'Hannah Montana' says she's embarrassed by Vanity Fair photo

SallyNow said:

Send school supplies to children who would otherwise be kicked out of school?

Click to expand...

I think now we are stretching the limits. I don't know one place that would kick a child out of school for not having supplies. I think this is a little overdramatic.

I'll simplify the true things I hear in the last few posts, and you guys can see if you agree or not:

1)You should not photograph and advertise with pictures of naked fifteen year olds.
2)Nude fifteen year olds can look sweet and innocent in an artistic way.

And about whatever problem her family had... remember that her and her father are artists, they may miss the obvious for the nuanced point... artist blunders...

3girls2dogs said:

I think now we are stretching the limits. I don't know one place that would kick a child out of school for not having supplies. I think this is a little overdramatic.

Click to expand...

In many countries, if kids have to choose between having enough money to go to school and having school supplies to use in school. Sorry, I know it's a disturbing thought, but I'd say that problem is much bigger than a silly photograph.

SallyNow said:

In many countries, if kids have to choose between having enough money to go to school and having school supplies to use in school. Sorry, I know it's a disturbing thought, but I'd say that problem is much bigger than a silly photograph.

Click to expand...

Why does it have to be either or? Why can't one be upset and do something about both? Or is it only you that determines what child abuse is?

i'm just sick to pieces over this: thinking upon how much stress this has invoked on the family, the photographer, but most of all the most-likely horrified teenager. looking at all the stuff online and on the news, is just sickening. can you imagine having your pics and name splashed, slashed, and posted all over in such harsh lights?

for the record: my stand is 'shame on the adults'... imo a 15 year old growing up infront of camera's isn't going to see this comming. and in our culture, 'shame on the adults' for thinking a half naked child posing in the same position as hollywood sex-pots would be 'artistic' and 'shame on the adults' for not helping her cultivate the image she has been trying to preserve: i.e. young christian role model. (i just can't imagine a 15yr old who's grown up infront of camera since age 4... doing this-and: it not be exploiting what she probly wasn't even thinking twice about... except doing as she was instructed, (so she could finish up and go out with friends to the mall for pizza)....

Oh give me a break ! Shes showing a little bit of her upper back if she went to the beach she would be showing way more skin.

3girls2dogs said:

Why does it have to be either or? Why can't one be upset and do something about both? Or is it only you that determines what child abuse is?

Click to expand...

I think they are completely related.

Accepting sexually nuanced photograhy in pop culture leads to desensitation of child inappropriate contentograhy...

The photo is sexual in nature because she is obviously topless and this is very suggestive.

I disagree with others who state that this type of photography is art. That is an excuse.

Miley Cyrus was exploited, and as goldenviolet stated, the adults surrounding her, especially the family, should be held responsible and made accountable so that this doesn't happen again.

As a parent of a child who was molested by a pedophile when she was 5 years old...I cannot understand why people would not see the harm in these type of photos. Pedophiles are common these days and are more and more accepted in society. How sickening to think of the perverts who will salivate and do other things with this photograph of Miley and photographs of children all over the world.

I realize the photo is not extreme, but it brings forth added acceptance of nudity...and this will lead to nothing good.

I don't see anything horrible about those pics and I can see how they ended up getting those shots. Nothing was done to purposely "sex her up". And I agree that I see more skin on girls at the mall than I do in those photos.

The only reason she is apologizing is because of all the people who overreact and might not take their "little darlings" to a Hanna Montana concert. Her rep is with the little ones but she is going to be an adult soon so folk really need to get used to the idea that even celebrity role models grow up.

this picture is the most disturbing one to me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/miley-cyrus-vanity-fair-p_n_99167.html

this is a dad and his daughter-they look like lovers. gross.

Mary_Magdalene said:

this picture is the most disturbing one to me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/miley-cyrus-vanity-fair-p_n_99167.html

this is a dad and his daughter-they look like lovers. gross.

Click to expand...

I have noticed that many find this photo disturbing but I guess I just don't se it the same way. I think it is beautiful.

The photo of Miley and her dad is a little "iffy" to me. An alternate photo could have been done which would have been much more appropriate to a dad and a daughter. I don't think it is horrible, but something about it doesn't seem quite innocent to me.

Ginny said:

Perhaps...but we know what people do more under bedsheets than they do on the beach.

Click to expand...

