WARNING: This story might shock either you or your domestic animals.
Miley Cyrus is a cheerful 15 year old actress who stars in the Disney Channel hit series, “Hannah Montana”. She is, like many celebrities, often accused of being a role model for today’s youth. Yet, as of yesterday, she is also being accused of having posed for kiddie porn.
Back in February, Vanity Fair hired celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz to photograph Miley for the magazine. At some point during the outdoor shoot, Leibovitz persuaded Miley to pose with her lower and upper back exposed and her front covered by a bed sheet. The resulting photo (shown below) was released before its publication in the next Vanity Fair, which will soon hit the news stands. Naturally, all hell broke loose.
Just as soon as news of the photo hit the net, hostile bloggers such as Mike Responts and Lin Burress (who seems to style himself as a protector of America’s children) ganged up on Miley and pretty much everyone else associated with the photo.
Responts, perhaps confusing Disney for Vanity Fair, labeled the photo’s publication a “…Disney-inspired plot to turn America into a NATION OF WHORES….[emphasis in original]“.
Burress implied Miley was “becoming a tramp”, and called upon parents to burn “…all the Hanna [sic] Montana crap…” that they’d ever bought for their children.
Other blogs went after Miley’s dad (Billy Ray Cyrus), Vanity Fair, Annie Leibovitz, liberals, pedophiles, and all the other folks Americans typically go after when they panic.
Once the blogs chewed into the story, the corporations felt obligated to get involved. A Disney spokesman charged, “Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines.” Vanity Fair shot back by announcing, “Miley’s parents and/or minders were on the set all day. Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley.”
At some point today, Miley lost her nerve and went public with an apology : “I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be ‘artistic’ and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed. I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologise to my fans who I care so deeply about.”
Miley’s apology, however, did not stop Annie Leibovitz from defending the photo:
“I’m sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted,” she said in a statement. “Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together, and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it.
“The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful.”
Alas, my dear readers, that is pretty much the outline of where things stand this evening. America once again has a Very Serious Moral Issue™ to very seriously debate over the coming hours — maybe even days. Or, perhaps, there are at least three Very Serious Moral Issues™ here. The first, of course, is whether a 15 year old should pose in a somewhat suggestive manner for publication.
I say “publication” because I believe most of us can agree that, when a 15 year old bares her back and gives the camera a post-coital look, it is no one’s business but hers and her guardians, unless the photo is published. Now, I happen to think there’s nothing wrong with the publication of the Leibovitz photo. It’s mildly suggestive, but really — is there anything wrong with a 15 year old being mildly suggestive? Maybe I’m wrong here, but the photo doesn’t strike me as turning Miley into little more than a sex object. Rather, it seems to capture her 15 year old sexuality while leaving her a person in her own right. And while the photo isn’t anywhere near to becoming a favorite of mine, I do think it’s tasteful and has it’s own beauty. So, I’m inclined to think this first Very Serious Moral Issue™ is resolved.
The second Very Serious Moral Issue™ is whether someone should pose in a somewhat suggestive manner for publication who is a role model for millions of girls between the ages of six and fourteen. This seems to me a tougher question.
In case you are unaware of it, the show of which Miley Cyrus is the star is “Hannah Montana”. “Hannah Montana” is a Disney entertainment product specifically targeted at the lucrative female Tween market — girls ages six to fourteen. Millions of young girls look up to Miley Cyrus and, for better or worse, emulate her. So, do we want little girls who look up to Miley seeing her somewhat suggestive photo?
Again, I could be wrong, but I don’t think this is all that big of a deal. My very limited experience of young kids suggests to me that most of them will simply brush off the photo. A friend of mine — who I part time nannied for a few years — was raised in a home in which erotic art was openly on display. Much more explicit than the Leibovitz photo. Leah took it all in stride and certainly didn’t turn out twisted or perverted. Based on that very limited experience, I suggest that even if every kid in the country were to see the Leibovitz photo, it would not turn America into a nation of “tramps and whores”, as some folks have implied.
