Miley Cyrus says she was duped!
 

Now, I'm amazed. She agreed to have these photos taken and reviewed them, presumably with at least her father and agent alongside and quite possibly with the consent of Disney Corp, who presumably have some degree of image rights. Now she figures she was deceived in some way and had no idea these photos would be seen as provocative.

How long before this Mouseketeer ends up doing a Britney and crashing and burning?

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-e...,7598554.story

..

She doesn't need more publicity.

It probably falls under "it seemed like a good idea at the time, we didn't realize that there would be backlash, so let's pretend it we were tricked".

I find the standards for famous women to be interesting. If they do a sexy or provocative photo shoot people get up in arms about it, call them sell outs, or belittle their achievements (think Danica Patrick, this Miley Cyrus woman, or even the Williams sisters). If they don't then men the world over beg Playboy or FHM to do a photo shoot so they can plaster them to their walls, desktops, or just to get a sneak peak at what they'll never get.

Don't people have enough to worry about that a few pictures aren't important in their lives?

*I'm judging this based on the picture in the article. I haven't been keeping tabs on Miley & had no clue who she was until ~5 minutes ago.

She's 15, hardly a woman.

I agree with Redlemon, seemed like a good idea, until the backlash.

Heh, another Disney girl getting in trouble and playing dumb.

I'm surprised, aren't you?

I'm not sure I understand what all the fuss is about. Are we going to make a big deal about young girls baring their backs now?

And yeah, Miley Cyrus doesn't strike me as being a candidate for MENSA.

How is any of this news?

Perhaps publicity for her first steps towards abandoning her G-rated teeny-bopper image while not overly alienating her fan base and their parents?

Its news the same way it was news the first time Christina Aguelera posed nude/semi nude for whatever magazine she did it for (anyone remember her good girl stuff, genie in a bottle anyone?). Same as when Britney went bad.

People seem to care when the good girls realize that they get more money/attention when they are more skanky.

No one will care in a month. And if anyone cares now, they pay too much attention to shit that doesn't mater, aka Hollywood.

who cares??????

I think this is a simple case of a somewhat bright girl thinking she is smarter and wiser than her years, made a decision to show she is a mature young women, but unfortunately the pictures may show more maturity than society is ready to conform with.

She is 15, but society isn't ready for a 15 year looking like that in a picture, even though most do at that age.

I think she is old enough to understand the portrayal in the picture, whatever she was trying to portray, but it is society who thinks she doesn't. So damage control kicks in, she has to blame someone to cover her ass, she get's more publicity, Vanity Fair get's more and in two weeks, it will be forgotten.

Actually if someone famous dies today, this story will die quicker than you can spell sighrus

That picture is NOTHING. It reminds me of Les Miserables. If you're flipping out about it, you're living 500 years in the past.

Man, if I had a dollar for every time I duped an underage Disney employee into posing for risque photographs I could afford to get a copy of GTAIV right now.

Ugh, this story is one of those content blackholes that sucks in every possible media entity: Mainstream media, tabloid, academic, blogs...

Here are the basic angles:

1. Check out these risque photos!
2. Is this appropriate?
3. I am shocked!
4. This doesn't matter.
5. What does our fascination say about us?
6. Did you hear about the controversy?

Content, content, content. We are so hungry for content.

EDIT: Yes, I'm fully aware of the implosion caused by my own commenting on the nature of commenting. Such are blackholes.

Just clicked the link to see what the fuss is all about.
This country is turning out to be the most anal retentive, stuck-up, holier-than-thou, hypocritical victorian place on earth.....

The portrait is gorgeous. Disney Corp, of all places, should know art from smut.....jeezus...

I don't see anything wrong with the picture, nor was I surprised by it or the attention it attracted. However, I can say from a semi-selfish perspective that I just can't stand her as a celebrity. When you see as many Miley Cyrus fans in one movie theater as much as I have (the stress actually led to me being fired from said movie theater, true story), you realize that it is the most absurd, revolting, and downright mystifying case of bullshit currently impacting the entertainment industry.

In other news, I'm off to go buy GTAIV, ta ta!

agreed.

I think after the whole whatserfacespears thing they are a little gun shy.

And ya that photo is somewhat sexual in nature.

But ah well 30 seconds of my life wasted on this one.

I've already wasted too much time on this.

I had no idea who or what this is about until I clicked this thread and the linkage.

obviously news is slow or iraq/afghanistan is getting old

Who is Miley Cyrus??

