:rolleyes:

You don't have a penis, I do, that picture was meant to be 100% provocative.

If she were 18 and on the titty board the next picture would have dropped the cover and most likely been a MET series.

Last I considered neither Annie Liebowitz nor Miley Cyrus have a penis.

Maybe you just expect the world to revolve around your penis.

"Ignorant" is the word you are looking for - I can't remember, is this irony?

Anyway, Britney, Lindsay Lohan, the list does go on. Or perhaps she'd be better as a bulimic (or was she anorexic?) like that Olsen twin? A shoplifter like Jennifer Capriati? Maybe just dead like Dana Plato? The reality is that when overwhelming success comes to women at a very young age, more than a few of them have gone on to self-destruct. It's more than fair to question whether this is the fate that might await her.

The Britney note was, BTW, specific in that both were associated with Disney from a young age.

i think i have to agree with ustwo and say the objective of the photo is to be at least a bit provocative.

http://www.vanityfair.com/images/cul..._miley0806.jpg
This picture? Are you kidding? It might be a year or two too soon, but there is nothing wrong with that picture. And there is a difference between using the female form as art and provocative or pornographic material.

It looks like she has a strapless prom dress on or something.

Tell me about it when she goes to some topless beach or something.

Is this thread NSFW now? :rolleyes:

Thank you.

And I'll interject so far as to say that if your first impulse is to think "i want to fuck that' then perhaps YOU are the one with the problem.

No but you just violated the sites image policy on children.

No one is claiming it was pornographic, but if you don't think thats a provocative photo of a 15 year old, you need your eyes examined.


Yea well I'd hit it, sorry.

/enter Chris Hanson

No, really, it's the underage girl's fault for being all sexy.

We know that she gave her permission for that picture to be taken though. And it's not like she is naked or anything. She has pants on. And her parents were there and it's for a major magazine so she wasn't forced into doing this or anything.

And yeah, I bet any red-blooded male would hit it. It would be worth the jail time too. Hell, I would even wait the three years to hit it to stay legal.

Here is some art from 1515 that was probably pretty shocking too. (I hope it's not nsfw)
http://www.artknowledgenews.com/file...thAMirrori.jpg
http://webed.vw.vccs.edu/vwbaile/Media/birthven.jpg

Prom dress? Tousled hair, coy smile, not a stitch of clothing to be seen? You must've had an awesome high school prom. She looks like someone who just woke up after a "long" night and is sitting up in bed covering herself with a sheet. Which isn't to say it isn't artistic as well, simply that it's without a doubt provocative and intended to titillate. The fact that the photographer and subject were both women doesn't in any way change that.

I think any uproar about the whole thing is silly, as is this country's puritanical view of almost all things related to sex, and I think any attempt on her part to feign ignorance of what was happening is just as bad. She went for a "sex sells" angle and, shockingly, a lot of parents of 10-15 year old girls aren't thrilled with having sex sold to their children. The routine is getting to be a little tired, but I suppose that's the danger of being young, famous, attractive (?) and fabulously wealthy.

Looks like next harvest will be even better.

If you can't see the myriad, obvious differences between the picture in question and the use of nudity in classical art, I don't think we can really have a conversation. The cultural contexts and the purposes behind the images are blindingly divergent. About the only similarity is that they're images featuring a partially clothed female subject. That doesn't count for much given everything else.

Eww, jailbait.

I think the whole puritanical US is a bit overstated but otherwise I would guess we are in agreement. I say this as I have the playboy channel showing hardcore sex on the TV next to me. We may be a more conservative in what we show on the public airwaves, but thats about it. I've been to nude beaches, seen public sex acts, and all that stuff right here in the good old USA.

The issue here is that you have a girl under the age of consent, in a deliberately provocative pose, who's main source of fame is being the wholesome child entertainer with a TV show on the Walt Disney Channel.

Its the perfect shit storm, and I have to wonder if it was done on purpose. Sort of a primer to her adult career so she doesn't disappear like so many other child actors.

