Miley Cyrus poses topless for Vanity Fair--AT AGE 15!!

[Sojiita]

The pic may be in 'bad taste' or 'risque for a 15 year old' or any number of things, but porn, child or otherwise, it is NOT. It is ridiculous to call this shot 'porn' of any kind. Call it trashy, tasteless, inappropriate, etc. but puh-leeze-it is NOT PORN, legally(or otherwise, IMO). Holy overreaction, Batman!

[sputnik]

^^^^
agree.
that pisses me off too. same as calling anyone that thinks a teenager is hot a paedophile. not that it's ok to lust after teenagers, that's not what i'm saying at all, but it still doesn't make someone a paedophile!!
people need to remember the meaning of things. and as icky as it may be that grown men lust after teenagers, it doesn't make the pic of miley child porn, not by any stretch of the imagination.

[Charlotte]

I think calling anyone attracted to a 15 year old a 'paedophile' is slightly hysterical, considering that a paedophile is attracted to prepubescent children, not teenagers. It's a way overused term imo.

I don't see anything wrong with the shots to be honest.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by sputnik

^^^^
agree.
that pisses me off too. same as calling anyone that thinks a teenager is hot a paedophile. not that it's ok to lust after teenagers, that's not what i'm saying at all, but it still doesn't make someone a paedophile!!
people need to remember the meaning of things. and as icky as it may be that grown men lust after teenagers, it doesn't make the pic of miley child porn, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Whether anyone is lusting after it or not, I agree it is still not porn. Grown men could be lusting after her in a pic in a completely acceptable bikini-just because men are leering at it does not make THE PICTURE necessarily porn(it does make the grown men kind of pervy, grooving on a 15 year old, but not peds, just pervs. big difference, as you have pointed out).

. Just like an innocent pic of a baby nude on a bearskin rug may be adorable to the parents of the child, but sexually arousing to a ped. The ped does not make the pic porn. The effect of the pic may be pornish in the mind of the sick ped, but that still does not make the pic 'porn'

[Chimera]

It's a very Lolita-like photo - that said, she's not topless - topless is without a top, and she's covered. To pretend that 15 year old girls are children is ridiculous. They are sexually curious, and yes, niave, but they are not children. They are young women! These boundaries have been stretched so far that they don't fit biology any more.

[Charlotte]

^^^yes, if people look at these pictures and find them sexual, then that's a reflection on them, rather than on the picture.

I don't see anything provocative about it. You can't see anything, she's turned away from the camera and is wrapped in a sheet. No 'sexual' organs are on show. You can see her bare back, that's it. Really i can't see the problem.

[kasippu]

She looks like a 25year old not a 15year old
Where is her mother /father and why do they let her pose like this??

are the mother of Miley and the one of Lohan related??
eugh this are the type of people who likes dollars more than their children.
I for one will not be surprised if this girls pulls a Britney by the age of 18.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by TaffyMoon

It's a very Lolita-like photo - that said, she's not topless - topless is without a top, and she's covered. To pretend that 15 year old girls are children is ridiculous. They are sexually curious, and yes, niave, but they are not children. They are young women! These boundaries have been stretched so far that they don't fit biology any more.

Hell my grandmother was already married(age 14)and had a kid by the age of 15. Of course that was 70 years ago but still. 15 is certainly NOT a child. In fact, with parental consent, can't some kids get married here in certain states at that age? And how many 15 year olds are screwing, or already have kids?

I can understand the upset about this because this particular 15 year old, her parents, Disney, the media, the public, etc. have set her up as a ROLEMODEL, so I can see the problem, but it is a problem of particular values, and how they are being represented(or misrepresented), not a problem of 'pornography'

[stef]

Originally Posted by sputnik

paedophiles aren't into teenagers. paedophiles like children, as in pre-pubescent. pervs that are into teenagers aren't much better but it gets on my nerves when the word paedophile gets tossed around like that and people forget what it really means.

i agree her parents are dumbasses for letting her do this but it's not surprising. i don't see how this picture is any worse than when britney dressed up like a faux-lolita schoolgirl singing 'hit me baby one more time' and looking at the camera like she wanted to suck it off. i mean, sure, miley whatsherface is technically topless but it's not like you can see anything.

Originally Posted by Sojiita

The pic may be in 'bad taste' or 'risque for a 15 year old' or any number of things, but porn, child or otherwise, it is NOT. It is ridiculous to call this shot 'porn' of any kind. Call it trashy, tasteless, inappropriate, etc. but puh-leeze-it is NOT PORN, legally(or otherwise, IMO). Holy overreaction, Batman!

Originally Posted by Sojiita

I can understand the upset about this because this particular 15 year old, her parents, Disney, the media, the public, etc. have set her up as a ROLEMODEL, so I can see the problem, but it is a problem of particular values, and how they are being represented(or misrepresented), not a problem of 'pornography'

i totally agree with you two! couldn't have said it better.

i think some people need to realize that 15 year olds aren't children anymore.

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by Sojiita

Hell my grandmother was already married(age 14)and had a kid by the age of 15. Of course that was 70 years ago but still. 15 is certainly NOT a child. In fact, with parental consent, can't some kids get married here in certain states at that age? And how many 15 year olds are screwing, or already have kids?

I can understand the upset about this because this particular 15 year old, her parents, Disney, the media, the public, etc. have set her up as a ROLEMODEL, so I can see the problem, but it is a problem of particular values, and how they are being represented(or misrepresented), not a problem of 'pornography'

Exactly. I agree the picture is NOT porn, but it's certainly sexually suggestive. Nothing particularly shocking, even to a 15 year old, but I doubt 15 year olds are part of her fanbase. She's been marketed to appeal to the pre-teen crowd, and she's made millions doing it. Does she have a responsibility to all those little girls with the Hannah Montana posters, CDs, dolls and lunchboxes? I think she should. Or at the very least, she shouldn't have it both ways.

[LaFolie]

I bet this photo is gonna feed Ingi's "hot Miley" thread...

[OCDer]

shes britney spear all over again

[dakodas]

Many of you have seen me topless. I am NOT topless in this photo I will now call "The Miley" in my portfolio! The "woman in sheets" poses are a modeling standby. I am sure Annie thought she was being artistic but I think it was a bad judgement call. I can also say that even as a 36 year old woman I feel pressured by photographers to go further than I want and am told to trust them, I'll look great, it will show less than I think etc...

[HelpMeRhonda]

That pic looks like it's straight from the bed scene in The Exorcist.

[smf]

Originally Posted by heart_leigh

I still don't understand why she's so popular...not exactly who I want my daughter to emulate IF I had a daughter, that is.

im with you, i just dont get all the hype ,shes not even talented from what ive seen and this is so obviously a publicity stunt just to get even more money that they DONT need