I now ask that we turn to the third and last Very Serious Moral Issue™. I personally consider this to be the big one. It seems to me this incident, and so many incidents before it, indicate that many of us are given to sexual hysteria. “Sexual hysteria” might be a strong term, but what else can it be called when a mildly suggestive photo of a 15 year old seemingly causes millions of people to panic that an entire generation of youth will become “a nation of whores”? So, the last Very Serious Moral Issue™ here is this: Is it moral to respond to the mildly suggestive photo of a 15 year old celebrity by harshly and abusively condemning her, her family, her photographer, and the people who published the photo? Is that moral?
What do you think?
View all the photos here:
Vanity Fair Behind the Scenes at the Cyrus Photo shoot
Most Recent Blog Post on the Miley Cyrus Affair:
Damn it! Miley Cyrus Should Not Apologize for Her Sexuality!
Somewhat related posts on this blog:
My StumbleUpon Page
32 responses so far ↓
Nita // April 29, 2008 at 6:22 am
You got it spot on Paul. It is cruel and inhuman to attack this poor child.
As for the photograph, its beautiful. True, its a little sexual, but no reason to make such a fuss. I am surprised at America’s reaction. I think America’s moral police get into action when children are involved. Well, if she was 12, I would think they might be justified. Not at 15. After all she is not selling or anything. Its just a photo and taken in all innocence. It was not shot for a porno mag…well is Vanity Fair a porno mag or something?
Stephen(w) // April 29, 2008 at 6:30 am
I wouldn’t think that if my seven year old daughter saw the photo it would make any impact on her at all. She’s seen a bare back before.
As an aside I don’t let her watch the Disney Channel because I think that (i.e the Disney Channel) is bad for her
Brian // April 29, 2008 at 7:33 am
Hi Paul,
An interesting note is that up until two weeks ago, I had no idea who she was. Not having any kids, the whole Hannah Montana buzz was just cultural white noise. Then I was driving home from work and heard this song called “When can I see you again” and was amazed at the voice. When the radio said it was Miley Cyrus, I was huh? Long story short, went to YouTube made the connection, ya da ya da.
Now on to the picture.
1. Vanity Fair is well known for provocative pictures.
2. Annie Leibovitz is well known for her photographs that can be erotic at times.
3. Miley is a minor despite her being worth millions if not billions.
Do I have a problem with the picture? I’m not sure. Given the context it does seem a bit creepy. However, given that she’s a performer I’m sure she is used to changing in front of cast members and crew. I’m positive that as the photo shoot went on, no one saw any of the pictures as being in poor taste and anything unusual.
Having said that, given her circumstances and what has happened to other child and teenage stars in recent times, there is nothing wrong with protecting your image and being very careful what is published. I would call this an error in judgment on the part of Miley’s father and whoever else was there to monitor the shoot.
I have however an even greater dislike of the far right whackos who have jumped on this and called her a whore and tramp. Where do these people get off at calling a fifteen year old a whore because she posed with a bare back? What kind of sick perverts are they? I’ll tell you who they are Paul.
No one will admit it, but the conservative Christians are no different than the Taliban and their ilk in Islam. Both groups want to control all aspects of life and want their women to be covered up, barefoot and pregnant. Christians in this country that feel this way would have no problem with stoning or whipping Miley (as they do in Iran) for immorality. That should be the topic, about how a small minority of hysterical witch hunters are trying to take away personal freedoms. Get your heads out of the gutter and stop believing that every girl who exposes flesh is a Jezebel bent on corrupting you. If you’re a man and look at this picture and feel lust, then you sir, are a pedophile. She’s a pretty young woman who is confident in her skin.
Get a life.
aos // April 29, 2008 at 8:27 am
I agree with you Paul that it is a lot of fuss over nothing. If anything is worth criticism it is that Miley/Hannah is buying into that commercial rite of passage, the revealing photo shoot. I think it would have been good for her to pass it up simply because it is” so yesterday”. These shoots, well done or not, are just the modern versions of “take it off!!”.
c.a. church // April 29, 2008 at 8:27 am
It’s fairly shocking to see the double-standards imposed by people like Mike Responts, and it’s quite demonstrative of the affliction all of those who are rallying against this photo — the sickness of double-standards that leads to the ultimate confusion of our children.
One the one hand, Mike has his blog filled with the hyper-sexualizing of young women not much older than Miley herself. His blog header is him enjoying the company of a handful of plastic ladies, look back a few posts, and he points out the bare breasts of another young woman, a few posts ahead, and he’s pointing out that another young woman is still sexy after having a kid…
But, “oh my god! Not _my_ girl! She can’t be exposed to this! Look what society’s teaching her!” The real issue are these double-standards, that a man can sit there and glorify and publicly lust after women being made into objects of no value other than their sexuality, and then complain when it happens to his child (or niece) - clearly the complainant is part of the cause.