If so its a perfect job at it, though I think they should have waited another 2 years for 17. You would get the same press but with less 'shes too young' and be closer to her 'adult' career stage.

I think it's counterproductive to view her portrait as overtly sexual and acceptable at the same time.

This is all so stupid.

Meh, It's not a horrible portrait but it's no Mona Lisa. Of course the girl is embarrassed by it once there's a big whoop-de-doo. She thought she was doing something artistic and everyone spits on it. Hell, It was probably the only photo of her that isn't a paparazzi shot or a Hannah Montana product logo. I feel sorry for her, She's so chained to her character that people just can't separate the two. I don't think it's anywhere close to pornographic, Slightly provocative maybe, but hasn't art has been that way for centuries?

I could care less about it too. I think it is just a perfect example of the media making a huge controversy over a little thing to get people to tune in. If it wasn't reported on in the news, how many of us (or her fans) would have found a copy of this picture in Vanity Fair and been offended?

I do see her side of the story, and if this is the process of making the picture, she may not have known that it would turn out like it did.
http://bittenandbound.com/wp-content...hoto-shoot.jpg

Very interesting point.

Since she and her family did approve the proofs, I think it's fairly safe to assume that the expression of regret may well have been a marketing ploy that Disney felt necessary, due to the nature of the average American consumer.

Remember, this is a country where breastfeeding women have to fight for the right to breastfeed their babies in public. God forbid their children might see a breast! Look at the hoopla that Janet's breast caused. It logically follows that the exposed back of a child was meant to titillate as well. :rolleyes:

First, if all you see from the provocative nature is an exposed back, you don't understand how something is provocative to the male mind.

Even a look with the eyes can say 'fuck me' and that entire photo was designed to say 'fuck me'. Call me old fashioned, but a 15 year old in a national publication with a 'come fuck me' photo, might be in poor taste a bit.

But I can't blame Disney if they are upset, she represents millions and millions of dollars to the company who has paid her VERY well, and has already had bad press in relation with their young female stars.

Add to it that the average Hanna Montana fan is most likely 9-12 and its rather apparent why they would be displeased.

I looked at the picture again and agree with this statement. The only difference from my point of view is that she has a more "just got fucked good", look rather than a "come fuck me", look, ..but otherwise,...

The magazine isn't even out yet--so by bringing this up now, before it hits shelves, just helps to sell more magazines. I smell a publicity stunt.

I find it interesting that some find the image titillating - she looks even younger than 15 in the picture. I think the picture was a bad idea but I think anyone finding it an arousing image might have a couple of wires crossed in his head. Just a hint of pedo about such a thought.

That's your interpretation. ;)

I see nothing sexual about this picture. Women and teens younger than Miley wear backless dresses all the time, and oftentimes more is exposed than is exposed here.

again, i agree with ustwo that the photo is provocative and was designed to be so. the inference from the photo is she´s in bed. the sheet is aranged to at least suggest she´s not wearing a top, especially since she appears to be holding it up. her hair is messy and wet suggesting sex and she definitely has a provocative smile. to say the photo isn´t a least designed to be provocative is in my opinion naïve. but yeah, at the end of the day what´s new? 15 year old girls and younger have been paraded as jailbait for a long time now and will be in the future so as onesnowyown has suggested it´s probably a sales grap and we´re all in on the publicity.

Ustwo, you got PlayboyTV? Hook a whitey up? All I have is my imagination and regular TV. But I agree. The Cyrus famliy is pimping out Miley, age 15. I think her original name was Hope? Faith? Destiny? Some stripper name.

But I do blame Disney, it's their MO.

I vote not in favor of Disney (former employee, so sue me) taking young girls and turning them into biz ho's. We like to think all along the way that now, NOW there are measures in place against causing young minds to handle adult situations, but it never ends. Not with the Olsen twins, not with Miley (Hope, Destiny, Faith) Cyrus, not with anybody. If you put your kids in show business, they will turn out poorly.

Good topic Highthief.

Actually, it was TWO stripper names... Destiny Hope Cyrus. haha

A few thoughts...

