| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 4/30/2008 2:25:00 AM | | Well it worked anyway hands up who had heard of Miley Cyrus before these pictures were published? Not me that's for sure. The pictures are only indecent if your mind views them in a sexual manner if she had been walking down the beach in a bikini would this have made the papers? | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 4/30/2008 2:39:55 AM | ^^^^^^ Brian_ Hertsfordshire
I agree totally with what you're saying, but it seems that only one photo was singled out in the press to cause uproar & make money.
But
1 she's not naked
2 I think that the press have deliberately set out to cause uproar & have done it to just to make money for themselves.
3 Personally I dont think and cant understand how others are finding anything anywhere near sexy about the pose.
Chorlton Dragon, I couldn't have put it any better myself. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 4/30/2008 2:50:54 AM |
make money.
Child porn makes money too.
1 she's not naked
A lot of material seized from paedophiles does nt feature nudity. The subject does not have to be naked to make the pose "sexy" especially to a paedophile.
2 I think that the press have deliberately set out to cause uproar & have done it to just to make money for themselves.
I agree. But they have created a deliberately sexualised image of a CHILD. Those who published it should be ashamed.
3 Personally I dont think and cant understand how others are finding anything anywhere near sexy about the pose.
Compare it to an ordinary snapshot of any other child and it is. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 4/30/2008 2:55:35 AM |
3 Personally I dont think and cant understand how others are finding anything anywhere near sexy about the pose.
I find the pose very reminiscant of that Britney pose which everyone thought was oh so sexy in FHM. Just fail to see the justification for actually using such a picture, I really cant understand the context which could really argue its anything other than wrong. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 4/30/2008 3:01:49 AM |
If you saw a PoF profile with the member posed like this, you would assume she is up for a fcuk on the first date. So, why is it ok to have a CHILD pose like this ?
Exactly!
The deliberate sexualisation of a child is distasteful in the extreme. As she is under the age of consent her parents must have okayed the photos.....there is no way in the world that I would allow the photo to have been taken in the first place, never mind be published. As 'they' say sex sells...... fair enough, fact of life, all fine and dandy with consenting adults........ NOT with children. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 4/30/2008 3:04:42 AM | Fair points from you two gents above, seeing those points of view i do agree with you both.
I'm not saying that the picture is right, far from it as i wouldn't have someone photographing my 15 year old daughter in the same way.
This is slightly off topic, but can anyone remember the uproar that Linsey Dawn McKenzie's first TOPLESS pic caused on her 16th birthday......No, me neither
Those photos must have been taken when she was only 15
Not condoning any by the way | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 4/30/2008 3:44:04 AM |
A lot of material seized from paedophiles does nt feature nudity. The subject does not have to be naked to make the pose "sexy" especially to a paedophile.
So if that is the case it wouldn't matter to a paedophile if she had been fully clothed they would have still found it "sexy" therefore all pictures of children should be banned from the papers just incase someone is attracted to them. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 4/30/2008 3:54:47 AM |
So if that is the case it wouldn't matter to a paedophile if she had been fully clothed they would have still found it "sexy" therefore all pictures of children should be banned from the papers just incase someone is attracted to them.
No - just photos where the CHILD has been asked to pose in a way intended to be seen as "sexy".
Its not about how much clothing. Or what parts being exposed. Its the pose.
Read my post again - I did nt state ALL childrens photos are sexy to a paedophile - I said the photo does not HAVE to have nudity to be viewed as sexy. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 5/1/2008 3:38:59 PM | So there's much ink spilled over Miley Cyrus (aka. Hannah Montana ...whoever that is ) appearing in Vanity Fair in a slightly risque pose. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2008/04/30/cyrus230.jpg
And she isn't even really pretty. She looks too much like Billy Rae--her dad.
Parents are screaming that it's a bad role model for kids. Seriously, they ought to be paying more attention to their kids then. Isn't it the job of parents to be role models?
Why is this rant in Sex and Dating? Well until we're 18...sex seems to be something we're not allowed to even know of whether we want to or not. Parents and Authorities feint ignorance about our development. It's as if a switch goes *BLIP* on our 18th birthdays and we suddenly become sexual beings.
Second part of the rant is that after we're 18, we have sex thrust in your faces whether we really want to or not. And by the time we're 30, if we're still virgins, we're the scorn of peers and a great source of jokes.
40 year old virgins get their own movies.
So discuss and examine, critically, this strange hypocritical attitude that North Americans, in general, hold towards sexuality and things of a sexual nature. Why is it that if we're 15 and dating, we're not supposed to be having sex...and if we're 30 and dating, if we're not having sex...something is wrong. Aren't we all supposed to be unique individuals with different preferences and rates of development?
Have we allowed the Sex Fascists of society tell us what we should or shouldn't do? | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 5/1/2008 3:40:20 PM | So how about the works of Sally Mann who photographed her kids as they scampered around naked in the day to day activities? How about Jock Sturges who documented the life of people in a nudist colony? Are those also child pornography?
And it's Anne Liebovitz...of course it's gonna be slightly risque. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 5/1/2008 3:55:54 PM | Honestly, what we have here is a 15 year old doing what 15 year olds do best - misbehaving and getting into trouble while exploring their newly developing sexuality.
We have a photographer for Vogue doing what she's always done - take sexy photos. She's one of the reasons Madonna is the sex symbol that she is.
and thirdly, we have a hypocritical society telling everyone else what they can or cannot do. The French have no problems exploring the topic of developing sexuality. Neither do the Swedes and the Japanese. The Americans on the other hand...what a bunch of hooey. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 5/1/2008 4:10:26 PM |
Why is this rant in Sex and Dating? Errrrrrm..... it's not. This is the UK Forum!
