For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Hannah Montana in the buff?
Pop star and 15-year-old Disney sensation MILEY CYRUS tells ET she's "embarrassed" about an upcoming photograph of her appearing semi-topless in the new Vanity Fair issue. "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," she tells ET. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about."
If you have kids, you know who this girl is. Estimates put this "franchise" at the $1 billion level. Yes, with a "B".
What the heck were these parents thinking? This is a 15-year-old girl. They certainly didn't do this for money, because they're all becoming filthy rich off her. How did they let this happen, what does this say about our society, and do you care at all about what this girl does?














Comments Policy
Someone called this kiddie porn
April 28, 2008 - 09:57 ET by shawn228on the open thread yesterday. I would hardly call go as far to call it that, but I'm suprised her and her parents agreed to these pics, especially for a self professed Jesus Freak.
Shawn
April 28, 2008 - 10:00 ET by candanceThese are complicated things. She's 15, she trusts the people who set up her business deals. A photographer sweet talks her, tells her she's pretty, she lets her guard down and does something edgy. You always talk about not wanting to judge people or condemn people. She made a mistake. She's clearly embarrassed and sorry. I say give her the benefit of the doubt. As for her parents, who knows? The girl probably does 5 photo shoots a day and they might not have time to supervise them all.
candance
April 28, 2008 - 10:04 ET by AgnosticI agree. The parents should fire every single one of the girl's handlers though in a very public and embarrasing way so those people can not be put in charge of the lives/careers of other children.
Who was the other young
April 28, 2008 - 10:19 ET by motherbeltWho was the other young model we had this discussion about, in a similar photo, not long ago? The discussion went round and round for pages!! Which is why I'm not getting into this one LOL. Everyone has their own opinion about what's "appropriate."
motherbelt,
April 28, 2008 - 10:28 ET by AgnosticAli Michael but whe was 17 and wanted to do the shoot - while still wrong it has a different argument.
But your right - there are many opinions on this.
My final take is that if the girl did not want to do this and the parents (we don't know yet) didn't want to do this then Viacom and all their resources should be used to hold the magazine accountable.
I Remember 15
April 28, 2008 - 11:31 ET by zeestephenAlthough age 15 was almost 45 years ago for me and my gang, I recall one thing very, very clearly.
When teenage guys watch Miley Cyrus perform, they are NOT thinking about music!
Lighten up, folks.
Hannah Montana is worth a billion dollars because millions of young boys DREAM about seeing her with only a towel on.
zeestephen,
April 28, 2008 - 11:47 ET by Agnostic15 was a few years ago for me as well but I know what you are talking about. My point in everything I entered on this thread is that if there is to be any punishment for this event it should be for the adults that promoted and/or allowed this situation and not on the 15 year old kid. Viacom has enough clout to bring pressure to bear if they want to go that rout.
That being said; are you saying it is okay to sexually promote a 15 year old just because 15 year olds boys are thinking like 15 year olds. They will think that way if she was wearing a full set of body armor because that is the way we think at 15 (and for many years after).
I agree with you Candance
April 28, 2008 - 10:26 ET by shawn228Don't get me wrong. I would just think a person that is a "Jesus Freak" would know this might not be something Jesus might approve of.
She is hardly the first one and she will certainly not be the last.
Come on Shawn
April 28, 2008 - 10:31 ET by candanceShe's not a senior pastor - she's a teenage girl who goes to church. Yes it seems like common sense to us, but raging hormones and the glamour of a photo shoot might be hard to resist.
looks like shawn is all for
April 28, 2008 - 17:44 ET by TruthMongerlooks like shawn is all for Burka's:)
candance...
April 28, 2008 - 21:53 ET by PrairieSkySorry, but as a parent of a daughter (now in college), I don't think that things are that complicated at all. Yes, she probably does a bazillion photo shoots, BUT, this girl is 15 years old...I don't care if she does a 100 shoots a day. In this world, where it seems everyone is out to make a buck and have no qualms about manipulating anyone for money, there is no way that I would let anyone take a photo of my 15 year old daughter without me or her father being present. Only her parents truly (one would hope) have her best interests at heart, and should be trusted to ensure that she isn't taken advantage of. Apparently, one or both parents were present at this shoot, which is why I cannot understand why this photo was allowed to be shot. Miley's parents are not newbies in this business...What were they thinking???