Personally, the photo is reminiscent of Baroque paintings that were fairly common, and the only complaint I would have is the vapid, soulless-ness of the make-up. But, just perhaps, Anne is smarter than we’re giving her credit for - and she was commenting on the sick minds of the double-standardized parents who would eventually views it.
!c
Paul // April 29, 2008 at 10:19 am
I would just like to jump in here to express how impressed and pleased I am with the comments of the five people who have responded so far. I spent considerable time yesterday reading up on this story — including reading a lot of blog comments on it. And it’s my very strong impression that you five are heads above most people when it comes to presenting well thought out and reasonable commentary on the story. Thank you so much for that!
suburbanlife // April 29, 2008 at 12:33 pm
This photo has the sensuality of a Caravaggio portrait; also the quality of foretelling how the newly ripe face will age and morph as the years add experience. The photograph shares a voyeuristic coyness that characterizes early French pornographic post-cards and maybe i may be mistaken in making that connection, but it has a campy similarity. Having said that, what parent hasn’t seen glimpses of the burgeoning sexuality in their young ones? Or would they deny ever having realized their children are sexual sunsual beings? Publicizing such photographs makes many people uncomfortable, for it is not the image which is at fault so much as what purposes such image may be put to. There is no controlling others’ reactions. G
ordinary girl // April 29, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I agree that it’s silly.
Jennifer Dearing // April 29, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I think this photo should of remained on the family wall not in a public magizine!
Miley is “supposed” to be portraying a role modle for our girls, this generation.
What kind of example is this picture setting …
For ONE: OUR KIDS …. to let them know that if Hannah does it it’s ok for them to go off and show their bodies at fifteen oh what the heck NOW!
and for TWO: What about the example she is setting for Walt Disney Co. ??? Oh yeah that just makes everything better!!
You don’t hear about Raven or any other teenage girls from disney portraying naked!
Drugs w/ Lindsay Lohan … well your schools these day’s have lifestyle of ‘drugs’
Anorexia with the Olsen Twin … once again it’s in our school’s
We have re-hab centers all across america (i.e. Remuda Ranch, The Meadow’s) for situations like these.
And look we just celebrated, and taught our kids this past week, in school about Child Abuse Prevention.
Well Lookout america .. here comes more child abuse …
A child doing the abusing.
I think her show, on the disney channel needs to be pulled off the air .. and Disney she reclaim their rights to “Family” because as well as it may have been “A Family affair” it turned out to be a public affair!
Watch out america … Teen Pop Star Sensation is hitting our kids up, to be porn stars … to tell our children it’s ok to show off you body, for publicity! …. I thought Child Porn or in fact, ANY Porn, publicized was against the Law!
Now America is letting this picture of Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana hit the newstand, malls, and possibly even plain old Walmart! Oh wait did I mention Airports!! Oh kids … look it’s Hannah Montana on the cover of a magazine … “Oh Daddy … Oh Mommy … I want to be just like Hannah Montana when I grow up … Mommy … Daddy …. can I take a picture like that .. OR BETTER YET .. Mommy WOW .. I’m A BIG KID NOW!! ”
Vacation here we come!!
Is this the kind of example, we want our kids following or looking up to?
enreal // April 29, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Interesting discussion… I believe there is something wrong with this situation… It is art, it is real… I find no flaw with this photograph… I stand with you on this Paul… I think the photo is simple and beautiful… I do not follow main stream media or celebrities. I did not know who she was… I simply feel she is being persecuted for art… not the first time…
Paul // April 29, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Hi Jennifer! Nice of you to drop by!
I’ve read your comment several times and I’m still experiencing some difficulty figuring out how you’ve arrived at your conclusions. So, if I misunderstand you here, I apologize in advance.
At any rate, it seems to me you are implying the Milely Cyrus photo will contribute to — or even lead to — various social ills, including drug abuse, anorexia, and child abuse.
However, there seems to be no actual link between posing for a mildly suggesting photo and those ills. Are you aware of any evidence there is such a link? If so, please share it with us!
