 |
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!”
>>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…
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.
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.
So teen age girls can’t wear bathing suits in your world?
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.
#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.
Yes it is relevant. It’s relevant to show that merely showing your back is not wrong.
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.
>>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.
So if we accept your argument, that this picture and the pictures you linked to are “slutty,” does that mean they are child porn?
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.
>>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.
High beams are ON!!!
http://tinyurl.com/5b238j
Not a picture I’d want my daughter posting on the internet. Tsk, tsk.
Yeah, she’s not that hot… yet.
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.
‘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)
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.
>>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.
Definitely a very revealing picture. Are those ribs showing?
#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?
Wow – 80 responses so far and counting!
A semi-nude 15-year old girl – speaks volumes on what excites Dvorak’s typical readers.
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.
>>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?
#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.
You did. In fact you made up a disgusting story to go along with it to show how bad it is.
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.
Now you’re playing with words. An inappropriate picture is a bad picture.
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.
#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.
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?
People need to relax.
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.
If can’t say it’s illegal, then what are you arguing about?
#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.
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.)
>>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.