Did y’all checkout the VF article, and accompanying pics? Her parents were there, and she AND they approved the pics. Everything being digital, they got to see them on the shoot location.
First, she is hot as hell. Now the clock starts ticking to her turning 18. =)
Second, probably a third of 15 year olds in the US are sexually active. It is a shame. Apparently the article does not explicitly say she is sexually active, but it does portray a “virginal Disney star” in a light that takes away her almost wholesome quality.
But let’s be real here--she is a 15 year old that has a big girl career. While it is true that lots of people look up to her and that she is a star for Disney, she is clearly trying to transition from child star to adult star which did not seem to work for the Olson twins and countless other actresses that played children and were not able to parlay that success into a long term career. She is trying to keep from being pigeon holed into virginal child roles.
Does the controversy help or hurt her own career? One can assume that it hurts Disney, but I think that her handlers, agents, the Disney folks, and others did this as a calculated move (since nothing is ever unscripted and since her agents and parents as well as Disney had to sign off on it to do it).
THIS IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO CHILD PORN. This is no worse than a bikini. It is a naked back. Provocative, yes. Pornographic, no. In good taste, probably not. Arousing to dirty old men, I am going to say yes. Career enhancing, the jury is out.
Justin B. - 10:04am on 04/28/2008
“Bonfire anyone?” wrote Lin Burress on her marriage and parenting blog, Telling It Like It Is, referring to the mountain of Hannah Montana retail items — makeup, shoes, clothes — in the marketplace. “Parents should be extremely concerned,” Ms. Burress said in an interview. “Very young girls look up to Miley Cyrus as a role model.”
Burn em. Burn the books too. This is what we have come to expect from the fundamentalists anyway. That is who she is talking to.
Hannitized - 10:04am on 04/28/2008
The real question is: How do you grow up in public, both as a person and as a commodity? For every Jodie Foster or Brooke Shields there are a dozen Gary Colemans. Michael Jackson’s face speaks volumes. So did Judy Garland’s medicine cabinet. In Cyrus’s case, there has been a concerted effort, on the commodity side, to slowly draw her out from under Hannah’s shadow. A full Miley album will be released this summer and a Hannah Montana feature film, to be shot in Nashville, will mostly focus on “the Miley side of life,” as she puts it. And though the pose was Annie Leibovitz’s idea, the topless but demure portrait accompanying this article could be seen as another baby step, as it were, toward a more mature profile. “I think it’s really artsy,” Cyrus says. “It wasn’t in a skanky way.… And you can’t say no to Annie. She’s so cute. She gets this puppy-dog look and you’re like, O.K.”
Seriously folks, read the article. It is a very good read and it actually makes her sound like an intelligent, classy, well adjusted 15 year old.
Justin B. - 10:04am on 04/28/2008
Only time will tell what is to become of her.
dirl126 - 10:04am on 04/28/2008
Hannitized,
Burn em. Burn the books too. This is what we have come to expect from the fundamentalists anyway. That is who she is talking to.
I can’t speak for the author of that parenting blog, but in general I hardly think that being opposed to sexualizing a 15-year-old girl is equivalent to wanting books burned.
Not that anyone has ever accused you of having reason or common sense.
P.S.,
She is less exposed there than she would be in a bikini by the pool any given Saturday.
People need to get over themselves.
But it’s not simply a matter of the amount of exposed skin. It’s a matter of how the girl is presented. The picture above, along with the accompanying article, are highly sexual in nature.
That’s the problem.
Rob - 11:04am on 04/28/2008
..but in general I hardly think that being opposed to sexualizing a 15-year-old girl is equivalent to wanting books burned.
And this is why I wonder about people from North Dakota. When did I say they were equivalent? I said burn the books....."too". That means in addition to burning everything Hanna Montana related.
Rob, can I ask you what is the equivalence between a Hanna Montana Makeup, shoes and the sexualizing of a 15yr old? So why burn them? If you are going to burn all the “stuff”...why not burn the books too?
Reason and you go along like vinegar and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
I can’t speak for the author of that parenting blog,
Why not? You speak for Wright and Obama when you misquote them on purpose by changing the words they used. Why stop now?
Not that anyone has ever accused you of having reason or common sense.
Hannitized - 11:04am on 04/28/2008
Rob didn’t say to burn anything. Your friends lame assed parenting blog calls for people to burn stuff. Perhaps you should ask your friend why she wants to burn other people’s property. What’cha say, racebaitingpovertypimp?
2Hotel9 - 11:04am on 04/28/2008
Why not? You speak for Wright and Obama when you misquote them on purpose by changing the words they used. Why stop now?
HA!
realitybasedbob - 01:04pm on 04/28/2008
Chief RZ has it right. Charges should be filed for child pornograpy. But, as it is said, probably a liberal owned mag and double standards apply in this case.
Did y’all checkout the VF article, and accompanying pics? Her parents were there, and she AND they approved the pics. Everything being digital, they got to see them on the shoot location.
Here you go. Make of it what you will.
First, she is hot as hell. Now the clock starts ticking to her turning 18. =)
Second, probably a third of 15 year olds in the US are sexually active. It is a shame. Apparently the article does not explicitly say she is sexually active, but it does portray a “virginal Disney star” in a light that takes away her almost wholesome quality.
But let’s be real here--she is a 15 year old that has a big girl career. While it is true that lots of people look up to her and that she is a star for Disney, she is clearly trying to transition from child star to adult star which did not seem to work for the Olson twins and countless other actresses that played children and were not able to parlay that success into a long term career. She is trying to keep from being pigeon holed into virginal child roles.
Does the controversy help or hurt her own career? One can assume that it hurts Disney, but I think that her handlers, agents, the Disney folks, and others did this as a calculated move (since nothing is ever unscripted and since her agents and parents as well as Disney had to sign off on it to do it).
THIS IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO CHILD PORN. This is no worse than a bikini. It is a naked back. Provocative, yes. Pornographic, no. In good taste, probably not. Arousing to dirty old men, I am going to say yes. Career enhancing, the jury is out.
Burn em. Burn the books too. This is what we have come to expect from the fundamentalists anyway. That is who she is talking to.
Seriously folks, read the article. It is a very good read and it actually makes her sound like an intelligent, classy, well adjusted 15 year old.
Only time will tell what is to become of her.
Hannitized,
I can’t speak for the author of that parenting blog, but in general I hardly think that being opposed to sexualizing a 15-year-old girl is equivalent to wanting books burned.
Not that anyone has ever accused you of having reason or common sense.
But it’s not simply a matter of the amount of exposed skin. It’s a matter of how the girl is presented. The picture above, along with the accompanying article, are highly sexual in nature.
That’s the problem.
And this is why I wonder about people from North Dakota. When did I say they were equivalent? I said burn the books....."too". That means in addition to burning everything Hanna Montana related.
Rob, can I ask you what is the equivalence between a Hanna Montana Makeup, shoes and the sexualizing of a 15yr old? So why burn them? If you are going to burn all the “stuff”...why not burn the books too?
Reason and you go along like vinegar and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Why not? You speak for Wright and Obama when you misquote them on purpose by changing the words they used. Why stop now?
Not that anyone has ever accused you of having reason or common sense.
Rob didn’t say to burn anything. Your friends lame assed parenting blog calls for people to burn stuff. Perhaps you should ask your friend why she wants to burn other people’s property. What’cha say, racebaitingpovertypimp?
HA!
Chief RZ has it right. Charges should be filed for child pornograpy. But, as it is said, probably a liberal owned mag and double standards apply in this case.