !!! If my boss ever comes into my house he will see similar pictures I have taken. All of them are tasteful and artistic.

If anyone is trolling here, he is a boob. So go fuck your own hat for awhile.

Mister Mustard,

Since you seem pretty intent on showing Mylie Cyrus pictures, there must be some sexual attraction there. I suggest a cold shower and maybe a trip to a mental health specialist.

Mylie Cyrus is not a good singer, has a poor voice, and can’t act. My kid watches her and I hope to hell she isn’t a role model. Fraud and deception aren’t things I don’t want my kid to emulate.

# 112 bobbo said, on April 28th, 2008 at 11:41 pm

#111–gawd==you have pictures of your 15yo girl in lipstick, satin sheets, and looking like she just had or wants sex==and you have these where anyone can see them?

I doubt it.

# 113 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on April 29th, 2008 at 6:07 am

bobbo,

My kid isn’t 15, she is 8. I only have pictures of her with make-up that she self applied. When she reaches 15 maybe I will have her pose with lipstick.

… and looking like she just had or wants sex …

Dude, that is a sick comment. If that is what you see then maybe you should join Mustard seeking mental health treatment. I’m afraid of what you might say about my kid at 3 mths being bathed.

NEWS FLASH Not everything is about sex, titillation, come-ons, or smut. In my oh so humble opinion, those who are afraid of sexuality are the sick people.

# 114 OhForTheLoveOf said, on April 29th, 2008 at 6:51 am

#107 – Sorry Professor Pedantic. I didn’t mean to post in a manner that displeased you.

Your take on what this thread is about notwithstanding, I do wish you’d quit acting like the fucking class monitor and learn that once in a while it’s okay to shut the fuck up.

If you want to be a moderator, get your own fucking blog.

Everything I said was relevant to this thread. You want to contribute… Post about what you want to say and not how you think that how everyone else posts is wrong. Because you are the one who looks like an assclown when you do it.

# 115 Mister Mustard said, on April 29th, 2008 at 7:06 am

>>NEWS FLASH Not everything is about
>>sex, titillation, come-ons, or smut.

No Lawd, it’s not. The Miley/ Vanity Fair picture is, though. In bed? Wrapped in satin sheets, naked? Hair mussed up? Come-hither look on her face? And Miley’s self-professed shame at viewing the pic in the cold light of day??? Give it a rest, dude. It’s similar in nature to the Madonna picture on the cover of the Vanity Fair in the grocery stores right now, except Madonna has clothes on (more or less).

I have pictures of my daughters in their pajamas, bathing suits, even their “first bath”, and I can guarantee you not a one of them looks like the Miley bedroom picture. If anything, that one looks like an advert for an R-rated movie.

That said, the picture doesn’t particularly bother me, nor do I particularly like it. Miley Cyrus/ Hanna Montana is like a talent-free version of Judy Jetson. A cartoonish figure. Mildly amusing, but nothing to write home about. And if my daughters ever thought of her as a “role model”, I’d probably blow up my TV.

# 116 bobbo said, on April 29th, 2008 at 7:10 am

#113–Gawd==I agree with Frued–everything is sexual, or at least has a sexual component. And if not for yourself, then with somebody else.

Ok, I think pictures of barebacked 15 year old girls with tosseled hair sweat stuck to her forehead, wearing lipstick and nude except for a satin bed sheet wrapped around her are not “absolutely nothing.” Someone above noted correctly that she boarded the Britney Train. Raise your own children the way you wish.

#114–OFTLO==if you are truly insulted, I apologize. If you are having fun getting your motor running, you are welcomed.

# 117 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on April 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

#115, Mustard,

If you think this picture is seductive or sexy, you have a problem. No worry though. It is the same problem most sexually repressed holy rollers in this country have.

I don’t know where you get:
1)the bed.
2)The satin sheets.
3)the naked girl.

You can’t see what she is sitting on, it could be a large towel or even regular sheet, and you don’t know what she has on underneath the towel. Although I know your slutty smut filled mind fantasizes she is naked. It appears everything you see in the picture is fantasy.

The beauty of this picture is in the unknown. Leibovitz’s masterful use of lighting and the small amount of color on her lips is extremely well done. Art? You bet!!! Smut, slut, kiddy porn? In your mind.

# 118 pedro said, on April 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

#113 I knew god was omniscient, but it’s quite a revelation to know is naive also.

# 119 Mister Mustard said, on April 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Aw, give it up, Lawdy. I’m coming to the conclusion that you might be a kiddie perv.

I don’t know how they do things in your town, but here where I live, people only wrap themselves in satin sheets when they are

1. Naked
2. In bed

As to where I “got” the idea of satin sheets, it was in the linked article. Did you even read it, or did you just go flapping your Holy Gums without bothering to click the link?

>>The beauty of this picture is in the unknown

Annie shoulda left some more unknown then. I don’t think it’s a “beautiful” picture, I don’t think it’s a cute picture. It’s a pretty shitty picture in my opinion, and the only thing noteworthy about it is the crass and commercial sexualization of a little girl. If Madonna or Britney or Paris had posed for the pic, nobody would even give it a second look.

