I was really sad when I saw this. I don't particularly like Miley Cyrus, her music is too poppy, her acting is flat, and she has more pre-teens eating out of her palms then Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Hilary Duff combined.

The one thing that I did like about her (what I truly respected about her) was the fact that she seemed like a positive role model for girls. You never heard of her or saw her half naked, or throwing tantrums in magazines, or interviews. I really thought that she had some dignity...this just proved me wrong.

I certainly agree with the larger point here. At least for me, though, I cringe to see the Miley Cyrus photos for Vanity Fair mentioned in the same breath as much of this. Those are photos by Annie Leibovitz, one of our most talented American artists and still one of the best-known woman artists internationally. The backlash against those photos has sounded to me a whole lot like every other attempt to label contemporary art as degenerate, dangerous and not worthy of the American public's attention.
I'm an art historian and many of my friends are practicing artists so I guess it just hits a bit close to home...

I'm a little sick of the groveling Miley Cyrus is being made to do over this. If there was a failure of judgment it was on the part of her guardians and the magazine and they should be addressing the issue. Making a fifteen year-old issue statements about how embarrassed she is about the depiction of her body feels like just another form of slut-shaming to me and I hate it.

That image doesn't seem particularly hyper-sexualized to me. I mean, I realize that mainstream America considers being naked and female to be porn in all instances, but I thought rational people had a more specific definition than that. Yeah, I realize that "celebrating the female form" is often just the excuse men give for the stack of magazines under their bed, but sometimes that is actually the case.

Not a big fan of the picture. It's very well done, artistically, but the involvement of a 15 year old is not appropriate. It's one thing to glorify the female form, it's another thing to present a young female clutching what looks like sheets to her chest with rumpled hair.

I am not and artist - just a scientist and a woman who sees my body as a fundamental part of me and not an object for external objectification. I also thought that the photo itself was beautiful and artistic, and from what the young woman said, she felt the same. It is such a shame that this young woman who saw the beauty in her image has been made to express shame at best and ignorance (at being 'manipulated') at worst over it. The hypersexulaization of the image of a girl (and she is really a girl) is what really disturbs me in this case. The reason her parents agreed to the image is because they do not sexualize the image of their daughter and were able to see the image as it was.

Mr. Sean, you've summarized my feelings better than I could articulate them- this isn't some Teen Vouge spread or something, this is Ms. Leibovitz, her art, and that MEANS something to the context of the conversation. I too think the picture is thought provoking as well as beautifully done. One of the things Leibovitz commented on in her statement about it is the lack of makeup and costuming that made it beautiful, in her opinion.

this post decries the use of sexuality as power... and yet this is "crime" we are all guilty of. look at the top of this page for two rather obvious examples...

She's sweaty, has swollen lips, is presumably naked and wrapped in a bed sheet. Sexualized? Most definitely.

The pix with daddy are somewhat more disturbing to me, though. They look like lovers.

I am not and artist - just a scientist and a woman who sees my body as a fundamental part of me and not an object for external objectification. I also thought that the photo itself was beautiful and artistic, and from what the young woman said, she felt the same. It is such a shame that this young woman who saw the beauty in her image has been made to express shame at best and ignorance (at being 'manipulated') at worst over it. The hypersexulaization of the image of a girl (and she is really a girl) is what really disturbs me in this case. The reason her parents agreed to the image is because they do not sexualize the image of their daughter and were able to see the image as it was.

The figures at the top of the page are giving the finger, Neofem.
"Fuck off if you think I exist primarily as eye candy."

Anyway, once again the young girl is being made to apologize for the failures of the adults in her life. Yay! Another opportunity to slut-shame!
America never misses a chance.

This photo, taken as an artistic image, is not one I would consider "hypersexualized". A girl's (or boy's) body is not sexual, in and of itself. The problem comes when puritanical Americans decide that nudity = sex, something shameful and inappropriate. We should be teaching our girls to embrace their bodies - not to feel that they have to put them on display OR that they have to hide them. Power comes from owning your experience, your body, your identity and this "controversy" demonstrates the unwillingness to let teenage girls own that.

