And I, too, think that the foofarah was about covering her young butt on her Disney contract.

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.

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.

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.

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 When her guardian considers the piece inappropriate, that should have rescinded permission and raised legal consequences of exploiting minors.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.

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.

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.