Miley Cyrus: 'Vanity Fair' photos embarrassing, not artsy (1 Viewer)

[fightingduck]

FWIW. Maybe our side hasn't been clear on the problem.

My two daughters (6 and 10) have watched HM for about a year. We have both discs, a karaoke version, some DVDs of the show, etc. I've seen every show that has been made. Probably several times. It's a good show for the girls and it reminds me of the Cosby show, Family ties or any number of shows about a family that I saw growing up. That show and several others (Suite Life, Raven) are fun shows to watch on the weekends (typically when new episodes air). As a family, we watch them. We talk about them. They bring up issues such as obey your parents, doing your homework, not lying, cheating or stealing, the value of charity, etc. We re-quote the funny parts and re-enforce the positive messages. The Cyrus' (for better or worse) have been a small part of our lives, the same way the Cosby family was part of mine growing up.

It was HM and Miley Cyrus that has given me the opportunity to talk about real life and make believe. My kids are very good at pointing out the real person from the character on TV - and Miley is the primary reason for that. My kids know a lot about the Cyrus family. They know that her real name is Destiny Hope Cyrus. Miley is a nickname that her Dad gave her. It is shortened from "smiley" because she smiled a lot. For better or for worse, we've put some trust in the Miley family, the HM brand name, and the Disney channel. We don't expect anything from them other than to provide a little bit of laughter and singing every now and then.

When my two daughters play together, they play all sorts of made-up games. The play school, house, etc. They also play HM. The put on fake hair and big sun glasses with their dress-up clothes. They sing songs. They do shows for us. It's fun stuff. The key point here is that kids mock what they see.

I don't know what, or when, or how, or why, or if my kids will see the vanity fair pics. Maybe the won't, and nothing comes of it. If they do, it's not that the conversation will be awkward, it's that they will barely understand it enough to even explain it or ask a question that captures their response to it. If I'm lucky, they will come right out and ask me, "what's with the pics, dad?" My fear is that they will mock what they've seen and I won't know about it. When, where, how, with whom? I don't have the answers to these questions.

Do I bring it up? Do I make a bigger deal about it than what is even going on in their head? Do I downplay it? Do I spend 5 minutes or an hour? Do we keep watching her shows? Do we hold her up as a liberated teen?

Anyone that thinks they have the right answers to these questions is simply an idiot. Anyone who thinks the 30 minutes a week we spend with HM (and other Disney shows) is too much - have fun in the bubble.

To those without kids, I understand this is just some girl you've heard about a time a two. I wish that were the case with me and my girls right now.

 

[fightingduck]

Miley's job, they one that I pay her for, is to sing fun songs to my children and act funny for a half an hour on TV.

And she's not doing those things?Didn't see anywhere in your job description anything about her having to do your job for you.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. I'm disappointed in the Cyrus family right now. Maybe I was wrong, but I think the Disney Channel is a different gig than taking pictures for Vanity Fair. She's sold me a bad brand.

 

[Baconator]

Miley's job, they one that I pay her for, is to sing fun songs to my children and act funny for a half an hour on TV.

And she's not doing those things?Didn't see anywhere in your job description anything about her having to do your job for you.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. I'm disappointed in the Cyrus family right now. Maybe I was wrong, but I think the Disney Channel is a different gig than taking pictures for Vanity Fair. She's sold me a bad brand.

You said it yourself: Her job "is to sing fun songs to my children and act funny for a half an hour on TV."She's done exactly that. If you need her to be a perfect role model (including apparently, not showing her back - like virtually every 15 y.o. does when they wear halter-tops) because your kids listen to her more than you, then that's not her problem. She did her job - entertainment. The rest? Whether you like it or not - is your gig. All these absentee parents who use the TV as a stand-in baby-sitter and blame the world for their ####ed-up kids disgust me. You can certainly teach your kids - at any age - the difference between someone on TV and a real "role model". I was taught that in elementary school. It's not a hard lesson to learn. If you can't do so with your own children, Miley Cyrus can't be blamed for that.

 

[fightingduck]

Holy crap.

First, I suggested that that from an artistic standpoint the photo seems to raise an interesting discussion. For adults. Reading Vanity Fair. I never suggested this was a discussion point for you and your children.

To which I responded that I wish Miley would not be the topic for that discussion. Her role, to me, is locked up as an entertainer for children. If she wants to be involved in this adult coversation, I wish she wouldn't have been invovled in kiddie discussions for the past two years.

Second, I never said you had to have a sex talk with your 5-year old. What I am saying is that if your kid raises "awkward" questions about the photo, it may be a good time to discuss what's "appropriate" in terms of how girls should dress and act. And that maybe if more parents would take an active role in their kids lives we wouldn't have 12-year olds running around in mini skirts and halter tops looking like strippers-in-training.

Thank you for clarifying the adult conversation from the parent conversation. Clearly, I was shocked at what I thought you were suggesting. My misunderstanding.As to what you think this represents in terms of a good conversation starter for me and the girls. I'll say it again. No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. I have a conversation once a week about what is appropriate to wear with my kids. As far as how they should act, that conversation goes on by the minute. Neither of these conversations are awkward at all. I think tim used that word, but probably didn't mean it the way you think he did.

The issue is not as simple as you suggest, and that is where the frustration lies. You have no idea how your child is going to react to something that they barely understand. That's the problem. Even Miley acknowledges this now. (Probably with pressue from Disney.)

Last, I still don't see how these pics in Vanity Fair in any way alter the Hannah Montana product for your kids.

I know you don't see that.

 

[fightingduck]

Miley's job, they one that I pay her for, is to sing fun songs to my children and act funny for a half an hour on TV.

And she's not doing those things?Didn't see anywhere in your job description anything about her having to do your job for you.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. I'm disappointed in the Cyrus family right now. Maybe I was wrong, but I think the Disney Channel is a different gig than taking pictures for Vanity Fair. She's sold me a bad brand.