This is the first I have heard about this so I don't know the details but it does sound as though there is some slut-shaming going on if Miley Cyrus is having to make statements addressing the photos... But what I'm really concerned with is this language of victimization we often use in talking about the sexualization of girls in the media. Of course, I do believe that the media is to blame for the perpetuation of the sexualization of girls but I think we need to be really careful when using phrases like "holding girls hostage" in describing what is happening because it is certainly more complicated than that. We all have choices we can make and more power than we often realize--whether we are the senior editor of Vanity Fair, a 15-year-old girl, a 15-year-old boy, a parent... I just want to be careful not to perpetuate the notion that we are, in fact, powerless as the media suggests. That said, we need to be holding corporations and individuals accountable accordingly, and maintain active awareness that these images are perpetuating attitudes and choices that are harmful to all of us.

Anthony I wholly disagree with your comment. It seems as though you are pulling out the good old "role model" arguement assuming that Miley is fully responsible for how her image/actions/what have you affects ALL young girls. What is even more appalling is your assumption that some how this young girl has lost every bit of her dignity because of this one incident. This girl is 15! She is 15. There is no doubt that this whole photoshoot was a mess but to point the finger of blame at Miley is completely ridiculous. Undoubtably this 15 year old girl is under the thumb of many many handlers not to mention her PARENTS. Do you really think Miley herself decided to take these photographs, let alone have them published in a major magazine? Let's face in this case Miley was nothing more than a pawn in the patriarchy's game of chess. Take it from a 17 year old girl who knows what it is like to make decisions that don't feel your own. The larger culture makes them for you. I would never want one bad decision made during my adolescence to define me. Lost her dignity? Please.

P.S. GoodGolly! I totally agree that the pics with her dad are creeeeepy! They were posed like lovers NOT like father and daughter.

A girl's (or boy's) body is not sexual, in and of itself. The problem comes when puritanical Americans decide that nudity = sex, something shameful and inappropriate.

Right on, Sophia86. I know there was a bit of a minor scandal in the states when this happened (maybe), but wasn't Daniel Radcliffe of the Harry Potter movies nude in Equus when he was 16 or 17 (which, I'm pretty sure, to view in America is child pornography)? I don't remember people freaking out about that nearly as much as this Miley Cyrus thing. Perhaps it's because Harry Potter is already evil to the kinds of parents that would flip out about this photo, but I think it's also that a)Daniel Radcliffe is male ; and b)he's British, and Americans have a special psychosis about the sexualization of nudity as Sophia86 so aptly put it. The CNN article I read about this mentioned that parents are concerned not because of the nudity necessarily, but because of her supposedly "come hither" stare. Now, I ask you, is it possible for any viewer in this patriarchy to view a young girl with a small amount of skin showing and not see a "come hither" stare? I mean, where does the phrase "she was asking for it" come from?

I understand how these could be seen as sexualized but I also think they could be seen as her just waking up, which isn't necessarily sexual at all. The vulnerability of the pose is most interesting to me... and I'd like to see what Liebowitz has to say about them because I'm sure there is not JUST sex going on here.

As for how we help young women learn other forms of power and not to overvalue the power of sex, one thing is protecting them from so many of the media images that contribute to this. I grew up with very little exposure to sexualized female images and I think I have a better body image and idea of the limited power of sexuality than most women I've known. I also think the involvement of males (relatives or family friends) who respect young women is important, since it shows them that there are lots of ways to relate to men that don't involve sex. I was lucky that I had uncles who were always telling me how smart and capable I was, as well as beautiful, so even when the boys at school that I liked treated me as though I was dumb, weak and ugly, I knew I wasn't.

Which is not to say that I haven't had issues with hypersexualization and sex-as-power, because I have, but that I think I had a stronger foundation to fall back on when I fully realized the many problems and double standards.

A girl's (or boy's) body is not sexual, in and of itself. The problem comes when puritanical Americans decide that nudity = sex, something shameful and inappropriate.