I don't blame Miley...at 15, she's still a child. I blame her parents. They are her advocates. Have they lost their minds???
IOW, much like accusations of "Witchcraft" in our history
April 28, 2008 - 10:03 ET by sarcasmoThe definition of "Child Porn" is a modern mystery, and seemingly at least in part a matter of opinion just as "witchcraft" was in the past. And people wonder why there's less and less respect for the law these days...I can even give an ascii-art example, but I forget where I saw it.
o-|-<
Just look at her, so young, so willing...Did I just commit a thought-crime? Did you?? Did NB, by hosting this discussion???
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Well, moving
April 28, 2008 - 12:07 ET by NewsbusterbrownWell, moving along...
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
With, or without
April 28, 2008 - 15:21 ET by sarcasmoAny thought/thoughtcrime, though?
I finally looked at the Miley photos, and while the one with her Dad is slightly-disturbing because you know it's her Dad, even that one is nowhere near "porn" IMO. The one showing all the skin (but on her back!) isn't even very racy unless you're blessed with a good imagination.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Is it porn? No. Is it
April 28, 2008 - 15:54 ET by NewsbusterbrownIs it porn? No.
Is it purposely suggestive? Of course. At her age, it's inappropriate, too. Besides, however she try to look adult and mature in these photos, she still looks like a kid. Since Vanity Fair is targeted at adults, what type of grownup man would get excited over these photographs anyway? Maybe if I was 15 again, but...
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Well, I won't be buying it, but then...
April 28, 2008 - 15:59 ET by sarcasmoI've never bought "Vanity Fair" in my life. Clearly, the magazine is trying to target younger adults than they currently attract (a legitimate magazine publishing business strategy because old people tend to die) by featuring Miley. It might work, too. I don't think it's a big deal compared to a variety of other stuff that's going on these days, but it sure proves that sex sells -- here or in magazines.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
“Clearly, the magazine is
April 28, 2008 - 16:05 ET by Newsbusterbrown“Clearly, the magazine is trying to target younger adults than they currently attract (a legitimate magazine publishing business strategy because old people tend to die) by featuring Miley. It might work, too.
Well, an eighteen year old that looked like a woman would do the job just as well, don't you think? Besides, no high school boy is going to cough up dough for that perfume-drenched magazine that's 90% ads to begin with.
There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Not really this well.
April 28, 2008 - 16:19 ET by sarcasmoAn 18 year old girl who looks about the same wouldn't have NB and some of the media itself in a tizzy. Over the years I've learned one thing: "Grab for your wallet and hold on tight when they start talking sex, because it's always to the exclusion of bigger problems like spending & general government stupidity." This girl is a billionaire for a reason. Chances are good that reason involves teenagers -- probably mostly boys, but girls, too; willing to do things like cough up serious dough for concert tickets. They'll do the same for that perfume drenched magazine that's 90% ads to see racy & controversial pics of their favorite Disney star. And the spending/inflation will go on without fanfare.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
An 18 year old girl who
April 28, 2008 - 16:49 ET by NewsbusterbrownAn 18 year old girl who looks about the same wouldn't have NB and some of the media itself in a tizzy.
An 18 year old girl that looked like a 15 year old would most certainly create a tizzy.
Over the years I've learned one thing: "Grab for your wallet and hold on tight when they start talking sex, because it's always to the exclusion of bigger problems like spending & general government stupidity."
Some of us can actually walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, Sarc. ;-)
They'll do the same for that perfume drenched magazine that's 90% ads to see racy & controversial pics of their favorite Disney star.
No, they won't. They'll go online for it.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Walk and chew bubble gum?
April 29, 2008 - 07:07 ET by sarcasmoMaybe so. But how many posts here have been about spending (don't count mine)?? I'd say the big goose-egg. We've seen a few hundred about the 15 year old girl, or at least it seems like it. IOW, looks like we're walkin' allright, but the bubble gum fell out at least a mile ago. PLENTY of more interesting things than this kid's bare back are happening. Or look at my post below about emminent domain being a civil rights issue in reality. Cricket-fest. Everyone wants to scream about a half-crazed preacher instead.
What NB and the news media in general have focused on is some stupid pics of a young girl in an otherwise totally boring mag. And it's working. As I said, grab for your wallets. And if you know your history, fear for the green Charmin inside.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Maybe so. But how many
April 29, 2008 - 09:41 ET by NewsbusterbrownMaybe so. But how many posts here have been about spending (don't count mine)??