The Americans on the other hand...what a bunch of hooey. Couldn't agree more. Go tell 'em, Tiger!
On Topic..... I wouldn't have wanted photo's of my daughter, at that age, in those poses, published in the press. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 5/2/2008 1:02:52 AM | | The picture is beautiful and artistic but does have a level of sensuality and suggestiveness that isn't appropriate for a fifteen year old to be displaying in Vanity Fair. Although she is covered up, it hints at child porn. I think the photographer and the magazine committed a great error in judgement. She's fifteen and I think she probably just saw the beauty in the picture. But the photographer and Vanity Fair should know better than to contribute to the sexualization of children in America. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 5/2/2008 1:13:50 AM |
Honestly, what we have here is a 15 year old doing what 15 year olds do best - misbehaving and getting into trouble while exploring their newly developing sexuality.
Her developing sexuality doesn't need to be exploited on the cover of a popular mag.
We have a photographer for Vogue doing what she's always done - take sexy photos. She's one of the reasons Madonna is the sex symbol that she is.
Do fifteen year olds really need to be sex symbols?
and thirdly, we have a hypocritical society telling everyone else what they can or cannot do.
No, we have a society of mothers and fathers and other people who care concerned about the sexualization of children in our country. Telling adults what to do is one topic, this is quite another.
The French have no problems exploring the topic of developing sexuality. Neither do the Swedes and the Japanese. The Americans on the other hand...what a bunch of hooey.
And I've read about some cultures where you have preteen child brides marrying men. You gotta draw the line some where. And since the forums are about expressing opinions, I think she's too young and I think there already is too much pressure on very young girls to look and act way beyond their years. One day I saw this girl of about 14 wearing a t-shirt which said PORNSTAR written across it, last week I saw a bunch of six year old girls with adults walking them, and the children had handmade paper hats on and written across it was PIMP and the second word I forgot what it was, but enough is enough. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 5/2/2008 1:40:01 AM |
The subject of this photo is a CHILD !
And the degree of sexualisation is not an excuse. Ok, its not showing breasts or nipples or bum etc but its pose is not an ordinary everyday one - but its still deliberately sexualised. Its not the amunt of flesh or which parts on view - its the pose.
We would all agree that a man with a pic of a naked 15 yo girl would be wrong - this is because he sees a CHILD as a sexual obect. The same goes for this photo - it has a CHILD in a pose intended to look sexy.
If you saw a PoF profile with the member posed like this, you would assume she is up for a fcuk on the first date. So, why is it ok to have a CHILD pose like this ?
Brian has said it all as far as I am concerned...
I was a fan of Billy Ray in the 80's and my kids love Hanna Montanna and I still drool over him now lol... but I have to say... I am so disappointed in him letting his 15 year old pose like this... Just plain wrong | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 5/2/2008 2:04:33 AM |
So discuss and examine, critically, this strange hypocritical attitude that North Americans, in general, hold towards sexuality and things of a sexual nature.
I agree, Americans do seem to have somewhat skewed ideas. On the one hand it's Mom, the flag and apple pie, on the other the biggest porn industry in the world. However, that isn't the topic for discussion. The topic is pictures of a child (appearing worldwide), which is in the UK forum for local discussion
Why is it that if we're 15 and dating, we're not supposed to be having sex...
Errr, because it's illegal? At least it is over here and again, this is a local forum, for local people.
and if we're 30 and dating, if we're not having sex...something is wrong.
A virgin at 30 would indicate that either that the person concerned has very, very strong views about sex or that they may be some development problems with forming strong personal relationships, IMO.
Aren't we all supposed to be unique individuals with different preferences and rates of development?
Yes, but within the law.
It might only be a matter of months before MC is old enough to go out and get laid, not the point. The point is a child being sexualised by the media. You can go on and on about parents being the role models but don't forget, when a kid is that age they think that; a) their parents sprang into being at age 30 so they have no understanding of what it's like to be a teenager; b) the parents only did it often enough to produce the child and any siblings; c)Eeeuuwww at the thought of parents doing it for fun, and finally; d) peer pressure is an incredibly strong influence at that age. | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:59:56 AM |
Errrrrrm..... it's not. This is the UK Forum!
Oopsie..I had posted this in another forum and it was on the verge of being deleted so I reposted it here.
How about Page3 Models on the sun? Some of the models are as young as 16. So a 15 year old is a child and a 16 year old can do a topless shot on a major newspaper? | |
|
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 5/2/2008 7:33:20 AM |
How about Page3 Models on the sun? Some of the models are as young as 16. So a 15 year old is a child and a 16 year old can do a topless shot on a major newspaper?
So if it's okay for a 16 year old why not a 15 year old right? So if it's okay for a 15 year old why not a 14 year old? So if it's okay for a 14 year old why not a 13 old? 12, 11, 10 etc. Such is the nature of age appropriate laws and rules etc. If there is a cut off point, and I believe there should be, there is going to be a place right before that cut off point. | |
|
| |
| Miley Cyrus Pics, Something to Worry about? Or Storm in a Teacup?
Posted: 6/14/2008 6:54:31 AM | Now that her ridiculously unrisque photos on MySpace got published, the parents and nosy public are in uproar. I think she's just doing it as a publicity grab. Just like good old Britney Spears.
Americans are, in general, quite a prudish lot. | |
|
l3sl3y
|
Joined: 5/12/2008
Msg: 46 | |
| |
Home
login 