Right on, Sophia86. This brings to mind that Daniel Radcliffe (of the Harry Potter movies) was nude in the playEquus when he was like 16 or 17. At the time that was happening, there wasn't nearly the scandal there is over this Miley Sirus thing; I think this is because of what Sophia86 mentions about the particularly American psychosis over the sexualization of nudity (Radcliffe is British) as well as the fact that he is male. The CNN article I read about this complained that the photo may be inappropriate not because of nudity but because of a supposedly "subtle come-hither expression". Now, I ask you: Is it possible, in this patriarchy of ours, for any viewer to see a photo of a young girl with some of her body exposed and not perceive a come-hither stare? I mean, there's a reason "she was asking for it" is such a common phrase-girls and women often don't get a choice in whether or not they're perceived as sexual.

I have to agree with those who state that the pictures are primarily artistic, and in and of themselves are tasteful and intriguing. It's another side of Miley Cyrus that people have not seen before and it's making them uncomfortable (which I think was the point of the pictures).

Also, from what I've heard, the poses and imagery were discussed before hand and Ms. Cyrus had no objections then.

My issue comes from Vanity Fair's publication of the picture. They do not seem interested in showing the artistic nature of the picture. They want to sell magazines and are counting on the controversy surrounding this picture to get more people buying. The picture is lovely and I think that Ms. Cyrus should have had the option to keep it private. Instead, it seems that Vanity Fair is publishing it over her objections and using people's misunderstanding that nudity = sex to up the controversy to sell more magazines.

That leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The thing I notice the most in the picture is her ribs sticking out on her lower back. To me, this picture isn't sexual but rather just sad- it makes me want to pick Miley up and just hold her and keep her safe from this 'celebrity' freak show that she has become a part of. Her so called 'come-hither stare' does little to distract from the vulnerability of her frail back- and all the people out there looking to stab her there as soon as they get the chance- and that especially includes those who are slut-shaming her for this photo.

Miley is a role-model for young girls, and I think feminists should identify immediately at what it says to be female in this country when a young girl is sent to hang for being seen as 'sexy' in a photo rather than being seen as the vulnerable girl she still is.

I am so glad you all posted on this topic. I have a stepdaughter who is 8 and loves Miley Cyrus. I know we need to have a talk about it and I have NO IDEA WHAT TO SAY. It is such a confusing, complicated topic to explain to even the most mature 8 year old.

I agree with Robos. I don't think that picture is that hyper-sexualized. In fact, I thought the one of Miley and her father was more disturbing.

Granted, I don't have children, and I'd probably think differently if I did.

I'm glad someone mentioned Daniel Radcliffe and his nudity in Equus, because I think this article was done for much the same reason as Radcliffe's -- a perceived need to break out of the "child" roles into a more adult persona so that Miley Cyrus will have a future in show business.

That said, doing this at 15 is highly questionable. I personally think the shot with the bare back and sheet is lovely -- but would I allow my 15-year old daughter to do this? Are you kidding?

The other photos are clearly trying to make Miley look adult, and not in a good way.

Considering what happened to Britney Spears(also, if I recall, a Disney protege'), you'd think her parents would have more sense.

Thats really interesting to compare it to stockholm syndrome. I think thats point-on.

I saw the picture as representative of how Disney treats its child stars. She looks dead inside. Her eyes are empty and she's been "used up."
I work at a toy store and we sell some of this Hannah Montana crap. I thought a board game, and themed uno deck was bad, until I went to Target and saw the Hannah Montana wigs, sheets, purses, canvas wall art (step up from a poster, I guess), guitars, washcloths, guitar, TELEVISION?!?! I can understand a tshirt here and there (I have a few for my favorite bands) but they're marketing this poor girl to death. She's making $1million a week!
At the shoot, her parents were there and didn't stop the photography, thus giving consent for their daughter to be pictured that way. Liebovitz and Miley discussed the shoot and she that she thought it was "cool." Disney is just trying to drum up publicity by making her apologize and act embarrassed. And it's working. How many copies of Vanity Fair are going to sell because the public wants to know what all the hubbub is about?