There are never any posts about spending here? If you think that, you're not looking very hard.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
I meant "today"
April 29, 2008 - 09:44 ET by sarcasmoAnd there seem to be 0. If conservatives were adequately-against spending, we would not see McCain as the Republican nominee. They're not. So we do.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Now you're being
April 29, 2008 - 16:44 ET by NewsbusterbrownNow you're being ridiculous. We have to talk about spending every minute now? Okay, go ahead and talk about it. Whatever cuts you want, I doubt that I would be against them.
As for McCain (again, the worst Republican nominee of my lifetime), he's the GOP standard bearer only because of the Dem's version of Operation Chaos. If not for that, we would have had a more conservative candidate than what we have now.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Hannah
April 28, 2008 - 10:00 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
Full disclosure, my daughter watches the show on the Disney Channel, but is by no means a devotee. As such, I have no axe to grind.
That said, I hope for the future of our society that Disney immediately fires her, and that her career in show biz is over. Why? Because this era of exploiting little girls as sex objects is part of our nation's morality problem.
Whether you want to tie its roots to the 50's classic "Lolita" (later made into an amazing film by Stanley Kubrick), or Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver," or Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby," Hollywood has continued to stretch the envelope of youth and sexuality. If Disney allows its most valuable property to do so, the whole concept of innocence in our society will be thrown out the window.
Our children are likely going to live well into their hundreds. Why are we pushing them to become adults so quickly, and, in doing so, turning our society into a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah?
Do the right thing, Disney: terminate your contract with this girl, and show the nation that enough is enough. ns
Come on Noel
April 28, 2008 - 10:07 ET by shawn228I completely disagree with you. The poor girl made a mistake. The pictures were provacative, but hardly nude or a Sodom and Gomorah.
You want to destroy her career for one silly business decision? Kind of harsh isnt' it?
Noel
April 28, 2008 - 10:08 ET by candanceI agree that Disney should do something, but I don't think firing Miley is the solution. The photographer should not have pressured a 15 year old girl into doing that, and Vanity Fair should have let her approve of them before they printed the photos.
It sounds like Vanity Fair set her up for publicity.
are we talking about the
April 28, 2008 - 15:47 ET by TruthMongerare we talking about the Disney that promotes theme park gay days every year...?
Yeah, seeing Hanna's back is an absolute outrage for them I'm sure...
Noel, I believe Vanity Fair
April 28, 2008 - 10:13 ET by taterNoel, I believe Vanity Fair and her parents are at fault here. I know when I was 15 I was coaxed into doing stupid stuff because of peer pressure and who knows what this photographer told her. I'm not a parent myself but I would be very careful about what I would allow my 15 year old daughter to do since I know what guys think.
Should she some repricussions of course...fired, I wouldn't go that far.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Here's why it's unlikely to play out that way, Noel
April 28, 2008 - 10:15 ET by PunditDotCom1. Annie Leibovitz - She is photog to the stars and celebs of every stripe. To "fire" this child would imply too many bad (but accurate?) things about Ms. L. - sorry, Noel, no feet of clay here...
2. Vanity Fair - It's art!
3. Disney - "We shouldn't punish this young actress for errors of judgement of her parents, the magazine, the photographer, etc." Translation: don't derail our gravy train!
4. Parents - aforementioned gravy train.
Seriously, Noel, I too lament the passing of innocence and had hoped Disney of all entities would have had some veto power in this. We can only hope that there is some morality clause in the contract that would leave Disney the option of termation - and that they would exercise such option. But I'm not holding my breath...
pundit, tater, etc
April 28, 2008 - 10:20 ET by candanceAll this talk about her parents being in on it or not really caring is harsh. How many parents right here on NB got news of your teenager doing something immensely stupid that embarrassed you? If a bunch of bloggers sat around saying you were a bad parent and your family deserved to lose everything, how would that make you feel?
Give the girl a chance to repent. If she learns her lesson and walks the straight and narrow, something good can come from this. Throwing the whole family under the bus is not a very nice reaction.
She's seen in a photo with
April 28, 2008 - 10:26 ET by taterShe's seen in a photo with her dad. I'm betting her parents had to have been there and I would think they would have seen the photos. I know I wouldn't want a photo of my daughter like that in a magazine. If she did this on her own I wouldn't have said anything about her parents...but there's too much evidence that would suggest they would of had to know about it.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
you're betting?