You said it yourself: Her job "is to sing fun songs to my children and act funny for a half an hour on TV."She's done exactly that. If you need her to be a perfect role model (including apparently, not showing her back - like virtually every 15 y.o. does when they wear halter-tops) because your kids listen to her more than you, then that's not her problem. She did her job - entertainment. The rest? Whether you like it or not - is your gig. All these absentee parents who use the TV as a stand-in baby-sitter and blame the world for their ####ed-up kids disgust me. You can certainly teach your kids - at any age - the difference between someone on TV and a real "role model". I was taught that in elementary school. It's not a hard lesson to learn. If you can't do so with your own children, Miley Cyrus can't be blamed for that.

That's funny. Becuase as I see it, it is the parents who don't see this as a problem are probably the ones with the ----ed up kids.In your world, kids can make a distinction that you can barely make - the one between a back photo and a sensual photo. I don't think you're going to have to worry about my children and what they wear. As a concerned parent, I'll be sure they get the right messages from me everyday. And today, I am just more that a little disappointed that the Cyrus' (and many others) do so much to distort that message.I'm not complaining about the existance of Vanity Fair and adult entertainment options. I just wish someone who sold themselves as child entertainment would draw the line somewhere.

 

[Baconator]

In your world, kids can make a distinction that you can barely make - the one between a back photo and a sensual photo. I don't think you're going to have to worry about my children and what they wear. As a concerned parent, I'll be sure they get the right messages from me everyday. And today, I am just more that a little disappointed that the Cyrus' (and many others) do so much to distort that message.I'm not complaining about the existance of Vanity Fair and adult entertainment options. I just wish someone who sold themselves as child entertainment would draw the line somewhere.

First off, you see a 15 y.o. girl's photo as "sensual?" Now, I'm really worried about your kids.Second, you sit there and bash Miley for not being able to make a distinction that you feel that is apparently very difficult for kids AND adults to make? So you're holding a 15 y.o. girl responsible for not being able to make a distinction that you admit both kids and adults have difficulty making?If you hold your own daughters to that wierd ### double standard, Get your kids some counseling...and stop thinking of 15 year-olds as "sensual".

 

[fightingduck]

In your world, kids can make a distinction that you can barely make - the one between a back photo and a sensual photo. I don't think you're going to have to worry about my children and what they wear. As a concerned parent, I'll be sure they get the right messages from me everyday. And today, I am just more that a little disappointed that the Cyrus' (and many others) do so much to distort that message.I'm not complaining about the existance of Vanity Fair and adult entertainment options. I just wish someone who sold themselves as child entertainment would draw the line somewhere.

First off, you see a 15 y.o. girl's photo as "sensual?" Now, I'm really worried about your kids.Second, you sit there and bash Miley for not being able to make a distinction that you feel that is apparently very difficult for kids AND adults to make? So you're holding a 15 y.o. girl responsible for not being able to make a distinction that you admit both kids and adults have difficulty making?If you hold your own daughters to that wierd ### double standard, Get your kids some counseling...and stop thinking of 15 year-olds as "sensual".

You're making two points, if I understand.1. Is the picture sensual? A young woman unclothed from the waist up, covering only her front side with a sheet. I think most (even on your side) agree that there is something sensual/sexual implied by this picture - and in particular, it was designed that way. Clearly, your just trying to insult me here.2. I am the one making the distinction. Myself and millions of other parents and teens today are making appropriate distinctions. There is a difference between child and adult entertainment and discussion. There is a difference between appropriate and inappropriate pictures for a 15 year old to take in a national adult magazine. And there is a BIG difference between any given actress and a 15 year old actress who has done nothing but sell her entertainment to girls under the age of 12.It is my young children that will have a hard time making these distinctions. And unfortunately, it is the Cyrus family and many posters in this thread that aren't allowing for these distinctions. The distinctions are not difficult to make.

 

[goonsquad]

As to what you think this represents in terms of a good conversation starter for me and the girls. I'll say it again. No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. I have a conversation once a week about what is appropriate to wear with my kids. As far as how they should act, that conversation goes on by the minute. Neither of these conversations are awkward at all. I think tim used that word, but probably didn't mean it the way you think he did.

Umm... yeah. I've been speaking in generalities. Not specifically giving you (fightingduck) parenting advice. No offense, but you need to settle down a bit.

 

[timschochet]

FWIW. Maybe our side hasn't been clear on the problem.

My two daughters (6 and 10) have watched HM for about a year. We have both discs, a karaoke version, some DVDs of the show, etc. I've seen every show that has been made. Probably several times. It's a good show for the girls and it reminds me of the Cosby show, Family ties or any number of shows about a family that I saw growing up. That show and several others (Suite Life, Raven) are fun shows to watch on the weekends (typically when new episodes air). As a family, we watch them. We talk about them. They bring up issues such as obey your parents, doing your homework, not lying, cheating or stealing, the value of charity, etc. We re-quote the funny parts and re-enforce the positive messages. The Cyrus' (for better or worse) have been a small part of our lives, the same way the Cosby family was part of mine growing up.

It was HM and Miley Cyrus that has given me the opportunity to talk about real life and make believe. My kids are very good at pointing out the real person from the character on TV - and Miley is the primary reason for that. My kids know a lot about the Cyrus family. They know that her real name is Destiny Hope Cyrus. Miley is a nickname that her Dad gave her. It is shortened from "smiley" because she smiled a lot. For better or for worse, we've put some trust in the Miley family, the HM brand name, and the Disney channel. We don't expect anything from them other than to provide a little bit of laughter and singing every now and then.

When my two daughters play together, they play all sorts of made-up games. The play school, house, etc. They also play HM. The put on fake hair and big sun glasses with their dress-up clothes. They sing songs. They do shows for us. It's fun stuff. The key point here is that kids mock what they see.

I don't know what, or when, or how, or why, or if my kids will see the vanity fair pics. Maybe the won't, and nothing comes of it. If they do, it's not that the conversation will be awkward, it's that they will barely understand it enough to even explain it or ask a question that captures their response to it. If I'm lucky, they will come right out and ask me, "what's with the pics, dad?" My fear is that they will mock what they've seen and I won't know about it. When, where, how, with whom? I don't have the answers to these questions.