Am I the only one concerned that the comments here on this article are starting to read nearly verbatim like those on Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and other Christian right sites that are treating this 'controversy'?

1)15 year-olds are not always (or even usually) entirely devoid of agency.

2)The notion of Cyrus as a role-model screams of a need to fetishize the 'chastity' and 'innocence' of girls. I would sincerely hope that, on a feminist site, we could avoid that kind of slut-shaming nonsense.

3)Maybe those who are so concerned that Cyrus is setting a bad example could do some of their own parenting instead of letting Disney do it for them.

I agree with sgzax, this is just another form of slut shaming. I found the photo (I haven't seen all of them) to be artistically done and personally don't see a big issue with it. Her father, mother and grandmother were at the photo shoot with her and they were able to review the photos before publication. There was obvious control and restraint. Let her make her own decisions without being shamed for it.

Someone else mentioned it (sorry I can't find where your post was!) but our society tries to train us that nudity = sexuality. It doesn't. And to all those people worried about the example it sets to young children, what example are you setting by letting young children read Vanity Fair? This all reminds me of the high school musical star who had a nude photo she took for her boyfriend spread on the internet and all these parents hemming and hawing about how inappropriate it was. Seriously folks, are you that lax on watching your kids that you are worried they are going to see her naked?

Some days I really hate society.

I don't find the nudity outright offensive. I certainly don't think the prevalence of nude female bodies contributes to sexual assault. If anything it is a reflection of repressive, sometimes violent, sexual desires of a culture. But it doesn't cause those things.

The saddest thing above all this the commodification of the actress and how it symbolizes the commusption of "perfect" bodies by young girls.

I find myself wondering if she's apologising because Disney didn't like it, rather than her own sense of shame or whatever.

I thought the pictures were lovely, and showed something of her that isn't present in the shallow pop culture world she seems to inhabit.

It looks like she's a victim of the media in that photo, rather than sexualised.

i understand that, SarahMC, but it is still a sexualized image. how many women do you know who look like that? i certainly don't, but i can still give the finger!

"Note: The above post does not necessarily represent the opinions of Feministing or its bloggers."

What's going on? Why this disclaimer?

I am mete-confused: what is wrong with "confusion" and "conflicting messages"?

First, true art has no clear message. In part, because it captures something of the real life than has no short formulaic explanation.

Second, feminism is more about choices then about answers. Should girls dress shapelessly, or revealingly? Or "just right"? Or just stay within a budget? We can let the girl choose.

More seriously, perhaps, should girls have sex? Do we have a DEFINITE answer? If not, the best we can do are "conflicting messages". Some of which, even from the mass media, will be arrant nonsense. And boys and girls should know it too.

neofem: "how many women do you know who look like that? i certainly don't" -- you would be surprised what a good photographer can do. This picture seems "true", but actually, it reveals so little that it is entirely a creation.

piotrek: we're talking about the purple ladies at the top of the page. see earlier posts :)

I don't think there's anything wrong with this photo and am sick of the slut-shaming. America does not own Miley Cyrus and she has no obligation to apologize to the kids who like her or the parents who expect perfect strangers to be role-models to their children.

I wonder why all the attention is being focused on a photo that shows about as much as what you'd see on the beach and not on any of the photos where she's laying on her father's crotch. Those seemed a little weird to me.

In the Vanity Fair article, Cyrus is quoted saying: "Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought it was really cool. That's what she wanted me to do, and you can't say no to Annie." (from here)

That scares me a little... the "can't say no" bit. Here's a 15 year old girl who feels like she can't say no to her photographer. That's not meaningful consent, and honestly I think Annie Liebowitz, her parents, and the magazine all bear some responsibility not to take advantage of a person who has essentially said for herself that she can't give consent.

