Miley Cyrus's Vanity Fair Photoshoot

Ol' Blue Eyes.:

I don't think it's the most sexual picture, but when I'm looking at it, the only thing in my mind is "Holy shit, this kid's fifteen and naked", not "What an artistic photograph".

Exactly, I believe we know I'm all for nude art and very uncritical of it seeing as how I have a naked person in my avatar, but when you're 15 you have no business making art like that. If she was 18 I wouldn't see anything wrong with the pictures, but she isn't. She's even younger than I am which scares me.

vonny:

Cry Baby:

i don't see what's bad about those pictures

They aren't terribly bad. The problem is she's 15 years old and works for Disney. Therefore her fan base is young children. The photos are a little inappropriate for young children to see..

Well come on the demographic for vanity fair is not exactly 10 year olds, and on news stands they'd be right next to the adult magazines anyway so their being exposed to far worse.

NeoSteph:

DaschundPup2007:

Yeah, I still think that it's a little bit immature for her to being posing like that. I mean, I get the point that it maybe sexy to some people, but it's not sexy to me. It seems like Miley's just looking for attention by doing this.

Have you guys seen the ones with her father???

I don't see anything creepy about the father, daughter pictures. he's holding her hand and their in a half hug. My god the man probably changed a 1000 of her nappy's not that big of deal. I think if people find them disturbing its not the pictures but the onlooker whose disturbed.

I find it disturbing, mostly when, at some points, hands are too close to places where they shouldn't be, the placement of their bodies is just too close, more like really good friends than a parental relationship, so maybe that's what they have, but I do find it unsettleing. I know that if my own father where to pose with me like that, I would feel extremely uncomfortable and I wouldn't like it. Sure he may have changed her nappies like my own father did mine, but she's nearly a grown woman now. There was this letter in 'Dear Annie' or whatever that caught my attention (Not that I regularly check out her column. ) about a neighbour who accidentally looked out her window to see the lady next door having sex with her own son. She then went on to say something about children being too attached to parents and keeping remaining feelings of love which manifest in inscest sometimes. I'm not one bit saying that this is what Miley and her dad are like, it's just, the photos reminded me of this article. They seem just too familiar. Maybe if it were her mum, it would be alright, just not her dad.

NeoSteph:

vonny:

Cry Baby:

i don't see what's bad about those pictures

They aren't terribly bad. The problem is she's 15 years old and works for Disney. Therefore her fan base is young children. The photos are a little inappropriate for young children to see..

Well come on the demographic for vanity fair is not exactly 10 year olds, and on news stands they'd be right next to the adult magazines anyway so their being exposed to far worse.

She's supposed to be a teen star, a role model for young children as she works for Disney, I'm sure they pep talk to her about this all the time. No matter what magazine cover she'll be on, yound fans will recognise her. She's probably just under pressure to grow up. I saw her in a Valentino gown once for some awards show, it was way beyond her years in terms of sophistication, but she looked stunning. And I think she is under increasing pressure to do just that, look good, get noticed, probably get a boyfriend too.

Anji:

NeoSteph:

DaschundPup2007:

Yeah, I still think that it's a little bit immature for her to being posing like that. I mean, I get the point that it maybe sexy to some people, but it's not sexy to me. It seems like Miley's just looking for attention by doing this.

Have you guys seen the ones with her father???

I don't see anything creepy about the father, daughter pictures. he's holding her hand and their in a half hug. My god the man probably changed a 1000 of her nappy's not that big of deal. I think if people find them disturbing its not the pictures but the onlooker whose disturbed.

I find it disturbing, mostly when, at some points, hands are too close to places where they shouldn't be, the placement of their bodies is just too close, more like really good friends than a parental relationship, so maybe that's what they have, but I do find it unsettleing. I know that if my own father where to pose with me like that, I would feel extremely uncomfortable and I wouldn't like it. Sure he may have changed her nappies like my own father did mine, but she's nearly a grown woman now. There was this letter in 'Dear Annie' or whatever that caught my attention (Not that I regularly check out her column. ) about a neighbour who accidentally looked out her window to see the lady next door having sex with her own son. She then went on to say something about children being too attached to parents and keeping remaining feelings of love which manifest in inscest sometimes. I'm not one bit saying that this is what Miley and her dad are like, it's just, the photos reminded me of this article. They seem just too familiar. Maybe if it were her mum, it would be alright, just not her dad.

I blame Freud for putting greek complexes in our heads.

Different people vary on their idea's of whats appropriate and thats determined by your upbringing such as if you were breastfed or your culture. I thinkt here can be signs of too close to comfort but seeing as this was a staged photo so they were probably told where to place their hands then the emotions that come across in the pictures seem more paternal than sexual.

What I find interesting about this case is that much more racy photograph's of children have been used in exhibits all over the world in many cases the parents being the photographers and apart from a few select cases there's hardly any backlash from the media because its confined to the art world. However put the spotlight on a celebrity in a national magazine and its pitchforks ahoy.

So is this really a question of its wrong because she's 15 or its wrong because its publicity not art?