Do I bring it up? Do I make a bigger deal about it than what is even going on in their head? Do I downplay it? Do I spend 5 minutes or an hour? Do we keep watching her shows? Do we hold her up as a liberated teen?

Anyone that thinks they have the right answers to these questions is simply an idiot. Anyone who thinks the 30 minutes a week we spend with HM (and other Disney shows) is too much - have fun in the bubble.

To those without kids, I understand this is just some girl you've heard about a time a two. I wish that were the case with me and my girls right now.

This is an excellent post. Fighting Duck, I don't think there is anyway we can make people who don't have young daughters who are fans of Miley Cyrus really understand what is going on here, but you certainly did as good a job as you could, better than me.

 

[Zow]

Her father manages her, plus...he's her father. The fact that he gave his okay for these pictures tells me that he's pretty-much just her pimp at this point.

If she were my sister, I'd be beating up a lot of people involved here and probably call her a bunch of names. Just saying.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

At about the age of 14+... females have to be responsible for themselves sexually.

 

[The Dude]

Lets be real - her and her Dad are trying to push her to the next level - they know this kiddie train is going to run out within 1-2 years. Now they trying to position her as a potential actress.

Neither she or her old man give a fart about your kids except for their (more likely your) money.

 

[Your Mother]

You can see this at any public pool in America.

 

[SKribbles]

You can see this at any public pool in America.

You can see plenty more than this anywhere almost anywhere you look.

 

[trader jake]

Decide what is important. Do you want your daughter to be wholesome or provocative? You can't have it both ways.

So there are only those two options now?

 

[Challenge Everything]

You clearly have no idea what my daughters' response to this will be. Or how to handle it.

Since you "explained" your position as to values, your kids, and your focus, allow me to explain my background in vague terms to you. Your and others righteous attitudes of "you are not a parent and thus know nothing (or near nothing) about parenting" is ridiculous. Off hand you have stated your daughters are, respectively, six and ten years old. I have worked with children ranging in ages birth to high school for the last ~15 or so years. In that time the number of families that I have helped, or had some kind of interaction with probably ranges in the 500+ or so number. Sorry for not counting. These families have ranged from affluent to very poor as well as many different ethnicities, cultures, backgrounds, socioeconomic classes, attitudes of the children as well as parents and overall atmosphere has had a wide range. The settings at which I have worked with these families ranges from in home, in school, in a professional setting, in a personal setting, you name it. So, you telling me or trying to enforce your beliefs about me or others using your written word is highly laughable to me. Take no offense to this but I am willing to bet I have had more interaction with kids in the age range your daughters are, have had more influence with that age range, and have had many conversations about similar topics as this one with kids, boys and girls, within the age that your daughters are. Therefore, with all due respect, your ignorance is a grand gesture to me because you and others that have stated as such, do not make you or your decisions any better than those people who do not have kids. Having had the ability to "let one slip through" does not make you a better or more knowledgeable parent than someone who does not have their own kid. This post might sound like I am angry but believe me I am laughing as I type this because of the ignorance that has been displayed in this thread. Do I know how your daughters will react to whatever discussion you are "needing" to have with them? Of course I do not know exactly. I have a pretty good idea given the experience I have had with that age group. Do I know how to handle the situation at hand? I guarantee you, and according to what you have worded in this thread, I could handle it in a much more effective manner than you claim to be able to compared to how well you think I could handle it. Overall...

 

[fightingduck]

You clearly have no idea what my daughters' response to this will be. Or how to handle it.

Since you "explained" your position as to values, your kids, and your focus, allow me to explain my background in vague terms to you. Your and others righteous attitudes of "you are not a parent and thus know nothing (or near nothing) about parenting" is ridiculous. Off hand you have stated your daughters are, respectively, six and ten years old. I have worked with children ranging in ages birth to high school for the last ~15 or so years. In that time the number of families that I have helped, or had some kind of interaction with probably ranges in the 500+ or so number. Sorry for not counting. These families have ranged from affluent to very poor as well as many different ethnicities, cultures, backgrounds, socioeconomic classes, attitudes of the children as well as parents and overall atmosphere has had a wide range. The settings at which I have worked with these families ranges from in home, in school, in a professional setting, in a personal setting, you name it. So, you telling me or trying to enforce your beliefs about me or others using your written word is highly laughable to me. Take no offense to this but I am willing to bet I have had more interaction with kids in the age range your daughters are, have had more influence with that age range, and have had many conversations about similar topics as this one with kids, boys and girls, within the age that your daughters are. Therefore, with all due respect, your ignorance is a grand gesture to me because you and others that have stated as such, do not make you or your decisions any better than those people who do not have kids. Having had the ability to "let one slip through" does not make you a better or more knowledgeable parent than someone who does not have their own kid. This post might sound like I am angry but believe me I am laughing as I type this because of the ignorance that has been displayed in this thread. Do I know how your daughters will react to whatever discussion you are "needing" to have with them? Of course I do not know exactly. I have a pretty good idea given the experience I have had with that age group. Do I know how to handle the situation at hand? I guarantee you, and according to what you have worded in this thread, I could handle it in a much more effective manner than you claim to be able to compared to how well you think I could handle it. Overall...

This is the sort of response that I would expect from people who claim to be experts with children. No offense taken. I run into you folks all the time that think your experience with 500+ of other people's children is meaningful.

 

[Pai Mei]

You're making two points, if I understand.

1. Is the picture sensual? A young woman unclothed from the waist up, covering only her front side with a sheet. I think most (even on your side) agree that there is something sensual/sexual implied by this picture - and in particular, it was designed that way. Clearly, your just trying to insult me here.

2. I am the one making the distinction. Myself and millions of other parents and teens today are making appropriate distinctions. There is a difference between child and adult entertainment and discussion. There is a difference between appropriate and inappropriate pictures for a 15 year old to take in a national adult magazine. And there is a BIG difference between any given actress and a 15 year old actress who has done nothing but sell her entertainment to girls under the age of 12.