April 28, 2008 - 10:34 ET by candanceYou're assuming he was in the room for the entire thing and saw every single pose because of one photo of them together? That's kind of a stretch.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Okay well according to
April 28, 2008 - 10:44 ET by taterOkay well according to Vanity Fair her parents and/or handlers were there.
www.news.com.au/ente...
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
okay
April 28, 2008 - 10:49 ET by candanceOf course they're going to have some kind of agent or handler with her. But those are business people who don't care for kids as much as their family. Until her dad admits to having seen the photo taken, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Okay well according to
April 28, 2008 - 10:44 ET by taterdouble post
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
candance
April 28, 2008 - 10:48 ET by shawn228I was going to reply with the same thing, but tater beat me to it. To be honest, I am a little more upset with hypocricy with the Jesus thing, than the photos themselves.
wow Shawn
April 28, 2008 - 10:50 ET by candanceYou found a reason to criticize a Christian? Shocking.
Candance
April 28, 2008 - 10:52 ET by shawn228I have nothing but respect for the Christian faith. I just found this photo shoot a little ironic.
Apologies Shawn
April 28, 2008 - 10:58 ET by candanceAfter posting my remark I realize I snapped at you.
I'm not surprised at all by this. A wildly famous and very pretty teenage girl who markets herself as a pious Christian...what could be more delicious (or ironic) than talking her into a racy situation? Frankly I'm surprised it took them this long.
She was naive enough to think that the world respects her values, and she got burned. It happens to every Christian at least once.
No problem Candance
April 28, 2008 - 11:01 ET by shawn228I'm on my way to work. Have a great day.
shawn -- sure she's rich
April 28, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Jack Bauershawn -- sure she's rich and famous -- but the operative thing here is "15 years old."
Give the parents some grief, but anyone with youngish teenagers knows they do dumb things, even with the best upbringing -- their brains do work differntly as they aren't fully formed -- black or white or whatever hue!
I'm sorry shawn but you do not show respect for faith
April 28, 2008 - 11:28 ET by Dee BunkYou are mocking her and calling her a hypocrite because she is a "Jesus Freak" It's rude and you show that you do not understand the Christian faith at all when you make statements like that.
The Difference between Christians and some non Christians like you who criticize them, is that they know they are not perfect. They know they are weak and that they will have failings. Unlike those who criticize them, they pray to God, ask for help and try to change. You act like the person who says to screw everyone and do what feels right to you is somehow superior.
There is a huge difference between falling and and trying to trip everyone else. I'm so sick of people who relish in every failing of a Christian as some sort of proof of hypocrisy or that something is wrong with their faith.
It's one thing to criticize a pastor like Jesse Jackson, Jim Baker or Jeremiah Wright, but criticizing regular people as being hypocrites is ridiculous.
yeah, it's rude to
April 28, 2008 - 17:46 ET by TruthMongeryeah, it's rude to Christians, dammit - now let's get back to insisting all Muslims are terrorists and Mohammed was a pedophile:)
TM - I see your smiley face but I don't find that funny
April 28, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Dee BunkI've never heard anyone say that all Muslims are terrorists and I don't know what you are talking about with the pedophile thing.
10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of RADICAL Muslims are terrorists and people have every right to criticize RADICAL Muslims. That doesn't mean they criticize all Muslims.
On the other hand, people like Shawn and the MSM constantly criticize Christians calling them hypocrites etc and equating what they did hundreds of years ago as some sort of moral equivalence for what RADICAL Muslims do today. If you want to defend RADICAL Muslimns then you need to defend the Crusades, and the Inquisitions. I happen to think Terrorism, the Crusades and the Inquisitions are all wrong. One group has seemingly learned from the mistakes of history though while another very large group has not.
Dee Bunk, The Crusades was a defensive action; still is today.
April 28, 2008 - 21:44 ET by upcountrywaterHow the Jihad nearly overran Austria in 1683, threatening the
Islamization of Europe. But in 1683 the Day was carried by Jan Sobeiski
the Christian Braveheart from Poland who saved Austria and Europe from
Islam.