As for your notion the Leibovitz photo is child pornography, I’m afraid I must strongly disagree with that notion. Moreover, I would suggest that calling the photo “child pornography” might mislead some naive people into thinking there is very little wrong with child pornography — since there is very little wrong with the Leibovitz photo. That would be a tragedy.
Genuine child porn is evil, and we should all unite against it. So, I would humbly ask you not to conflate mildly suggestive photos of 15 year olds with the heartbreaking sexual violence perpetrated against children.
Last, you ask whether “we want our kids to follow or look up to” Miley’s example of posing in a mildly suggestive manner for Annie Leibovitz.
Allow me to suggest that we might.
In many ways, I’m a fairly naive guy, but I’ve hung out with enough teens in my time to realize that it is almost a right of passage these days among teens to pose nude or semi-nude for their friends, boyfriends, or girlfriends. Digital cameras make that very easy.
Now, most of the photos teens have shown me of themselves posed nude were at best poor quality mug shots. If you think it’s impossible to photographically reduce a beautiful, charming, and personable sixteen year old girl to boiled turnip paste, then you have not been shown some of the photos I’ve been shown.
What should be done about that?
Might I suggest that we should do everything possible to raise the standards teens have for nude and semi-nude photography? And perhaps the best way to raise their standards is to show them what artists like Annie Leibovitz can do.
So, I might be naive, but I think there would be a whole lot fewer very poor and tasteless nude and semi-nude photos of teens out there if teens were taught to challenge anyone who wanted to photograph them with questions along the lines of, “Can you do as well by me as Leibovitz did by Cyrus?”
I hope I’ve managed to address your concerns, Jennifer. Thank you for your time.
Paul // April 29, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Nita, I completely agree! Posing a 12 year old in a mildly suggestive way is far and away more repulsive than posing a 15 year old in a mildly suggestive way. Indeed, speaking as a 50 year old, I think Miley’s youthful sexuality is much more cute than reprehensible.
Again, one problem with America’s self appointed moral police is they want to infantalize Miley’s sexuality. True, she’s no where near to being an adult yet, but she’s no longer a little girl either. To deny that she has a sexuality is to infantalize and belittle her. But infantalizing and belittling is what moral police are all too often in the business of doing.
Like you, Nita, I am appalled at the cruelty shown this 15 year old. The terms I’ve mentioned in my post — “whore” and “tramp” — are only the tip of the iceberg. From what little I’ve seen, the kid has been far more harshly abused than are most pedophiles. And for what? Merely wanting to look a bit sexy and grown up? Is that such a crime for a 15 year old that it justifies abusing and condemning her? The real moral issue here is the outrageous abuse of her.
Paul // April 29, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Stephen, I am deeply shocked you won’t allow your seven year old to watch the Disney Channel. Have you, Sir, no sense of responsibility as a parent for encouraging her to spend mindless hours in front of a TV being indoctrinated with a love for various and sundry corporate brands? Should your daughter fail in life to become a robotic consumer, we shall all know how your shirking your parental responsibilities was the root of it! Get a grip before it’s too late, man!
Paul // April 29, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Well and eloquently said, Brian!
After reading several blogs and dozens of comments yesterday in preparation for this post, I found myself appalled to again and again encounter the notion that some “authority” knows better than we do what moral decisions we should make. That does not strike me as an idea entirely compatible with living in a free society.
Either you treat people as adults or you treat them as infants. If you treat them as infants, then you seek to make all their decisions for them. If you treat them as adults, then you might advise them, but you leave the decisions to them. Which way of treating people is most compatible with a free society?
Paul // April 29, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Hi AOS! That’s quite an interesting point you’ve made. I think it would be nice for anyone to have a portrait of themselves by someone of Annie Leibovitz’s caliber, but I cannot imagine why such portraits must always be published.
Paul // April 29, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Hi C. A.! Welcome to the blog!
First, I want to congratulate you on the black and white flower photo on your site. That’s a beautiful and moving capture!
Second, I applaud your pointing out Mike Responts ‘ peculiar standards when it comes to sexualizing women.
I think I’m somewhat justified in saying that I enjoy and appreciate women’s sexuality as well as anyone. But to reduce women over a certain age — the age of consent — to mere sex objects (as Mike sometimes seems to do on his blog) is something that most of the people I personally know avoid. Women are not “fair game” for sexualization just because they are 18 or older — and to treat them as “fair game” for it strikes me as rather indecent.