There are lots of reasons why someone "can't say no". Sometimes it's because of physical force, sometimes it's because of a paycheck, sometimes it's because they're in a relationship with someone and they are afraid to "mess it up".

And if we're serious about consent, we need to be aware of these things. "She said it was OK" is not enough.

Erik, I wouldn't be willing to judge that statement unless I could hear her tone and see her body language. She could have been joking. People do that sometimes, including 15 year old girls.

Also, as a photographer myself, I can tell you that if the person really doesn't want you to take the picture however you are taking it but goes along with it just to appease you, you can automatically see it in the photograph. I don't see that in this photograph at all. I see a girl having fun, much like when I take pictures of my niece when she's goofing around. I am more than willing to entertain the idea that this steps into the zone of sexualization, but to suggest that she felt like she had no choice (especially from one phrase with no context at all) is stretching it a little too far.

http://i29.tinypic.com/2jb5udx.jpg

She really doesn't look uncomfortable in this photo from the shoot to me.

It's not slut-shaming, it's parents-exploiting-their-children-as-porn-for-pedophiles-shaming. It's fucking gross. She's not even old enough to drive.

If she weren't a child, there would be no controversy. Magazines publish much more graphic photos with much less fanfare all the time. I don't care who the photographer is, [un]dressing up a child to look like she just got fucked is just sick.

Amen cuddlebot!!!! I don't understand the people who have disdain for the people who are aghast by these pics of a "child who look like she just got fucked..." That does not mean that we think 'nudity=sex'. It means that we think that SHE'S FIFTEEN!!!

It really is not a big deal. It's really not. The media plays it off as a BIG deal, distracting the public from what's really important. Seriously now, we have a war going on now and as I write this I hear how "revealing" and "immortal" Miley's photos are. That's all I've heard blaring in the background for the last 2 hours now. Common, common. 3 more Chirstmas's and she's a freaken "adult". The photo was beautiful. If you look at it and think SEX you need to get some serious sexual therapy. I heard someone on the news say something about how the men looking at the photo would take it. So she's 15 and she's at that point where she's going to start looking sexy wether she likes it or not. Seriously, let's focus on some more important issues. We all know she's a good girl. If this is the WORST thing she's done so far, than shoot me, I must be going to hell.

It really is not a big deal. It's really not. The media plays it off as a BIG deal, distracting the public from what's really important. Seriously now, we have a war going on now and as I write this I hear how "revealing" and "immortal" Miley's photos are. That's all I've heard blaring in the background for the last 2 hours now. Common, common. 3 more Chirstmas's and she's a freaken "adult". The photo was beautiful. If you look at it and think SEX you need to get some serious sexual therapy. I heard someone on the news say something about how the men looking at the photo would take it. So she's 15 and she's at that point where she's going to start looking sexy wether she likes it or not. Seriously, let's focus on some more important issues. We all know she's a good girl. If this is the WORST thing she's done so far, than shoot me, I must be going to hell.

"The thing I notice the most in the picture is her ribs sticking out on her lower back."

Actually, in that position, people of "normal" weight often have their ribs sticking out. Hell, I have fat I wouldn't mind losing and my ribs stick out when I hunch over like that.

As for the "just had sex" look, it looks to me more like she just woke up.

So are we going to be taking down all those old paintings of nudes with even smaller convenient drapings that you see in museums? No? So this would be acceptable if the image were transformed by a male eye and hand then?

