So, it isn’t kiddie porn when Vanity Fair publishes it?
The Associated Press picked up a story, “Miley Cyrus says Vanity Fair photo spread embarrasses her,” about 15 year old Miley Cyrus, daughter of singer Billy Ray Cyrus - and, oh yeah, The Disney Channel carries her TV show, “Hannah Montana”.
It seems veteran portrait photographer Annie Leibovitz was the photographer for a photo shoot with Ms. Cyrus. According to the Wikipedia entry for Ms. Leibovitz, “Her work often has strong sexual overtones.” One photo in particular is raising eyebrows, that Vanity Fair is planning to publish in the next issue. Taken from behind, most of the back is bare, what appears to be a satin sheet is draped about Ms. Cyrus, and Miley is looking back over her shoulder.
Seductive, implying unclothed, intended to be provocative. No big deal for die-hard model shoots, photographers, and fashion magazines. They watch the ladies strip down and change between photos, they watch nekkid people, casually, on a regular basis, they are just careful about what they capture on film or digitally.
Except, we have a 15 year old girl that claims the picture is embarrassing. Her dad claims the picture isn’t ‘in good taste’, whether for business reasons (the Hannah Montana role Miley Cyrus plays is kept squeaky ‘clean’ - free of sexual innuendo) or as a father seeing his 15 year old daughter being laid out for guys of all ages to drool and fantasize about.
Why is there a question? Why is Vanity Fair allowed to print provocative, sexily posed young girls, when guys are in prison for wanting to see that kind of picture?
The Associated Press picked up the story that does not mention a concern about Vanity Fair publishing kiddie porn. Internet Service Provider Earthlink.net picked up and published the story of apparently ‘appropriate’ kiddie porn.
You are either taking sexually titillating pictures of underage girls or you aren’t. Seems simple to me. So, where is the Department of Justice and their glory hounds and career builders, um, I mean, “pornography task force?”
Come on, Vanity Fair - play fair and drop that photo.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Not quite kiddie porn, but just the same, inappropriate for a 15 year old and how this photo will be viewed many adult males. What baffles me is since, according to the article you cite, her parents or minders were on the set, why was the photo allowed to be taken in the first place?
April 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
As I understand it, the pose and shoot were rolling on, they didn’t think too much at the time, and that particular frame seemed ‘cute’.
When paired with the direction the article turned, though, the change in context revealed what should have been apparent. The picture was intended to portray a sexually active and inviting woman - of 15.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I was just appalled at the idea that Billy Ray would even consent to this. And that Leibovitz has no concept of propriety at all.
I am an artist. I understand art. I understand beautiful women are something to admire. Especially naked women.
But this is a young girl. Sure, she has the figure of a woman. And sure, they take little six-year-old girls and dress them up to look like women and teach them to dance like strippers and oh isn’t it so cute when they win the beauty pageant!
I had already been disturbed by the new pouty look that Miley had started sporting. Trying to look all sultry in photos on the red carpet.
I was around when everyone was up in arms about Brooke Shields. But you know, as bad as that was, at least she was not trying to portray a good girl. Miley, is purposely trying to embody the idea that just because you are a star doesn’t mean you have to become a drug/alcohol addicted party animal who can’t keep your underwear on. She admires Hilary Duff just because she has managed to pull that image off.
So why would someone think it’s okay to encourage this young girl to tarnish that? Many think these photos are tame. As compared to porn. Good God, if it’s not porn, it’s ok? Is that how we measure things?
These photos are clearly sexual. Leibovitz should be smacked. And so should Billy Ray.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I’m now wondering if the whole thing wasn’t a grab for publicity..since there is no such thing as BAD publicity. It was everywhere today, on the radio, all the televisions at the gym, even NPR actually set aside time to discuss this picture. It got so much coverage you’d think our national security depended upon this pic. Waiting for the department of homeland security to weigh in.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Thanks Honjii, Teri.
Let me be clear about my thinking here - I think Vanity Fair and Annie Leibovitz had every reason and right to take the pictures they did. That is what they do. Whatever story Billy Ray Cyrus and Miley Cyrus heard, they should have been aware what a spread and article in Vanity Fair would look like.
My objection is that this is a minor. A young girl. Whether she misunderstood, whether she changed her mind, or she needs to backtrack to keep her Disney Channel contract, I don’t care. Because she is a minor, any move she makes toward increased modest has to be respected. Once she hits 21, I wouldn’t think a thing about Vanity Fair going ahead with the article. But her age makes a problem.
Vanity Fair is playing legal shenanigans. Yes, they might have permission, yes, her guardians were present. Wait - her guardians? Wow. How well did Vanity Fair research Miley’s public image, and assure themselves that they were not going to compromise ‘Hannah Montana’? What I see is sheer paparazzi blitz tactics, shameless, ruthless. When Miley was unhappy with the blatant sexuality of the piece, that should be enough to quash the project. When her guardian considers the piece inappropriate, that should have rescinded permission and raised legal consequences of exploiting minors. And I think that risk of backing out is something Vanity Fair should be held responsible for, and liable to, if they are going to play fast and loose with youngsters.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Honjii, about the publicity stunt - I don’t think so. I think at the very least they forgot they would irritate Disney Channel. And I really think that Miley is used to working on set - but on a Disney set, there isn’t much question of propriety. Annie Leibovitz has been doing provocative portraits for a long time. I doubt Miley is allowed to say ‘no’, and her dad just .. missed it.
And I doubt Homeland Security would be the first to respond. I think that would be the porno-gang at Department of Defense. Or maybe the Marine Corps. The Marines are active out there in California. I am *sure* they would be *Happy* to respond to a plea for help from a half-nekkid 15 year old cute chick.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Okay, first of all, Brad ~ I don’t know where a girl has to be 21 to be considered an adult. Sure, 21 would be better than 18, but that’s pretty much the rule ’round these here American parts.
Second of all, I believe that Vanity Fair and Leibovitz did do a number on Miley. Yeah, her daddy should have protected her. And as I mentioned at my place, I dunno where the hell her mum is. Daddy should know what kind of a magazine VF is. Miley likely didn’t. So I do NOT at all let them off the hook.
Ultimately, though, it’s these parents that make me sick. Briney’s parents, Lindsey’s and Miley’s.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Cathouse Teri, I was thinking of the child-porn laws ‘protecting’ kids under 21. I guess you’re right - they figure 18 is the limit.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that Miley’s new song 7 Things rocks so spectacularly that it is ridiculous.
That is all.
oh, p.s. I thought the pics were ok. And I think Miley was just embarrassed because everyone made a big deal out of them and she felt she had to say that to be all PC to her fans and stuff.
oh, p.p. s. I like the Monkees too.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 pm
UMassSlytherin, I like the Monkees (of course, I remember the TV program when it first broadcast). And Robert Mitchum’s theme from the movie ‘Thunder Road’ - Whippoorwill.
And I, too, think that the foofarah was about covering her young butt on her Disney contract.