It is my young children that will have a hard time making these distinctions. And unfortunately, it is the Cyrus family and many posters in this thread that aren't allowing for these distinctions. The distinctions are not difficult to make.

What you are experiencing is nothing new. You can go all the way back 100 years to Mary Pickford. You might find it interesting to read up on Pickford. She was a child superstar in silent films. As she grew older, she wanted to move on to more adult themes like love and romance, but audiences were abhorred because they always saw her as a child. "How can she be kissing someone in a film?"She married Douglas Fairbanks in 1920. They had a mansion in Beverly Hills called Pickfair. They later divorced. The backlash against Pickford trying to broaden her career from a child star into more sexual roles really hurt her deeply and emotionally, and was a major reason she became a recluse later in life. For the last 40 years of her life until she died in 1979, she hid from the public in Pickfair.

After the tragic life of Mary Pickford, I'm siding with Cyrus on this one. You can find better role models. But society has been thru this whole deal where we think we have the right to attack and destroy a public figure just for being themselves with the Mary Pickford experience, and I don't even want to begin to go down that road yet again.

 

[fightingduck]

You're making two points, if I understand.

1. Is the picture sensual? A young woman unclothed from the waist up, covering only her front side with a sheet. I think most (even on your side) agree that there is something sensual/sexual implied by this picture - and in particular, it was designed that way. Clearly, your just trying to insult me here.

2. I am the one making the distinction. Myself and millions of other parents and teens today are making appropriate distinctions. There is a difference between child and adult entertainment and discussion. There is a difference between appropriate and inappropriate pictures for a 15 year old to take in a national adult magazine. And there is a BIG difference between any given actress and a 15 year old actress who has done nothing but sell her entertainment to girls under the age of 12.

It is my young children that will have a hard time making these distinctions. And unfortunately, it is the Cyrus family and many posters in this thread that aren't allowing for these distinctions. The distinctions are not difficult to make.

What you are experiencing is nothing new. You can go all the way back 100 years to Mary Pickford. You might find it interesting to read up on Pickford. She was a child superstar in silent films. As she grew older, she wanted to move on to more adult themes like love and romance, but audiences were abhorred because they always saw her as a child. "How can she be kissing someone in a film?"She married Douglas Fairbanks in 1920. They had a mansion in Beverly Hills called Pickfair. They later divorced. The backlash against Pickford trying to broaden her career from a child star into more sexual roles really hurt her deeply and emotionally, and was a major reason she became a recluse later in life. For the last 40 years of her life until she died in 1979, she hid from the public in Pickfair.

After the tragic life of Mary Pickford, I'm siding with Cyrus on this one. You can find better role models. But society has been thru this whole deal where we think we have the right to attack and destroy a public figure just for being themselves with the Mary Pickford experience, and I don't even want to begin to go down that road yet again.

Thanks for the posting, but I think this is a bit different. Mary Pickford starred in Coquette in 1929, when she was 37. Her problem had as much to do with sound, as age.Also, I think your saying that child stars have a difficult time making the transition to adult films. A correct and valid point. Adult film-going audiences often reject these actors once they hit adulthood for any number of reasons. The Miley situation is different. Her fan base is still 5 - 12 and Miley's 15.

 

[timschochet]

You're making two points, if I understand.

1. Is the picture sensual? A young woman unclothed from the waist up, covering only her front side with a sheet. I think most (even on your side) agree that there is something sensual/sexual implied by this picture - and in particular, it was designed that way. Clearly, your just trying to insult me here.

2. I am the one making the distinction. Myself and millions of other parents and teens today are making appropriate distinctions. There is a difference between child and adult entertainment and discussion. There is a difference between appropriate and inappropriate pictures for a 15 year old to take in a national adult magazine. And there is a BIG difference between any given actress and a 15 year old actress who has done nothing but sell her entertainment to girls under the age of 12.

It is my young children that will have a hard time making these distinctions. And unfortunately, it is the Cyrus family and many posters in this thread that aren't allowing for these distinctions. The distinctions are not difficult to make.

What you are experiencing is nothing new. You can go all the way back 100 years to Mary Pickford. You might find it interesting to read up on Pickford. She was a child superstar in silent films. As she grew older, she wanted to move on to more adult themes like love and romance, but audiences were abhorred because they always saw her as a child. "How can she be kissing someone in a film?"She married Douglas Fairbanks in 1920. They had a mansion in Beverly Hills called Pickfair. They later divorced. The backlash against Pickford trying to broaden her career from a child star into more sexual roles really hurt her deeply and emotionally, and was a major reason she became a recluse later in life. For the last 40 years of her life until she died in 1979, she hid from the public in Pickfair.

After the tragic life of Mary Pickford, I'm siding with Cyrus on this one. You can find better role models. But society has been thru this whole deal where we think we have the right to attack and destroy a public figure just for being themselves with the Mary Pickford experience, and I don't even want to begin to go down that road yet again.

Thanks for the posting, but I think this is a bit different. Mary Pickford starred in Coquette in 1929, when she was 37. Her problem had as much to do with sound, as age.Also, I think your saying that child stars have a difficult time making the transition to adult films. A correct and valid point. Adult film-going audiences often reject these actors once they hit adulthood for any number of reasons. The Miley situation is different. Her fan base is still 5 - 12 and Miley's 15.

The people arguing with us on this thread continue to fail to realize how unique this girl is in terms of the age group she is targeting.

 

[flufhed]

Trust me, I'm not repressed, not at all. You won't want your very little kid seeing their favorite actress half naked.

My daughter has a best friend and they do a lot of stuff together and I'm sure they've seen each other naked hundreds of times. They have bathed together and played dress up. I'm not too concerned with my daughter seeing another girl naked...or half naked. ...at you not being repressed.

You don't get it.The nudity has nothing to do with it, at least for me. It is putting a 15 year old girl in a sexual picture.Bed sheets + exposed skin + ruby red lipstick = sex. The increased sexualization of young girls really bugs me these days. Nothing wrong with seeing a girl this age and recognizing her sexual quality, but to pimp her and promote it like this to me is not right. Girls at that age have enough to deal with.