Vienna
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
upcountry - but many innocents
April 28, 2008 - 21:52 ET by Dee Bunkand non Mulsims were slaughtered. Christians today would never "defend" their faith in such a way. I don't know of any Christians fighting in the name of a particular religion (other than a small number of rogue one's) for a very long time.
yeah, Christians are way
April 29, 2008 - 12:12 ET by TruthMongeryeah, Christians are way less sinful than everyone else
that's what my Bible says too
That's an idiotic statment Truthmong
April 29, 2008 - 18:52 ET by Dee BunkNo one has said any such thing, especially me. Are you some type of bigot or what?
dee bunk
April 28, 2008 - 21:50 ET by candanceI agree with ucw....there was much more to the Crusades and the Inquisition than what modern Muslims would have you believe. Do a little reading into the waves of occupation and Dhimmitude that swept over eastern Europe.
Candance - see my comments above to ucw
April 28, 2008 - 21:56 ET by Dee BunkI posted before I saw yours, but I'd have the same answer.
ah yes, the old "that's
April 29, 2008 - 12:10 ET by TruthMongerah yes, the old "that's different" routine...
well if it makes you feel better, then go ahead and use it..
but if you want other people to agree with you on this, well...
that's different:)
Again TM you make no sense
April 29, 2008 - 18:53 ET by Dee BunkI think you need some sleep
Reality check on aisle seven...
April 29, 2008 - 05:22 ET by CortillaenHm, one instance of major spin and another of ignoring the facts, both tied together in a snide little snap at anyone who disagrees with you. Time to get to work...
First, exactly who here insists that all Muslims are terrorists? I want names, not accusations leveled at this whole community for supposed acts committed by some phantom. However, it is important to understand that terrorism is not as rare and reviled among Muslims as you insist. For example, while I do not in any way believe that all Muslims are terrorists, I do believe that a very large portion of Muslims, possibly even the majority, support terrorist actions (specifically, death to those who insult Mohammad), believe the US desires Islam's destruction, and desire the application of strict sharia law in their countries.
That reminds me, I'm still waiting for your response to this. None of your four examples actually supported your position, and three of them were, in fact, supportive of mine. The fact that your own examples hurt your claims is somewhat telling, no? To quote you, "seek and ye shall find - google makes it so easy even a bigot can do it". So, if I'm the bigot capable of using google to find the truth, what does that make you, who failed to do so? Surely there's a good word for people who utterly reject the possibility of wrongness in favor of their strongly-held beliefs... oh, wait, that'd be a bigot. Funny, that...
Okay, back to the topic, "people insisting Mohammad was a pedophile". First, fact time: 1) Mohammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was six or seven (depending on the account). This is supported by numerous accounts, including her own. 2) They consummated their marriage when she was nine. Again, multiple confirmations. 3) The proper definition of pedophilia is a sexual attraction to biological children (meaning those prior to or in the early stages of puberty). 4) Common usage of the word has extended to cover criminals convicted of sexual abuse towards minors and the associated behavior of sexual activity with children. 5) In addition to US law, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (yay! internationalism! *rolls eyes*) also upholds the legal definition of a child as someone under the age of eighteen.
Alright, given this information, it's not really possible to determine if Mohammad was a pedophile by the strict definition of the term. It is possible, given Aisha's age at the consummation of their marriage and her status as his favorite wife, that he was, but the information isn't conclusive. However, the popular usage of the term to include any sexual activity with a child certainly fits the bill, especially considering her age at the time was merely half the accepted age for adulthood. Long story short, Mohammad may or may not have been a pedophile by the strict definition, but he most certainly engaged in sex with a child. Thus, charges of pedophilia by the strict definition are unproven (though not necessarily false), but charges of pedophilia in the popular sense are accurate.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
...alls I can say to this
April 29, 2008 - 12:18 ET by TruthMonger...alls I can say to this truckoad of blah-blah-blah is that I'm just a sinner, a Christian bro - i don't see myself as any better than anyone else - including Mohammed...
if you see others as better or worse then - that's your thing - between you and God...
I'll be happy to correct all of your assertions here in detail over in the woodshed - one at a time, tho - I'm not responding to a book-post like this...
I'm ever so sorry I took
April 29, 2008 - 13:42 ET by CortillaenI'm ever so sorry I took the time and space to ensure an accurate examination of the facts. Maybe I should stick to snide accusations and holding up jihadis as "peaceful".
I think I'll take you up on your offer, though you'll have to tax yourself enough to actually read my post and deal with a few points at once. It's not my fault you manage to cram multiple accusations needing rebuttal into a single comment. You're not just traipsing away from this.