Cuddlebot, kenya. In America and the UK nudity=sex. If you look at a picture of a 10 year old girl sitting at a table smiling and she is also naked and you think "OH NO she needs to cover up" in your head you are thinking nudity=sex. Feminists tell girls they need to be proud of their bodies comfortable in their own skin but then when you tell a 15 year old that posing for a picture with nothing but lipstick and a silk wrap is wrong you are implying that her body is nothing more than a sexual object for men and that she should at least wait until she is 18 to do that. Why is it that there are magazines in Europe with naked teenagers in fashion spreads and nobody thinks "oh my god she is being objectified she is being taken advantage of" they just think wow what a beautiful photo? It also has to do with the mindset of the girl/woman. If she is taking the pictures because she knows the naked body can be mutually exclusive of sex and is not trying to gain male attention then she is empowered, but if she sees nudity as something that is purely sexual than she will always have the connotation that nudity=male attention. The mindset in America is nudity=sex and sex is for men, so when a young girl does it, it is almost as if she is being victimized. You cannot possibly say I don't believe nudity=sex and then say but I don't think 15 year olds should be naked in magazines. Feminist send conflicting messages all the time. They say young girls should be able to express themselves sexually without shame and then when they do so they say the patriarchy is to blame.
“it's parents-exploiting-their-children-as-porn-for-pedophiles-shaming.� You see there it goes nudity=sex. I can understand this if she were in a push up bra sucking on a lollipop. Sex/perversion is in the mind of the beholder and this photo does not evoke that in me. “It means that we think that SHE'S FIFTEEN!!!� It means that you think nudity=sex and sex is for adults (did it ever cross you mind that maybe she sleeps nude). Are you guys the same people that call for adequate sex education but then scream for the hills when it looks like a young girl just did have sex. I see nothing wrong with child nudity or sex as long as it is done in a tasteful respectful way and for the right reasons and to me she did.

Dang. You sound almost like a good Baptist.

I cannnot believe that there are so many people defending this inappropriate, and illegal behavior on the part of the "artist" who took these pictures! No one cares if you like the picture and think it's beautiful or not. She's a CHILD, remember those? She's not an adult, yet she's put in an adult scenario, in an adult magazine, along with adults, for adult readers. This is not about slut shaming! This is about adults being irresponsible with the image of a girl. As the picture portrays her, she's in bed, naked, and she's posed in a seductive way. There's no other way to see it. This would have been acceptable if she was 18, a legal adult who's responsible for her actions and her image.

And at the same time, in the news, much of the country is disgusted by the way the FLDS community has taken children and put them in adult situations, yet some think this is okay as long as it's "artsy" !?

What is the difference? If you think it's creepy for old men to take a 14 year old as a wife, then why is it okay for creepy old men to be in a 15 year old's bed with her naked?

I was waiting for this site to address this situation and hoped that there would be some outrage about the continuous push for children to be seen as adults and sexualized, and the way that our media has robbed our kids of any childhood they have left, while encouraging them to be prepping for their endless pursuit of being sexy at all times. But I see here that there are many people that don't give a damn about kids and what's happening to them in this country.

This is a feminist issue, yet it seems that some feminists are in defense of the system that oppresses us on a daily basis, and has been moving swiftly to a younger and younger victim. My 5 year old daughter is already concerned about how pretty she is! Why do you think that is? There are 10 year olds wearing make up and getting bikini waxes and we're gonna call slut shaming on this?!!!

There should be shame in making little girls and young teens into sluts! If you want to be one as an adult, that's your choice, but why should my daughter or my friends' pre-teen daughters be in the same sentence as the word slut?

I just don't understand this. We're not being responsible for kids anymore. I remember when the "adult world" was for 18 and up and if you wanted to be free to express yourself in a sexual way, it was cool as long as you were in an appropriate setting. But those boundaries have been eroded and now kids are a part of it. and now they're confused and corrupted and have no chance of exploring their own unique expression of themselves as they mature, cause we've been primping them all along.

The child herself has said she is embarrassed, and that should be respected. Her parents were not there when the photo was taken, and if they were, they might have objected. It doesn't matter if the photographer is an artist, that's fine, but she was irresponsible and has no regard for this child by portraying her in this way. For the general public to see her this way, in an adult setting in an adult magazine, we are seeing Lolita recreated and glorified.

There is no excuse for this behavior. If you don't have kids or care about them, then I can see not being upset about it, but don't tell me I'm slut shaming when it involves a child! It is quite appropriate to have shame in this case. She should not have been put in this situation and I am so terrified that people just don't seem to care about keeping kids safe anymore.