# 120 Mister Mustard said, on April 30th, 2008 at 4:14 am

Oh, and Lawdy:

What did you think about THIS daddy/ daughter pic taken in the name of “beatiful” “art”?

http://tinyurl.com/5lgbcf

I hope you don’t pose with your tight-jeans estrogen-soaked daughter for that kind of pic. If so, we’re talking kiddie perv.

# 121 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on April 30th, 2008 at 5:39 am

#119, Mustard,

Yes, I can see now how this isn’t art. There is no velvet backing and that sure doesn’t look like Elvis.

# 122 Mister Mustard said, on April 30th, 2008 at 5:46 am

>>Yes, I can see now how this isn’t art.
>>There is no velvet backing and that
>>sure doesn’t look like Elvis.

Not only that, but Miley is polishing Daddy’s knob with her arm, and he’s just about to grope her booty.

Nice. If that’s “art”, I’ll take the head lice, thanks.

# 123 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on April 30th, 2008 at 7:57 pm

#122, Mustard,

Not only that, but Miley is polishing Daddy’s knob with her arm, and he’s just about to grope her booty.

Sheet you have a wild imagination. Yes, he is using her to try to get his careerer back on track and if I was him I’d do the same. But Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, where the fuck do you get “polishing his knob” and “grope her booty”?

Fuck you are a sick asshole.

To me this photo looks too staged. I would rate this along the same lines as any life style advertisment. But it ain’t the porn you suggest it is.

# 124 Mister Mustard said, on May 1st, 2008 at 12:49 am

>>Fuck you are a sick asshole.

If you think Lolita draped across Daddy’s lap with his hand caressing her thigh is OK, I’d say the same thing about you.

>>I would rate this along the same lines as
>>any life style advertisment.

“life-style advertisement”?? What the fuck kind of pervo life-style Gomorrha have you slouched to, son?

>>if I was him I’d do the same.

If you were Billy and you did the same, in many jurisdictions you’d be registering as a Level 3 sex offender. The “come fuck me in bed” photo is a little skeavy, but that Mullet Daddy/Tight-Jeans Baby one is just sick.

# 125 bobbo said, on May 1st, 2008 at 1:01 am

Its totally valid for men to be discussing pictures of young girls in bed sheets, but its nice to get a female’s point of view?

Here is what Jamie Lee Curtis said: “In the offending photo she looks tousled and soft and vulnerable and yes…even sexy.”

http://tinyurl.com/4gbqqt

# 126 Mister Mustard said, on May 1st, 2008 at 1:14 am

Jamie Lee’s over 50, and she was on the cover of the most recent AARP magazine (the “supposed topless/ strapless photo”).

I think the most relevant comment in the Jamie Lee/ Huffington post was “I am an adult woman. I protected myself during the shoot and I can take the heat. I only wish that her guardians had protected her.”

Would that they had. Instead, Mullet Head Ray has her draped over his lap in tighty-tighty jeans, hand on booty, other hand on (or at least very near) booby, looking for all the world like her boyfriend rather than her father. Yecccchh. That whole thing is just creepy.

# 127 bobbo said, on May 1st, 2008 at 1:26 am

#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.

# 128 Mister Mustard said, on May 1st, 2008 at 1:34 am

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.

http://tinyurl.com/59p2rc

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.

# 129 bobbo said, on May 1st, 2008 at 1:40 am

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

# 130 Mister Mustard said, on May 1st, 2008 at 1:51 am

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.

# 131 acme said, on May 1st, 2008 at 2:11 am

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.

# 132 pedro said, on May 1st, 2008 at 2:22 am

#127 ding ding ding ding ding ding!!!

#131 yeah, kids should be able to raom free naked without the perverts goin around. Jeez!

# 133 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on May 1st, 2008 at 11:33 am

#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.

# 134 bobbo said, on May 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm

#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.

# 135 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on May 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pm

#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?

# 136 bobbo said, on May 1st, 2008 at 3:52 pm

#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?

# 137 Mister Mustard said, on May 1st, 2008 at 4:52 pm

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

# 138 Mister Mustard said, on May 1st, 2008 at 4:57 pm

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/6os4sm

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.

# 139 bobbo said, on May 1st, 2008 at 4:57 pm

#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?

# 140 Mister Mustard said, on May 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm

>>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!!

# 141 pedro said, on May 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pm

I didn’t know god was so dense

# 142 Mister Mustard said, on May 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm

>>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?

# 143 pedro said, on May 1st, 2008 at 6:21 pm

He won’t. God trolls

# 144 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on May 2nd, 2008 at 6:04 am

#143, pedro,

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

# 145 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on May 2nd, 2008 at 6:16 am

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

# 146 Mister Mustard said, on May 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 am

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.

# 147 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on May 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 am

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.

# 148 Mister Mustard said, on May 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 am

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.

# 149 Mister Mustard said, on May 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 am

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

# 150 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on May 3rd, 2008 at 4:51 pm

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.

# 151 bobbo said, on May 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm

#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.

# 152 Jenny, Bloggess said, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:53 am

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/

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!