Keep an eye on the Woodshed if you're interested, folks.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
don't be surprised Cort
April 29, 2008 - 13:56 ET by candanceTruthie always loves finding new takers for his special brand of logic.
Mohammad is above criticism, but NBers are routinely called murderers who drag minorites down the road chained to the back of a car.
It's truthie's MO. You can start a new thread in the woodshed if you want, but it will simply join the graveyard of truthie's threads from times past.
Oh, I know it's probably an
April 29, 2008 - 14:51 ET by CortillaenOh, I know it's probably an exercise in futility, but if he refuses to answer or tries to obfuscate, I'll at least have it on record. I don't care for him making unsupported accusations against all of the NB community, hence the particular title I used. Who knows, I might get lucky enough to drag him back into discussion of popular Islam. Planning to sit in on the event? ;)
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Dee I am not mocking
April 28, 2008 - 21:05 ET by shawn228First of all, I am not mocking Miley. I said it was kind of hypocritical. That is an opinion and not mocking.
Secondly I thought it was Miley herself that coined the phrase"Jesus Freak" I could be wrong. If I am, I should not have used that phrase
Finally, read my response to Noel, I believe she does deserve a second chance and she should not be fired. I do not see how in anyway you can interpret what I said as relishing in every failing of a Christian, or I was rude.
shawn??
April 28, 2008 - 21:22 ET by candanceYou think Miley Cyrus coined the phrase Jesus Freak? dc Talk had a big selling album called Jesus Freak in 1995. The phrase has been around since the 1960s.
Incidentally, the phrase began as a positive moniker but has since morphed into an insult. It's one of those things where devout Christians call themselves that but are usually sensitive about hearing it from others.
So if you use it on NB you'll get a lot of people snapping at you.
candance
April 28, 2008 - 21:26 ET by shawn228I heard the term before, but I thought it was Miley that said that abot herself at one point. I did not mean to insult anyone.
Dee seems to think I am finding glee in seeing Miley suffer, which is not even close to how I feel.
No Shawn - I don't think you find glee in her personal suffering
April 28, 2008 - 21:32 ET by Dee Bunkbut you do seem to find glee in a chance to call a Christian a hypocrite. It really irks me when people do that. Big time. You have no right to judge her based on her faith, especially because nothing in her faith, or any Christian's faith, deems them to be perfect. In fact it's the opposite.
it's all bacon Shawn
April 28, 2008 - 21:39 ET by candanceI didn't ever hear Miley referring to herself in that way. She could have but I didn't hear it.
I understand your basic point that a devout Christian of all people would avoid a situation like this, but it's sadly a very common thing. Young Christians tend to get carried away with the trappings of the world and naively think their moral compass is strong enough to stop at the right line in the sand.
sodom & Gomorrah?
April 28, 2008 - 10:19 ET by AgnosticWhile your premise about the direction of societal morals, at least as displayed in the media, is absolutely correct I think we need more information to access this situation as it effects a child. Improper punishment would be doing as much or more damage than the photographer or the magazine.
I agree this a mistake made but it was made by adults and the child should be made to understand the mistake and the adults should be punished. If she is truly is sorry for the pictures I think that the parents should fire the people responsible for her care (if it wasn't them at the time) publicly and the combined efforts of CBS, Viacom (whose properties include Paramount studios, the children's network Nickelodeon, MTV and VH1) should use their considerable influence to punish Vanity Fair and the photographer in question.
Noel
April 28, 2008 - 11:53 ET by BritcomThe fault for these photos does not lie with the child, she is not mature enough to make such a decision and she cannot legally sign a contract until she is 18. This is bad judgment on the part of her parents for letting her do it, but the photographer and the magazine are guilty of a crime against the child for exploiting a child and getting her to disrobe for a camera. The studio of the photographer should be raided and the photos and negatives seized and those responsible prosecuted and registered as child predators... if we are to apply the child protection laws equitably. Why should they not be arrested when hundreds of similar non-celeb. child porn cases do result in arrests?
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
She didn't disrobe for the
April 28, 2008 - 14:11 ET by ckc1227She didn't disrobe for the camera(which isn't a crime anyway). It's a picture of her back. She reveals more skin in the 2-piece bathing suit she wears to the beach.
"Why should they not be arrested when hundreds of similar non-celeb. child porn cases do result in arrests?"