If this was your daughter, would you want adults looking at her in this way? or would you want her to grow up a little and make this decision when she's an adult?

This is illegal!!! We have fought very hard as a country to make laws that protect children form sexual abuse, yet it's alright to just take pictures of them and print them in a magazine? If the authorities were to investigate a child pornography case and this picture was in your computer, guess what? You'd be thought of as a criminal. Because it is criminal to put children in this situation. I'm sure child predators think this picture is beautiful too.

MamaPantz,

Umm...you know she's not naked right? This isn't illegal. She's completely covered. In fact she's more covered than if she were wearing a bikini.

I think the issue here is that she looks post-coital. The images are pretty clearly meant to be provocative, hence the smeared lipstick and sex hair. I don't think the picture itself showed anything particularly untoward, and done in a different way might've been construed differently, but this is them. That said, the fact that SHE is having to apologize is ridiculous. Her parents were there. They okayed everything. She seemed to be okay with it at the time. If she's feeling bad it's because everyone is pointing a finger at her and telling her she should, at least that's what it seems like.

Meanwhile, I didn't think the picture with her dad was inappropriate at all. I mean, my family doesn't have much in the way of physical boundaries, so I have no problem cuddling up next to either parent still, since I always did that growing up. But we're just tactile (not, I might add, in an inappropriate way, ever) and that's how we are. Most of my friends don't enjoy being able to do that so they might be more apt to misconstrue such pictures.

Not going to comment on the Miley Cyrus pictures per se, because I haven't looked at the article or photo spread as yet.

I see no problem with celebrations of the beauty of the human form, nor even with some commodification of such images. Saying, "Woman allowing sexy photos of herself to be bought and sold = Stockholm Syndrome" seems to me to be denying that women who make decisions about their bodies that the author wouldn't make for herself are capable of making their own informed decisions. "The only authentic decisions are those I'd feel good about. Otherwise, they are just the results of brainwashing."

Now, that said... I do think that there's a problem with the commodification of one particular kind of physical beauty while the person inside that lovely body is largely ignored. Having your voice heard is more important that having your body admired, and I do applaud New Moon for encouraging young women to speak up.

Actually, to correct a common misconception, her parents were only present during the beginning of the shoot, and were not present when this picture was being taken. Thus they did not give permission for this picture, nor did they see this picture before it was printed.

I correct my previous comment. After MamaPantz tirade I remove the qualifier that these responses are 'nearly' verbatim transcriptions of those on fundamentalist Christian websites.

Enough with fetishizing the 'innocence' of a 15 year old individual. When I was 15, for example, I drove a car, had sex, worked a job 20 hours a week etc. Somehow my 'innocence' was not destroyed and I wasn't ruined for life.

If this is 'criminal' MamaPantz is it also criminal to educate 15 year olds about sex? To distribute condoms? To encourage safe sex?

To pretend that a 15 year old is not a potentially sexual being is willful ignorance.

Some thoughts from a father of a 13-year-old girl:

1. I think the image captures the awkwardness of a little girl on the edge of becoming a woman. To my eye, there is nothing sexual about it. It strikes the same chord for me as some of the comments and questions my daughter asks, a little girl who understands that she is becoming a woman but hasn't, yet.

2. The people who interpret this as explicitly, unambiguously, and offensively sexual are projecting.

I think this image presents a great opportunity for parents to talk to a daughter about sexuality, about comfort with her body, and yes, about the inevitability of perverts projecting their twisted desires onto her, trying to make her a dehumanized object and then blaming her for their own shortcomings. My daughter, it turns out, is far more interested (and dismayed) by the realization that Miley lip-synchs than Miley's choices about how much skin to display.

To me, the shame here is not Miley's behavior. The shame is the people who can only see her as a sexual object.