Lindy

apparently the daughter of billy ray cyrus. i´d never heard of her before this thread either

Not only that, but she is Hannah Montana, and a favorite of young girls all over America. Ugh.

Shame she won't ever be poor enough to have to do porn.

I think the portrait is beautiful.

This is not the fault of Myley Cyrus or Annie Liebowitz but of reactionary America.

Sorry, all you fucking puritans, but...God Damn America!!!

We suck. :)

some people don´t need to be poor, they just need a video camera and a decision they will later regret.

My daughter loves her...Im subjected to watching her stupid show frequently.....While I have no problem with the picture itself....I do have a problem with the fact that she's 15. No way I'd let Amanda, who will be 15 in a few months, do something like that.

As the mom of a nine-year-old, I'm subjected to watching her show constantly, too...not watching, but listening. :lol:

But, my daughter is entirely nonplussed about the picture. She thinks it's pretty.

I think we subject our adult minds to places they don't necessarily have to be.

I think my problem is more that her parents thought it was ok and approved it. I dont care what anyone says....yes its a beautiful picture......but its also provocative and thats just not something a 15 year old should be projecting...disney person or not

Mind you, I know it might be be puzzling (considering) but I don't find the picture to be provocative.

I think it is a portrait that happens to show her back.

But then, I find I'm never in the mainstream on these sorts of issues...or, at least, where it's thought I should be :)

I think the portrait is equally an expression between photographer and model. I don't see it as provocative. I see it as classic.

well that is where we will agree to disagree, that is an adult magazine cashing in on a half naked 15 year old.....if she were 18 I'd have absolutely no problem with it, its the age thing for me

but what do I know....Im a mom that wouldnt let my 14 year old in a bikini for a million bucks

And, for the record, I had to go through tears, actual tears, sobbing, boo-hooing, during the last Miley Cyrus 'scandal'...until we actually saw the pictures. Then I was able to quantify them in a way that the Boo was able to understand. She's still on board.

I have no intention of keeping Manda from watching/listening to her.....but I WILL use this as an opportunity to teach her about people making mistakes (cause this is def a mistake IMO)

Well, we are dealing with our own parameters based on our own shit. :)

I would just hope that we can preserve some sense of reality-based separation from all this junk for our kids. My daughter LOVES Hannah Montana, and as much as the whole thing annoys me, it's going to take a lot more than some photographs for me to separate her from that identity that she loves so much.

She accepts all the photos and the other garbage, so I just let her enjoy the ride.

I as a parent I can see that both sides of the Mily Cyrus issue have a legitimate gripe. The parents of these young girls that idolize this teen sensation only want to shelter their children from such as they, believe that this isolated incedent is the preverbial downfall of society.

However, the photos that I saw were not what I consider tainted. Ms. Cyrus must remember that Disney is her meal ticket, the family entertainment meca has to, for its own image be maintained.To say Ms. Cyrus will be another Britney Spears is an iggnorent statement to make. Come what may she has 10 digit bank account.

It's probably a mistake based on current conditions and whatnot...I don't intend to present it as anything but a portrait.

well, respectfully, there is a big age difference between our girls.....and for the age of your daughter I believe your choice in how to handle it is a good one.... :)

When I see that picture, I think of this.....

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/1...earsealpb0.jpg

That picture was designed to be provocative.

Well, I guess that just illuminates one of the many differences between us.

Granted, I choose to deliberately ignore what most of the rest of the country is thinking most of the time.

And granted, I think there is some culpability to be acknowledged by those who may want to exist in both worlds simultaneously (ie, the Cyruses).

Still, I will not deprive my daughter of her love for Hannah Montana because Myley Cyrus and family agreed to the portrayal of Myley Cyrus that was more adult.

I tend to think it speaks more rigorously to our expectations as hypocritical adults than it does to any notion of adolescent maturity, though.

I think the whole argument is a waste of time...especially if you want to use it as some half-cocked, totally irrelevant argument against pedophilia.

: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...

Redlemon I actually have that on my ipod

HAHHAH

Scientists Warn that Miley Cyrus may be depleted by 2013

got it in 1 :rolleyes:

we've done three pages on a pre-teen...or possibly teen?

NEVER use the words "pre-teen" and "done" in the same sentence!

Miley in the shower. I know, I know,...couldn't resist

http://community.tvguide.com/blog-en...ower/800043231