 

[flufhed]

We recorded star wars on spike for my son to watch. My wife walks in and sees a girls gone wild commercial on. concerned about what he was watching she said this is inappropriate for him to watch. Now whenever it comes on he FF right through it and says this is not appropriate.....Have some of you ever tried talking to your kids or do you just figure if you censor everything you deam inappropriate they will turn out just like you?BTW my son is 5. I have 3 daughters 10, 2 and -0

Who are you arguing with?No one has raised the points that you are responding to.

 

[flufhed]

Considering the photographer is Annie Leibovitz, I assume the point of the photo is to raise these very questions about the sexualizing of youth in our culture. The shot is at once both glamorous and almost regretful. It is not in any way overtly celebrating her sexuality, IMO. The fact that it makes us, the viewer, slightly uncomfortable is intentional I would guess. Very compelling work.

This is a good point. But I don't think the subltety will get through to the target audience.I don't think this picture spells the doom of mankind, but I just don't like stuff like this with girls this age. The sad thing is subtle sexualization is creeping in to much younger kids these days. At 15, she is well on her way to being a woman. 9 and 10 - not so much.

 

[The Charlie Hustlers]

We recorded star wars on spike for my son to watch. My wife walks in and sees a girls gone wild commercial on. concerned about what he was watching she said this is inappropriate for him to watch. Now whenever it comes on he FF right through it and says this is not appropriate.....Have some of you ever tried talking to your kids or do you just figure if you censor everything you deam inappropriate they will turn out just like you?BTW my son is 5. I have 3 daughters 10, 2 and -0

Who are you arguing with?No one has raised the points that you are responding to.

This is a discussion about what is appropriate and unappropriate for children. They can be taught....you can't blame the TV for your children's behaviors.

 

[JuniorNB]

Trust me, I'm not repressed, not at all. You won't want your very little kid seeing their favorite actress half naked.

My daughter has a best friend and they do a lot of stuff together and I'm sure they've seen each other naked hundreds of times. They have bathed together and played dress up. I'm not too concerned with my daughter seeing another girl naked...or half naked. ...at you not being repressed.

It is putting a 15 year old girl in a sexual picture.Bed sheets + exposed skin + ruby red lipstick = sex.

Anyone not realizing that this was a 100% sexual picture is very unintelligent.Anyone who doesn't have a problem with a fifteen year-old, who is idolized by millions of 5-12 year-olds, being pushed in that direction by her parents/management, is truly creepy.

 

[toshiba]

My girls only have started liking Hannah Montana in the past 6 months. The show seems okay for a 5 and 7 year old and I have not had a problem with them watching it because she has been selling her image as clean. That image is now tarnished and I don't honestly feel like I can trust her image anymore.

My 5 and 7 year old daughters will not see this image, nor will their Kindergarten or 1st grade class talk about it. As a parent this is a sign of things to come and before anything happens that I don't want them to see it is time to pull the plug on HM in my house.

 

[Tom Servo]

FWIW. Maybe our side hasn't been clear on the problem.

My two daughters (6 and 10) have watched HM for about a year. We have both discs, a karaoke version, some DVDs of the show, etc. I've seen every show that has been made. Probably several times. It's a good show for the girls and it reminds me of the Cosby show, Family ties or any number of shows about a family that I saw growing up. That show and several others (Suite Life, Raven) are fun shows to watch on the weekends (typically when new episodes air). As a family, we watch them. We talk about them. They bring up issues such as obey your parents, doing your homework, not lying, cheating or stealing, the value of charity, etc. We re-quote the funny parts and re-enforce the positive messages. The Cyrus' (for better or worse) have been a small part of our lives, the same way the Cosby family was part of mine growing up.

It was HM and Miley Cyrus that has given me the opportunity to talk about real life and make believe. My kids are very good at pointing out the real person from the character on TV - and Miley is the primary reason for that. My kids know a lot about the Cyrus family. They know that her real name is Destiny Hope Cyrus. Miley is a nickname that her Dad gave her. It is shortened from "smiley" because she smiled a lot. For better or for worse, we've put some trust in the Miley family, the HM brand name, and the Disney channel. We don't expect anything from them other than to provide a little bit of laughter and singing every now and then.

When my two daughters play together, they play all sorts of made-up games. The play school, house, etc. They also play HM. The put on fake hair and big sun glasses with their dress-up clothes. They sing songs. They do shows for us. It's fun stuff. The key point here is that kids mock what they see.

I don't know what, or when, or how, or why, or if my kids will see the vanity fair pics. Maybe the won't, and nothing comes of it. If they do, it's not that the conversation will be awkward, it's that they will barely understand it enough to even explain it or ask a question that captures their response to it. If I'm lucky, they will come right out and ask me, "what's with the pics, dad?" My fear is that they will mock what they've seen and I won't know about it. When, where, how, with whom? I don't have the answers to these questions.

Do I bring it up? Do I make a bigger deal about it than what is even going on in their head? Do I downplay it? Do I spend 5 minutes or an hour? Do we keep watching her shows? Do we hold her up as a liberated teen?

Anyone that thinks they have the right answers to these questions is simply an idiot. Anyone who thinks the 30 minutes a week we spend with HM (and other Disney shows) is too much - have fun in the bubble.

To those without kids, I understand this is just some girl you've heard about a time a two. I wish that were the case with me and my girls right now.

This is an excellent post. Fighting Duck, I don't think there is anyway we can make people who don't have young daughters who are fans of Miley Cyrus really understand what is going on here, but you certainly did as good a job as you could, better than me.

To a larger point, even those of us with young sons (5 & 6) have issues as they grow older of seeing girls their age being sexualized.

 

[Sand]

Considering the photographer is Annie Leibovitz, I assume the point of the photo is to raise these very questions about the sexualizing of youth in our culture. The shot is at once both glamorous and almost regretful. It is not in any way overtly celebrating her sexuality, IMO. The fact that it makes us, the viewer, slightly uncomfortable is intentional I would guess. Very compelling work.