Maybe I'm a totally decadent European with no moral values but what's sexual about this photograph, the hell? I guess that the overall feeling is towards a classical artistic nude. The meaning is in the eye of beholder, someone thinks female beauty, someone thinks sex.
In this town, there was a guy who humped statues. To be exact, those depicting nude women. I'm quite sure that 19th century allegories of Orchard and Vineyard weren't made as sex toys. The guy saw them this way, though.
I don't see a post-coital woman in the photograph. Maybe I'm totally wrong and I should immediately start overexplaining all the possible meanings and implications? FIY, I never heard about Miley Cyrus before I saw the 'scandalous' photographs and weren't it for the context (teenage star or what the hell), I would think it just a nice photograph. I said that, decadent European I am, one who knows nothing of real life:D

My friend's blog has a wonderful take on this topic. Please read: http://missnomered.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/teenager-shows-back-world-explodes/

It's really great!

What I found frustrating about this whole thing is the gotcha-game that the media is playing about her complaints. Evidently her initial statements about feeling beautiful but not "skanky" are binding and she's not allowed to complain about it now. Not even if she's being confronted by all sorts of other sources about how super-sexy she looks.

Given how either opinion is potentially valid...she should be allowed to make up her own mind whether she feels sexually objectified.

also:
3 more Chirstmas's and she's a freaken "adult".

W
T
F
?

Does anyone else remember what a loooooong time 3 years is when you're a teenager?

While I agree that the overly sexual representation of girls/women in the media is destructive, I honestly don't see anything wrong with the picture above. Is this really the controversial image everyone's in a huff about? As a photograph it's artistically done. Yes, she's fifteen and it does allude to nude art, but it's tastefully done. Not all nudity is sexual. Well, thats assuming you're not some perverse sexually constipated statue humper.
( kultakutri, the imagery you're story gave me made me giggle :D )

I don't see this as a negative or even sexual image at all. She is well covered up and hunched over so that all that's exposed is her back. It's not like she's posed in a pin-up position or anything. Come on people! It's absolutely ridiculous that she had to apologize like she did something wrong.

Besides, the fact that this was even published in Vanity Fair was to stir up attention and sell magazines. Mission accomplished: we all bit the bait.

While I agree that the overly sexual representation of girls/women in the media is destructive, I honestly don't see anything wrong with the picture above. Is this really the controversial image everyone's in a huff about? As a photograph it's artistically done. Yes, she's fifteen and it does allude to nude art, but it's tastefully done. Not all nudity is sexual. Well, thats assuming you're not some perverse sexually constipated statue humper.
( kultakutri, the imagery you're story gave me made me giggle :D )

I don't see this as a negative or even sexual image at all. She is well covered up and hunched over so that all that's exposed is her back. It's not like she's posed in a pin-up position or anything. Come on people! It's absolutely ridiculous that she had to apologize like she did something wrong.

Besides, the fact that this was even published in Vanity Fair was to stir up attention and sell magazines. Mission accomplished: we all bit the bait.

As the mother of a tween and a teen I thought that the assessment made by Ms. Gruver was spot on.

I also think that wee need to have as many conversations with our sons as we do our daughters about these things.

My older daughter and her friends didn't think it was beautiful and they were annoyed at how passive she appears and how she seems to be looking upward at someone standing over her. From a teen point of view it looks like, "now that we've done this do you still love me?" Not empowered or celebratory at all. My tween asked, "is that sexy?" Ack.

"As for how we help young women learn other forms of power and not to overvalue the power of sex, one thing is protecting them from so many of the media images that contribute to this."

Another thing is reminding them to look around themselves instead of only looking at the media.

True, in my case, looking like my classmates was an unattainable ideal too, but for girls who aren't like I was and do resemble their classmates more remembering what they look like IRL instead of only seeing what models in the media look like could be helpful.

You know, whether or not this image is sexual or was meant in that way, it's hard to believe Miley and her parents thought this wouldn't be a big deal. She's 15, seen as a role model for kids, and she does these photos. It may not be fair or make sense but I'm not surprised she's being asked to apologize. A lot of parents have expectations for people working in children's shows.
I do wonder at what age this would be okay. 16? 17? 20? Or is the age just an excuse for people who don't want to see any girl appear sexual to the public.