1.) Ustwo is absolutely correct in saying that this was meant to be provocative. Whether it is or not is subjective and open to individual interpretation, but it was certainly intended to be provocative. And, while mixedmedia may very well be correct, in that our adult minds are what took us there...I also believe that our adult minds were led there, courtesy of the talents of Annie Leibovitz.

2.) The ever intuitive onesnowyowl has pegged it. It's all publicity. Publicity for Ms Cyrus, publicity for Vanity Fair, publicity for Annie Leibovitz, publicity for Disney, hell...there's even publicity for Billy Ray. Publicity for all.

3.) Really? Who cares? Do 9-12 year old girls read Vanity Fair? I don't think so. If this hadn't been blown so out of proportion, then Hannah Montana's reputation could well have remained intact.

4.) Personally? As art? I like it. But, as the cheap publicity stunt that I believe this is? It's just whoring out a 15 year old girl.

5.) I wonder....just what is it about Disney careers that just completely fuck some of these girls up so bad? Hopefully, Miley will be able to dodge the landmines that took out those that came before her.

In case you missed it on Fark as well, you fell for the greatest stroke of marketing genius of the year.

Allow me to restate an earlier point: there is no such thing as bad publicity. And that VF.com just made tons of advertising revenue off that traffic.

How exactly did we fall for it?

The fact that it was done on purpose, as some had speculated doesn't change anything.

Wouldnt I actually have to buy the mag for it to have worked? Its honestly not something I plan on wasting my money on

No one was outraged by these:

http://justjared.buzznet.com/2008/01...pace-pictures/

And yet.. a professionally posed ART shot with father and mother standing by is the one that draws the controversy...

EDIT: I know the "controversial" picture got the waive because of it's presence in the media, but I'm not sure about these. Feel free to remove them, but it serves the point that they're 'worse'.

..

I agree. From a strictly artistic point of view, there's is great contrast and composition. Having gone to art school, I have seen so many shitty photos and pretentious people trying to accomplish what this portrait does so simply. Every one just needs to chill the fuck out!

It is outrageous that she should feel the need to apologise for this. I know very little about her, but she is 15 and the fact that this media storm surrounds her private myspace pics or someone taking a photo of her back is crazed and to me is a sign of the sickness at the core of the tabloid media in all of the West.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Musi....ap/index.html

So, maybe he wasn't there when 'that' picture was taken, but I kind of doubt that. He was there for part of it and it sounds like a fake excuse for a fake 'news' story...

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/fe...ey_video200806
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/fe...de=1#globalNav

Are we still talking about this? Haven't we moved on to some other non-event yet?

its been brought back up because that no talent coat tail riding father was on the today show today and made a statement about it

Common now Shani, thats mean. You're gonna break his heart, his achy-breaky heart!

You can tell the world
you never was my girl,
you can burn my clothes
up when I'm gone.
You can tell your friends
just what a fool I've been,
and laugh and joke
about me on the phone

You can tell my arms:
Go back into the farm!
You can tell my feet
to hit the floor.
You can tell my lips
to tell my fingertips,
they won't be reaching out
for you no more.

But don't tell my heart,
my achy breaky heart,
I just don't think he'd understand.
And if you tell my heart,
my achy breaky heart,
he might blow up and kill this man.

You can tell your Ma,
I moved to Arkansas,
you can tell your dog
to bite my leg.
Or tell your brother Cliff,
whose fist can tell my lips,
he never really liked me anyway.

Or tell your Aunt Louise,
tell anything you please,
myself already knows I'm not O.K.
Or you can tell my eyes
to watch out for my mind,
it might be walkin' out
on me one day.

But don't tell my heart,
my achy breaky heart,
I just don't think he'd understand.
And if you tell my heart,
my achy breaky heart,
he might blow up and kill this man.

But don't tell my heart,
my achy breaky heart,
I just don't think he'd understand.
But if you tell my heart,
my achy breaky heart,
he might blow up and kill this man.

Funniest post I've read all day...