Uh, because it's not child porn, that's why.
exactly
April 28, 2008 - 15:53 ET by TruthMongerexactly
we will see this kind of thing at swimming pools and beaches all over America this summer:
http://nachofoto.com/photo-of-Image-G4702bfcc4964
Illegal images of children
April 29, 2008 - 03:30 ET by BritcomThis image, were it taken by an Adult would be illegal because the subject is under 18. In several states, downloading the above image can get you arrested if it can be shown that you collect such images for sexual excitement, or if you sell or distribute such images via the internet for sexual excitement. In some cases the "sexual excitement" part is assumed by the prosecutor.
A kind of "Prosecute now ask questions later."
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
she's in a swimming suit,
April 29, 2008 - 12:05 ET by TruthMongershe's in a swimming suit, and it's not "suggestive" by legal standards - so it's not illegal:) - sorry
Says you, not the law
May 1, 2008 - 10:41 ET by Britcom---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
I guess some here haven't
April 29, 2008 - 03:20 ET by BritcomI guess some here haven't been keeping up on the new laws. Most states now have laws if someone photographs a child who is nude (even from the waist up), regardless of if the nudity can be seen in the photo or not, that is a crime. It appears from the photos on the Vanity Fair website, that the child was nude from the waist up and holding a small blanket to cover herself. Therefore, she did have to disrobe.
And in many states, if you take pictures of someone else's child on the beach to sell, or collect for sexual excitement, that is illegal as well. Nowadays, your local Child Protection Agency can swoop in an take a child or prosecute an adult if such images are discovered.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
you could say the sheet is
April 29, 2008 - 12:07 ET by TruthMongeryou could say the sheet is actually a toga - and holding it up is just the latest style - therefore she is not nude
except for the fact that we are all nude right now - underneath our particular "togas" of course...
While suturing a cut on the
April 28, 2008 - 10:03 ET by Dan The Man 2While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.
Eventually the topic got around to Barack Obama and his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said,"Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle'."
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.
The old rancher said,"When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'."
The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain.
"You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just want to help the dumb ass get down."
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
LOL Dan the Man...now that
April 28, 2008 - 16:28 ET by bigtimerLOL Dan the Man...now that was rich!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
What's that saying?
April 28, 2008 - 10:08 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarSomething like "Even bad press is good press".
The parents and mag know exactly what they're doing. The sad thing is that this 15 y.o. is probably on course for a "crash and burn" like so many other child stars.
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
career path
April 28, 2008 - 10:10 ET by opnpt01 yr - rumors of sex
2 yrs first reports of drugs and drinking
3 years first marriage
4 years first DUI
5 first rehab session
and on and on......
"But this one goes to 11"
Thoughts while drining coffee
April 28, 2008 - 10:11 ET by KC MulvilleFifteen year old. Semi-nude. “Artistic?” If she was fully nude, actually, you might be able to make a case for it being artistic. But if the art is in the nudity, what does a semi-nude 15 year old mean, artistically? That she is on her way to full nudity? That’s headed in the wrong direction, isn’t it? (After all, you come into this world naked, but you leave it in your best suit!)
I’m just wondering. We have plenty of pre-teen girls being worshipped as rich celebrity goddesses, as they stumble into adulthood. Where are all the pre-teen boys receiving the same glide path to celebrity oblivion? Or do we just assume that football and basketball are the boys’ equivalent?
→ I don't get it KC
April 28, 2008 - 10:41 ET by Cool ArrowHer star was nowhere near fading. Her following nailed down for at least the next three years.
This ain't making any sense at this point in her life.
♣ a seal
A young girl is not an object, I listen to what IT says....
April 28, 2008 - 10:31 ET by CapitalismRulesbut seriously, no matter the age, famous girls and women will always be made into sex objects by the media whether they like it or not. Everyone makes more money that way regardless of how much she is currently pulling in. Now you can call it porn or exploitation or whatever you want, but sex sells. Not always ethical, but it has built empires overnight.
And now, today's Shrub
April 28, 2008 - 10:40 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's Shrub Report®:
63 years ago today, El Duce' and his goomah were left curing in the warm, Italian sun.
A response to Barrack Obama
More proof that Iran is not involved in any shape or form with Iraq.
This is not the way to get your marriage launched smoothly.
Move over, France, there's a new country full of pu$$ies in Europe.
Uh-oh, the Great Global Warming Swindle is runn