*coughs* I wouldn't be that sure about that... trust me, I speak from experience.

Ginny said:

Yes, and all celebrities (regardless of age) should be expected to raunch it up more and more as they get older.



I agree. I realize it is innocent, but the pic with her dad looks like something off of a Calvin Klein add.....the way they are holding hands and her stomach is exposed.

The question is....if you did not know who Mr. Achy Breaky Heart was...would you know that is her father?

Click to expand...

I actually thought it was an older brother at first He looks pretty young. Well it's a photo from a photo-op though, they can make anyone look young in those. But no, I do not see anything unappropriate about the picture.

Ginny said:

Sally, Thank you for genuinely asking that question before you make insinuations.

LOL

Click to expand...

Well, when people are making insinuations about the photographer, the girl in the photos, her parents, her peers, and everyone else, why can't I make insinuations about the people making insinuations?

fated said:

I'll simplify the true things I hear in the last few posts, and you guys can see if you agree or not:

1)You should not photograph and advertise with pictures of naked fifteen year olds.
2)Nude fifteen year olds can look sweet and innocent in an artistic way.

And about whatever problem her family had... remember that her and her father are artists, they may miss the obvious for the nuanced point... artist blunders...

Click to expand...

Actually, there are a lot more than those arguements.

1. Some cultures see nudity=sex. Some do not, and for those from the latter cultures, the picture is just another picture
2. Some people think nudity=sex, but understand that others see it differently, and that there isn't a right or wrong answer.
3. Some people think nudity=sex, and that anyone else is advocating pedophelia
4. Some people think that nudity=sex and see nothing wrong with sexually exploitng children
5. Some people think that nudity does not equal sex, and see the photo as being innocent, but can understand why others would see it as provocative
6. And millions of opinions inbetween.

I really just don't get the big deal over this particular photo.

Why?

Look in any magazine. Look on any runway. Look in any catalogue. Guess what? Some of those models are only 15 or 16 and are in actual sexual positions, and some are being abused or manipulated. Look on the streets. Some of those prostitutes are only 15 or 16 and are being abused sexually every day.

Now look at the Miley Cyrus photo. It's a girl in a classic "artsy" pose, a girl who's got a pretty neutral look on her face, and there really isn't that much sexy about it. I can understand that for some people it is disturbing. But I just don't see it. I'm sorry, I just don't see anything that bad about it. It's a fairly tame photoshoot, pretty standard, and not sexual, more just... a teenage girl going through standard artsy photos. Not sexy poses, not alluring poses, just artsy poses.

SallyNow said:

Well, when people are making insinuations about the photographer, the girl in the photos, her parents, her peers, and everyone else, why can't I make insinuations about the people making insinuations?






Actually, there are a lot more than those arguements.

1. Some cultures see nudity=sex. Some do not, and for those from the latter cultures, the picture is just another picture
2. Some people think nudity=sex, but understand that others see it differently, and that there isn't a right or wrong answer.
3. Some people think nudity=sex, and that anyone else is advocating pedophelia
4. Some people think that nudity=sex and see nothing wrong with sexually exploitng children
5. Some people think that nudity does not equal sex, and see the photo as being innocent, but can understand why others would see it as provocative
6. And millions of opinions inbetween.

I really just don't get the big deal over this particular photo.

Why?

Look in any magazine. Look on any runway. Look in any catalogue. Guess what? Some of those models are only 15 or 16 and are in actual sexual positions, and some are being abused or manipulated. Look on the streets. Some of those prostitutes are only 15 or 16 and are being abused sexually every day.

Now look at the Miley Cyrus photo. It's a girl in a classic "artsy" pose, a girl who's got a pretty neutral look on her face, and there really isn't that much sexy about it. I can understand that for some people it is disturbing. But I just don't see it. I'm sorry, I just don't see anything that bad about it. It's a fairly tame photoshoot, pretty standard, and not sexual, more just... a teenage girl going through standard artsy photos. Not sexy poses, not alluring poses, just artsy poses.

Click to expand...

I think the outrage comes from the fact that Miley markets herself, very successfully, as a role model for little girls. Not teenagers, not the average Vanity Fair demographic, but little girls. And they have pushed the squeaky clean image for her. If she wants to go all Britney or Paris or Lindsey, that's all well and good. Pitiable, but her choice. But don't expect me to let my girls keep watching. I think that this is basically what people are saying.