This is a good point. But I don't think the subltety will get through to the target audience.I don't think this picture spells the doom of mankind, but I just don't like stuff like this with girls this age. The sad thing is subtle sexualization is creeping in to much younger kids these days. At 15, she is well on her way to being a woman. 9 and 10 - not so much.

You hit the nail on the head. Vanity Fair is definitely an adult oriented magazine, so the picture certainly flies better there than elsewhere. I think the subtlety is lost on most people no matter where you put the image (witness JuniorNB).Still, though, this was not the person to try and raise this issue with. And still a year or two too young to put this out there, as well. Do this when she is 17 and I have a different opinion.

Funny thing is if I had seen this image in a vacuum I never would have guessed it was her - it really doesn't look much like her.

 

[buster c]

Trust me, I'm not repressed, not at all. You won't want your very little kid seeing their favorite actress half naked.

My daughter has a best friend and they do a lot of stuff together and I'm sure they've seen each other naked hundreds of times. They have bathed together and played dress up. I'm not too concerned with my daughter seeing another girl naked...or half naked. ...at you not being repressed.

You don't get it.The nudity has nothing to do with it, at least for me.

It is putting a 15 year old girl in a sexual picture.

Bed sheets + exposed skin + ruby red lipstick = sex.

The increased sexualization of young girls really bugs me these days. Nothing wrong with seeing a girl this age and recognizing her sexual quality, but to pimp her and promote it like this to me is not right. Girls at that age have enough to deal with.

say what?

 

[The_Hoser]

Can we settle this by a simple shows of hands?

You're on the photoshoot set with your 15-year-old daughter. Annie Leibovitz says, "Let's get her naked with red lipstick and in a bedsheet -- you're fine with that, right?"

You would have said, "Sure, let's do it!"

Raise your hands if that's you.

 

[Sand]

Trust me, I'm not repressed, not at all. You won't want your very little kid seeing their favorite actress half naked.

My daughter has a best friend and they do a lot of stuff together and I'm sure they've seen each other naked hundreds of times. They have bathed together and played dress up. I'm not too concerned with my daughter seeing another girl naked...or half naked. ...at you not being repressed.

You don't get it.The nudity has nothing to do with it, at least for me.

It is putting a 15 year old girl in a sexual picture.

Bed sheets + exposed skin + ruby red lipstick = sex.

The increased sexualization of young girls really bugs me these days. Nothing wrong with seeing a girl this age and recognizing her sexual quality, but to pimp her and promote it like this to me is not right. Girls at that age have enough to deal with.

say what?

I think he said that Miley at 15 has breasts and hips and is able to conceive children.

 

[JuniorNB]

Considering the photographer is Annie Leibovitz, I assume the point of the photo is to raise these very questions about the sexualizing of youth in our culture. The shot is at once both glamorous and almost regretful. It is not in any way overtly celebrating her sexuality, IMO. The fact that it makes us, the viewer, slightly uncomfortable is intentional I would guess. Very compelling work.

This is a good point. But I don't think the subltety will get through to the target audience.I don't think this picture spells the doom of mankind, but I just don't like stuff like this with girls this age. The sad thing is subtle sexualization is creeping in to much younger kids these days. At 15, she is well on her way to being a woman. 9 and 10 - not so much.

You hit the nail on the head. Vanity Fair is definitely an adult oriented magazine, so the picture certainly flies better there than elsewhere. I think the subtlety is lost on most people no matter where you put the image (witness JuniorNB).

This would be a "subtle" pose for a nineteen year-old. There's nothing subtle about a fifteen year-old with lipstick and a bareb ack, being told to have a look on her face like she's staring at a pack of Gummy Bears, in order to make her look like she's longing for something else.Also, it's not a subtle as a lot of you want to pretend it is. Are you saying it's only a 'sexual picture' if she's got her pants around her ankles and her shirt off? It's about as sexual as a photographer can get with a 15 year-old subject without going to jail. I'm just shocked they didn't have a lollipop in her mouth.

Regardless of what Leibowitz' intentions were, I still question why Billy Ray (the dad, not the manager/public relations-guy) didn't see it as his little girl being exploited as a sex object. Unless that's ok with him.

 

[Moe Green]

Can we settle this by a simple shows of hands?You're on the photoshoot set with your 15-year-old daughter. Annie Leibovitz says, "Let's get her naked with red lipstick and in a bedsheet -- you're fine with that, right?"You would have said, "Sure, let's do it!"Raise your hands if that's you.

I think the average answer would probably be, "For how much?"

 

[comfortably numb]

To those who don't mind their children to watch this girl, and HAVE a problem with this pic.

How do you feel about her normal gear?

On TV shows, kids award shows etc...

 

[Sand]

Considering the photographer is Annie Leibovitz, I assume the point of the photo is to raise these very questions about the sexualizing of youth in our culture. The shot is at once both glamorous and almost regretful. It is not in any way overtly celebrating her sexuality, IMO. The fact that it makes us, the viewer, slightly uncomfortable is intentional I would guess. Very compelling work.

This is a good point. But I don't think the subltety will get through to the target audience.I don't think this picture spells the doom of mankind, but I just don't like stuff like this with girls this age. The sad thing is subtle sexualization is creeping in to much younger kids these days. At 15, she is well on her way to being a woman. 9 and 10 - not so much.

You hit the nail on the head. Vanity Fair is definitely an adult oriented magazine, so the picture certainly flies better there than elsewhere. I think the subtlety is lost on most people no matter where you put the image (witness JuniorNB).

This would be a "subtle" pose for a nineteen year-old. There's nothing subtle about a fifteen year-old with lipstick and a bareb ack, being told to have a look on her face like she's staring at a pack of Gummy Bears, in order to make her look like she's longing for something else.Also, it's not a subtle as a lot of you want to pretend it is. Are you saying it's only a 'sexual picture' if she's got her pants around her ankles and her shirt off? It's about as sexual as a photographer can get with a 15 year-old subject without going to jail. I'm just shocked they didn't have a lollipop in her mouth.