Last, thank you so much for your insight into the aesthetics of the photo!
Paul // April 29, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Hi Suburbanlife! I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your sharing your aesthetic insights about the Leibovitz photo. You and C. A. have helped me form an appreciation for it that I might not have otherwise obtained.
Paul // April 29, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Hi Ordinary Girl! I think the whole controversy is silly to the point of moral insanity.
Jennifer Dearing // April 29, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Well … let me point out that if there was NOTHING was wrong with Miley’s photo … why has the Disney Channel anounce over this evening show of ‘Hannah Montanta’ that they will no longer be airing her show. And it has been pulled from the broadcasting already - as of tommorow.
She and her parents should have thought twice over that particular photo out of the others she had taken.
Tisk Tisk Tisk …
This teenage pop star - who infulences our children, of this generation …. evidently may not know wrong from right. Or at least her parents may not know.
Would you, or anyone else, want your child to pose in this ’suggestive manner’ if they were or even were not, an idol for young kids.
What a shame … Oh what a shame!
Paul // April 29, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Hi Jennifer!
I searched the net and could find no news of Disney canceling Hannah Montana. Do you have a source for your information?
Perhaps it’s worth noting here that, even if Disney quit airing Hannah Montana (and it does not appear they will), that decision would not logically imply anything morally wrong with the Leibovitz photo.
As for my daughter — if I had one — posing in a mildly suggestive manner at 15 for a competent photographer… Well, I would not object to it. Indeed, I would probably cheer her on if the photographer were as good as Annie Leibovitz. But I don’t think I would support my daughter publishing the photo far and wide.
Jennifer Dearing // April 29, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Oh an ABC news just announced that Miley’s parents WERE NOT on the set at the time the photo was taken and the photographer (in so many words) convinced her to take the shot .. for publicity.
She now has “the best of both worlds”
Nova // April 30, 2008 at 3:06 am
OTT, Kiddie porn!????? What the hell is that supposed to mean? :O
chanson // April 30, 2008 at 3:25 am
I must be from another planet because I can’t figure out why people think that the most horrible thing possible for a young person is to start to develop sexually. I especially question the assumption that it’s always a situation where adults are exploiting young people’s innocence by forcing sexuality upon them, as though no one under eighteen (especially no girl!) would have a natural desire to express sexuality.
When I was fifteen (or even fourteen or thirteen) I would have loved to have been in a photo like that. Especially the subtly erotic aspect of it. And as an adult looking back (having studied my journals and my past, etc.), I think that would have been a perfectly appropriate expression of my own feelings and where I was at at the time. Of course there’s no way my parents would have allowed it. So why is it a-okay for parents to force a-sexuality on their developing kids, but allowing even the mildest expression of their budding sexuality is seen as parental negligence???
Jerry // April 30, 2008 at 3:46 am
Very interesting - “…ABC news just announced that Miley’s parents WERE NOT on the set at the time the photo was taken…”
Hmmmm, who’s in those Vanity Fair photos on VF’s site? http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley_slideshow200806?slide=1#globalNav
Sure looks like Billy Ray - or is it a body double?
And now Miley, and Billy Ray, are backpedaling and Disney is doing damage control - but so what?
Another day in the life of American Celebs – HO HUM.
Miley goes from hot teen property to upcoming hot adult property. And her bottom line goes up and up. Billy Ray gets tons of publicity as well, and his bottom line goes up and up. Vanity Fair will increase the number of copies for Miley’s issue and sell them all out and their bottom line will go up and up.
And Disney? Well this is all a blip in the day for them. And they will pick up Miley’s contract and move her over to their Buena Vista films.
Bloggers on both sides along with the media are all pedaling fast to stay on top of the latest scandal - the old “Give’em dirty laundry”. And their bottom line goes up and up.
Attack, counter-attack.
Am I the only one who finds all this worry about the Miley, Britany, Paris, Vanessa Hudgins du jours affecting our kids a bit too much? I personally find it a bunch of BS to sell whatever.
The only ones messing things up for the kids of today are out of control adults that haven’t learned to play nice – the spoiled brats that want to control the thoughts, minds and bodies of everyone because they have a terrible time controlling their own thoughts, minds and bodies.
