 |
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!”
#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.
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” !!!
#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.
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
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.
OMG before you know it all 15 year old girls will be running around naked under their clothes.
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
99 nikar. You wish.
RBG
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
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?
Hang on…
*whack… whack… whack*
Nope, nothing.
#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?
#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.
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.)
A seven year old may not read vanity fair, but they’re quite likely to search google images for the actress.
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–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.
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.
#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.
>>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.
#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.
#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.
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.
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.
#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.
>>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.
#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.
>>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.
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
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.