Regardless of what Leibowitz' intentions were, I still question why Billy Ray (the dad, not the manager/public relations-guy) didn't see it as his little girl being exploited as a sex object. Unless that's ok with him.

Well, you did say "100%". No way Annie is that bland with her compositions - there is always something else in there to think about. I'd put it at 80%. No doubt it is a sexual picture by its nature. It does have some other qualities, though. I still don't think it is appropriate for her, as I said above.

 

[flufhed]

Trust me, I'm not repressed, not at all. You won't want your very little kid seeing their favorite actress half naked.

My daughter has a best friend and they do a lot of stuff together and I'm sure they've seen each other naked hundreds of times. They have bathed together and played dress up. I'm not too concerned with my daughter seeing another girl naked...or half naked. ...at you not being repressed.

You don't get it.The nudity has nothing to do with it, at least for me.

It is putting a 15 year old girl in a sexual picture.

Bed sheets + exposed skin + ruby red lipstick = sex.

The increased sexualization of young girls really bugs me these days. Nothing wrong with seeing a girl this age and recognizing her sexual quality, but to pimp her and promote it like this to me is not right. Girls at that age have enough to deal with.

say what?

What I mean is, I don't believe you are a dirty old man just because you look at a girl this age who happens to be developed and think "wow." We are biologically conditioned to find younger women sequally attractive. It is natural, you just can't follow through with your thoughts, of course, into action.My intent was to separate that issue from the fault I find with the photo.

 

[saintfool]

sally mann would have a very tough go of it with many FBGs.

 

[gruecd]

Miley realizes that she can't sell to her current market forever. Eventually she'll need to transition to a more mature audience. She's expected to be a billionaire by the time she's 18; she's not a bad businesswoman. I call this laying the groundwork.....

 

[Michael Brown]

To those who don't mind their children to watch this girl, and HAVE a problem with this pic.

How do you feel about her normal gear?

On TV shows, kids award shows etc...

I've seen this girl on TV wearing skimpy miniskirts and knee-high boots while prancing around the stage looking like Carmen Electra, Jr.

I guess that's fine to some people. Me personally, I'd rather my daughter pose for a respected artist in a tasteful shoot than bounce around a stage with her thighs exposed to the world.

ETA: Exhibit A This is the first image that pops up on a Google search, and is seemingly her 'typical' outfit. Nope, nothing sexual about that look at ALL.

 

[Road Warriors]

To those who don't mind their children to watch this girl, and HAVE a problem with this pic.

How do you feel about her normal gear?

On TV shows, kids award shows etc...

I've seen this girl on TV wearing skimpy miniskirts and knee-high boots while prancing around the stage looking like Carmen Electra, Jr.

I guess that's fine to some people. Me personally, I'd rather my daughter pose for a respected artist in a tasteful shoot than bounce around a stage with her thighs exposed to the world.

ETA: Exhibit A This is the first image that pops up on a Google search, and is seemingly her 'typical' outfit. Nope, nothing sexual about that look at ALL.

You're right... break out the bhurka!

 

[flufhed]

To those who don't mind their children to watch this girl, and HAVE a problem with this pic.

How do you feel about her normal gear?

On TV shows, kids award shows etc...

I've seen this girl on TV wearing skimpy miniskirts and knee-high boots while prancing around the stage looking like Carmen Electra, Jr.

I guess that's fine to some people. Me personally, I'd rather my daughter pose for a respected artist in a tasteful shoot than bounce around a stage with her thighs exposed to the world.

ETA: Exhibit A This is the first image that pops up on a Google search, and is seemingly her 'typical' outfit. Nope, nothing sexual about that look at ALL.

Interesting.I had no idea this was already part of her repertoire - I have never seen the stupid show, thank god. My daughter (4) has no interest in watching it because, in her words, "that's not a cartoon."

Given Exhibit A I am having a difficult time understanding timoschet's position.

 

[timschochet]

To those who don't mind their children to watch this girl, and HAVE a problem with this pic.

How do you feel about her normal gear?

On TV shows, kids award shows etc...

I've seen this girl on TV wearing skimpy miniskirts and knee-high boots while prancing around the stage looking like Carmen Electra, Jr.

I guess that's fine to some people. Me personally, I'd rather my daughter pose for a respected artist in a tasteful shoot than bounce around a stage with her thighs exposed to the world.

ETA: Exhibit A This is the first image that pops up on a Google search, and is seemingly her 'typical' outfit. Nope, nothing sexual about that look at ALL.

Interesting.I had no idea this was already part of her repertoire - I have never seen the stupid show, thank god. My daughter (4) has no interest in watching it because, in her words, "that's not a cartoon."

Given Exhibit A I am having a difficult time understanding timoschet's position.

I don't know where that photo came from, but it's not how she looks or acts on the show or on stage.

 

[andy_b]

To those who don't mind their children to watch this girl, and HAVE a problem with this pic.

How do you feel about her normal gear?

On TV shows, kids award shows etc...

I've seen this girl on TV wearing skimpy miniskirts and knee-high boots while prancing around the stage looking like Carmen Electra, Jr.

I guess that's fine to some people. Me personally, I'd rather my daughter pose for a respected artist in a tasteful shoot than bounce around a stage with her thighs exposed to the world.

ETA: Exhibit A This is the first image that pops up on a Google search, and is seemingly her 'typical' outfit. Nope, nothing sexual about that look at ALL.

maybe I am clueless here as to what the rest of the country thinks, but I have a friend who has a 14 year old daughter and that is very normal attire in the warm weather for her and all her friends that are always over her house.

 

[toshiba]

To those who don't mind their children to watch this girl, and HAVE a problem with this pic.

How do you feel about her normal gear?

On TV shows, kids award shows etc...

I've seen this girl on TV wearing skimpy miniskirts and knee-high boots while prancing around the stage looking like Carmen Electra, Jr.