OK, this seriously reminds me of one of the first episodes of the television show on the BBC, Drop Dead Gorgeous. Anyone know what I'm talking about. Basically, Ashley's sister models some stockings and it turns out that the picture used is some provocative shot with her clevage in full view, in small shorts and tights and this smoldering expression on her face. And the poster is put up on huge billboards all around town. And her mother was present but neither she nor her mother remember the shots because they were taken towards the end of the shoot as they were fooling around after they finished. And her dad is absolutely furious.

Kinda parallels Miley's situation but also doesn't. It's kinda an interesting show when applied to reality, actually, cause I didn't realise that stuff like that could actually happen. I may give it a shot at watching it properly now.

I think people are being to hard on the chick. It was obv. set up by the magazine so they chould sell more copies. I'm guessing her parents or someone told her to coroperate with the photographer so she did. I mean she probably just thought it was going to be artistic. The photo isn't even that bad, you can't see anything it's no more reveling then a tube top or something.

Personally i think the photos of her with her dad are worse. I find it a bit creepy for her to be laying on his lap like that.

I really don't think the magazine set her up in any way. She was the one that ultimately agreed to it. Her parents were there, and they agreed to it as well. I'm just not going for that whole "Oh, poor Miley was manipulated" thing.

If anyone is at fault, it's the people who are blowing her pictures completely out of proportion. I, personally, don't think the pictures are inappropriate at all. Compared to lots of other pictures that have been taken of girls her age, these are no big deal at all. People are putting her in an unrealistic light. Yes, she is representing a company that pumps out many products for young children to absorb, but Vanity Fair isn't exactly a magazine aimed at four year olds. Again, there have been worse. She has no need to be embarrassed. Now, the pictures that she took on her own are a little bit immature, but I don't see who they are hurting.

okay so apparently her parents were not present for that section of the shooting, just a representative.
so i don't think we can blame the parents at this point.

i really have to say i blame the magazine. i mean, imagine you're posing for some magazine and they're like "wow, you look beautiful, but hmm... maybe if you just removed the top and used a sheet instead." i mean, at that point, you're not going to be like "no! stop trying to manipulate me!"
a magazine is designed to sell itself, and that's what they were doing. the photograper knew exactly what she was getting herself into, but miley did not- she's only 15. she hasn't been through photo scandals in the same way that Annie Leibovitz has.
i know it's the business, but i still feel sort of pissed at both the magazine and annie leibovitz for using her in the blatant way that they did.

victoria california:

okay so apparently her parents were not present for that section of the shooting, just a representative.
so i don't think we can blame the parents at this point.

The fact that they weren't there makes them all the more to blame. They're responsible for her until shes 18 regardless of where they are. Vanity Fair is a magazine intended for a mature audience, her parents were fully aware of that when they allowed her to do the shoot. Vanity Fair cannot be expected to change their content, her parents should have just said no.

Kurtni:

The fact that they weren't there makes them all the more to blame. They're responsible for her until shes 18 regardless of where they are. Vanity Fair is a magazine intended for a mature audience, her parents were fully aware of that when they allowed her to do the shoot. Vanity Fair cannot be expected to change their content, her parents should have just said no.

presumably, they would have thought they didn't need to watch her 24/7 and that their representative would have made wise choices in their abscence. billy ray's a busy guy and i'm sure they've all got places to go. my mom drops me off with other kids' moms if we're going to the city or whatnot- it's the same thing here. you leave your kid with someone you trust.

i still think they should not have asked a minor to pose nude. it's barely covering her in the main shot, her arms are. that's near nudity and that's near illegal. i've got nothing against nude shots as long as they're 18 or older, but this was far too close for my liking.

Even if her parent's were not there for that portion of the shoot, I think Miley's old enough to stick up for herself and realize that draping a sheet around a young girl would end up looking slightly inappropriate. You can tell by the look on her face that she knew she looked "sexy" and didn't give a crap about her fanbase or how it would look to other people.

Has there been any sort of statement made by the photographer or by Miley and her parents about this whole thing? I watched E! news for a bit tonight, hoping to see something, but no dice.

In Utero:

Personally i think the photos of her with her dad are worse. I find it a bit creepy for her to be laying on his lap like that.

knee*

nothing creepy about that.

victoria california:

it's barely covering her in the main shot, her arms are. that's near nudity and that's near illegal. i've got nothing against nude shots as long as they're 18 or older, but this was far too close for my liking.

arms = near nudity? oh god.

Freaky Styley:

holy shit

...


UH I THINK THAT MAYBE THEY'RE GETTIN ALL ~HET UP~ ABOUT IT BECAUSE LITTLE KIDS THAT WATCH DISNEY COULD BE EASILY INFLUENCED BY SHIT BECAUSE OF THEIR AGE.

i'm not sayin that they'll decide to take photos of themselves topless but i can see where the critics are coming from.

It's really apparent in that clip how the photography crew is clearly telling them how to pose, and you can't really judge from that angle because we don't know how the photographs turn out, but it's transparent that it's completely forged and just looks unnatural, and in appropriate to myself and several others. A more candid photoshoot would probably be fine and show more honestly what their relationship is like, but this is just really awkward and posed. That's one thing I don't like about Anne Leibovitz's photos is that sure she has great asthetic direction, but she's less able to catch candid, more real moments on film, she relies too much on a setting and structure.

I thought that nude photographs of a minor are not illegal in the U.S. if they are for asthetic or scientific purposes. So this was not really illegal at all as far as I know, or so I've heard.