I’m glad I’m raising my children here in Europe where there is an acceptance of teens as being people and not “children” that need to be told what to do like in America. The issue of sex and the responsibilities that go along with it are here in the schools and at home and so the sexual issues and problems Americans are so worried about do not exist on the vast scale they do in America – problems created by the all knowing, all controlling fundamentalist “Christians”, and given credence by the self serving media.
Take a look at just how much difference there is between the USA and other European countries where sex is considered a normal part of life and not hidden under the blanket of “sin”.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm
Jennifer Dearing // April 30, 2008 at 8:43 am
The morality is that she is americas pop star and it is wrong! She is leading the children of this generation in the wrong way. Her clothing … the suggestive’ one’s is not the clothes that she wears!
Jennifer Dearing // April 30, 2008 at 8:56 am
Jerry … ABC news said that at the time of that particular photo, Miley decided to stick around after her parents went out or left the scene. From the video, she looked nervous … Everyone NOT just pop stars, have a concience. She had her’s! Evenditly her’s is feeling guilty, she’s a teenager in an adult world, and lives that kind of life. She mentioned she doesnt attend school, she misses the social scene. Her busy life, doesn’t consitute any excuse. She wasnt to be a normal kid, but she wants to be a pop star … eitehr way you cant be both!
Jerry // April 30, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Jennifer me thinks you and others do protest too much.
The morality isn’t she’s America’s popstar and that her actions are wrong, rather it is morally wrong to suggest that American kids or kids anywhere need to be protected by those that feel they can take the moral high road and dictate how and what anyone should or shouldn’t do.
She’s a person who has to make choices and if she hasn’t learned, at 15, that not all choices are good ones then she’s in real trouble.
Popstar or not she’s still going to screw up, and hopefully her peers will come to understand that she’s human. That she’s not the goody two shoes as portrayed in the Hannah Montana fantasy.
And that, to me, is the real crux of the matter, she’s a fallen idol that the “morally just” are now using her as a means to say, “See what being a Popstar will do to you – it will send you and anyone that wants to be like you to hell.”
“She is leading the children of this generation in the wrong way. Her clothing … the suggestive’ one’s is not the clothes that she wears!” The same was said about Elvis and his hip movements, and Frank Sinatra’s looks and crooning both were condemned as leading “today’s kids” into sin, and the Beatles with their clothes and haircuts- whoa! the downfall of mankind.
I remember in 1963 at my Catholic high school dance the band was playing “Twist and Shout” and the Principal came on stage grabbed the microphone and told the band to get out, then he turned to us students and told us that if we wanted to do that filthy dance then we could follow the band out the door. Corruption of the young at the highest caliber for sure.
I don’t remember exactly the two almost identical quotes by two historical figures but it was something like the kids of their day were immoral… the first was Socrates and the other Adolph Hitler. And so Jennifer the beat goes on!
Did you go to http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm and see what the American approach to sex leads to. My gawd talk about morally irresponsible people that need to be educated.
Check it out, it ain’t pretty.
Paul // May 1, 2008 at 10:19 pm
@ Nova: It is now customary in America to panic and become hysterical whenever “sex” is mentioned in the same breath as “teenager”. Consequently, one of the worse things you can say about something is that it is “Child Pornography”. Saying something is “Child Pornography” is guaranteed to make seven out of ten of us go bonkers. That’s why so many people were quick to call the Leibovitz photo “Kiddie Porn”.
@ Chanson: Very wise and well said! Thank you for a breath of sanity!
@ Jerry: Thank you so much for the link to the Advocates of Youth site!
Arika // May 27, 2008 at 2:32 am
stupid! this is not really nude she wearing her pants what about that stupid Vanessa hudgens Total naked!
that picture was a art!
Paul // May 27, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Hi Arika! Welcome to the blog!
Kasakowski // August 13, 2008 at 12:08 pm
i agree with nita. Yes, it is a little sexualized, but, 8 year old girls don’t read vanity fair! Besides, she wasn’t wearing make-up, she wasn’t showing anything “private”, and she’s 15 turning 16! Now, if she was 10,11,12, or even 13, i could see why people would be angry. But, not at 15. Give her a break.
Paul // August 14, 2008 at 12:23 am
Well said, Kasakowski!
Leave a Comment