I guess that's fine to some people. Me personally, I'd rather my daughter pose for a respected artist in a tasteful shoot than bounce around a stage with her thighs exposed to the world.

ETA: Exhibit A This is the first image that pops up on a Google search, and is seemingly her 'typical' outfit. Nope, nothing sexual about that look at ALL.

maybe I am clueless here as to what the rest of the country thinks, but I have a friend who has a 14 year old daughter and that is very normal attire in the warm weather for her and all her friends that are always over her house.

I agree, I don't see the problem with that outfit. I do though think that a nude post of her covering her breasts up with a sheet and exposing her back not acceptable for my 5 or 7 year old daughter to be viewing. Though I doubt they will see that picture anytime soon.As far as he not being able to sell to her current audience forever, her current audience is pretty much 6-10 year olds. She can sell for a much longer time then she is acting like she can.

 

[toshiba]

One thing good. I am use to teaching my kids that other kids act in ways they are not allowed to and some other parents do care enough about their kids to teach them right from wrong. If this ever comes up they will learn that about celebs as well.

I love my kids enough to teach them that other kids are not good examples for them and that once they know right and wrong they get to choose their own way. Similar to the family stance about chruch. My wife and I do not believe in god but all grandparents do. When they spend the night and the grandparents then can go to chruch and learn about all that stuff. My wife and I talk to the kids about what they learned and sahre our opinion, but they know that they can choose to beleive what they want.

We impose our ideas of right and wrong and will enforce certain behavior while the live with us, but as they get older they can make their own choices.

 

[kentric]

Poor picture, very unflattering. Kind of the goth heroine chic thing going on.

Sexualizing a 15 year old who depends on a wholesome image is deplorable. Her handlers should have never allowed this.

Handlers eh? Now I can't get the picture of her being led around on a leash like a dog out of my mind. Great, just great....

 

[Michael Brown]

To those who don't mind their children to watch this girl, and HAVE a problem with this pic.

How do you feel about her normal gear?

On TV shows, kids award shows etc...

I've seen this girl on TV wearing skimpy miniskirts and knee-high boots while prancing around the stage looking like Carmen Electra, Jr.

I guess that's fine to some people. Me personally, I'd rather my daughter pose for a respected artist in a tasteful shoot than bounce around a stage with her thighs exposed to the world.

ETA: Exhibit A This is the first image that pops up on a Google search, and is seemingly her 'typical' outfit. Nope, nothing sexual about that look at ALL.

maybe I am clueless here as to what the rest of the country thinks, but I have a friend who has a 14 year old daughter and that is very normal attire in the warm weather for her and all her friends that are always over her house.

But isn't this 'look' the exact thing that Britney Spears was crucified for about 10 years ago? The whole "not that innocent" looking schoolgirl outfit? Only difference is that Britney was older, but I'm having a tough time getting past the double standard.

 

[andy_b]

To those who don't mind their children to watch this girl, and HAVE a problem with this pic.

How do you feel about her normal gear?

On TV shows, kids award shows etc...

I've seen this girl on TV wearing skimpy miniskirts and knee-high boots while prancing around the stage looking like Carmen Electra, Jr.

I guess that's fine to some people. Me personally, I'd rather my daughter pose for a respected artist in a tasteful shoot than bounce around a stage with her thighs exposed to the world.

ETA: Exhibit A This is the first image that pops up on a Google search, and is seemingly her 'typical' outfit. Nope, nothing sexual about that look at ALL.

maybe I am clueless here as to what the rest of the country thinks, but I have a friend who has a 14 year old daughter and that is very normal attire in the warm weather for her and all her friends that are always over her house.

But isn't this 'look' the exact thing that Britney Spears was crucified for about 10 years ago? The whole "not that innocent" looking schoolgirl outfit? Only difference is that Britney was older, but I'm having a tough time getting past the double standard.

again I have to be missing something. 15 year old girls have been wearing mini skirts and semi mini skirts for decades.

 

[fightingduck]

We recorded star wars on spike for my son to watch. My wife walks in and sees a girls gone wild commercial on. concerned about what he was watching she said this is inappropriate for him to watch. Now whenever it comes on he FF right through it and says this is not appropriate.....Have some of you ever tried talking to your kids or do you just figure if you censor everything you deam inappropriate they will turn out just like you?

BTW my son is 5. I have 3 daughters 10, 2 and -0

Who are you arguing with?No one has raised the points that you are responding to.

This is a discussion about what is appropriate and unappropriate for children. They can be taught....you can't blame the TV for your children's behaviors.

Who's blaming TV for children's behavoir? I think others with the "no big deal" attitude are the ones making the connection with children's behavior. I'm pretty sure that the parents that are upset about this (on average) have well-behaved children. These are the parents who are showing concern for the entertainment that their children are exposed to. Our concern is that Miley sold herself as appropriate to a G-rated audience. She can't cross-over without confusing young girls. I can't FF through parts of Miley's chosen entertainment products. She's one person who needed to stay on one side or the other.

 

[fightingduck]

To those who don't mind their children to watch this girl, and HAVE a problem with this pic.

How do you feel about her normal gear?

On TV shows, kids award shows etc...

I've seen this girl on TV wearing skimpy miniskirts and knee-high boots while prancing around the stage looking like Carmen Electra, Jr.

I guess that's fine to some people. Me personally, I'd rather my daughter pose for a respected artist in a tasteful shoot than bounce around a stage with her thighs exposed to the world.

ETA: Exhibit A This is the first image that pops up on a Google search, and is seemingly her 'typical' outfit. Nope, nothing sexual about that look at ALL.

Interesting.I had no idea this was already part of her repertoire - I have never seen the stupid show, thank god. My daughter (4) has no interest in watching it because, in her words, "that's not a cartoon."

Given Exhibit A I am having a difficult time understanding timoschet's position.

I don't know where that photo came from, but it's not how she looks or acts on the show or on stage.

I agree with tim.. She's gotten a little edgy in the last few months, and clearly the Vanity Fair is her signal she's done with the 6-12 crowd.Too bad, the girls liked her. Who's her audience now?