This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Aren't we talking about two different situations? This involves a post-pubescent girl's (see, I'm taking your advice) parents and a national magazine taking advantage of her sexuality.* The other was a personal photo that was leaked. The issue is not the sexuality but the exploitation of the sexuality. *Oh, and I agree that those who don't see this as sexual are kooky.
No fear, I don't take offense at any of the comments here. I don't think thin-skinned people would last very long in the FFA, do you? To answer your question, I have no idea what "Attachment parents" means. I have no particular philosophy; I try to be the best parent I can.
I don't disagree with what you've written here, but does this mean we should just give up? Shouldn't we as parents try to change things, to bring about the "beautiful picture"? Shouldn't we speak out when things bother us? I think we should.
I just pulled this off wiki. I think it covers most of what we do.Eight principles of attachment parentingPer Dr. Sears' theory of attachment parenting (AP), proponents such as the API attempt to foster a secure bond with their children by promoting eight principles which are identified as goals for parents to strive for. These eight principles arereparation for Pregnancy, Birth and Parenting Feed with Love and Respect Respond with Sensitivity Use Nurturing Touch Engage in Nighttime Parenting Provide Consistent Loving Care Practice Positive Discipline Strive for Balance in Personal and Family Life These values are interpreted in a variety of ways. Many attachment parents also choose to live a natural family living (NFL) lifestyle, such as natural childbirth, home birth, stay-at-home parenting, co-sleeping, breastfeeding, babywearing, homeschooling, unschooling, the anti-circumcision movement, the anti-vaccination movement, natural health, cooperative movements, and support of organic food.
I just didn't want you to think I meant to offend you....I didn't.
UmmmAgreed. We don't give up.
Somehow, this has gotten lost in all of the morailstic controversy. Can we get a table of contents, here? PM if necessary. kthxbye [/hijack]HiWelcome to the year 2008. Lets make sure a few things are clear:
Teenagers have LOTS of sex these days
kids aren't held to the same puritanical modesty as previous generations
kids actually have colored bracelets they wear to show off which sex acts they've performed...this has been going on for years
She is showing her shoulder...oooooo, put your corset back on young lady
Go to a local bar/club and check out what most kids wear out these days...if your 20th century virgin eyes can take it
Hollywood is as Hollywood does...that has always been the case, just ask shirley temple
Do you believe these things are OK, and that we should expose our young children to them? Am I being repressive in not wanting my 7 and 5 year old to know about this stuff?Somehow, this has gotten lost in all of the morailstic controversy. Can we get a table of contents, here? PM if necessary. kthxbye [/hijack]HiWelcome to the year 2008. Lets make sure a few things are clear:
Teenagers have LOTS of sex these days
kids aren't held to the same puritanical modesty as previous generations
kids actually have colored bracelets they wear to show off which sex acts they've performed...this has been going on for years
She is showing her shoulder...oooooo, put your corset back on young lady
Go to a local bar/club and check out what most kids wear out these days...if your 20th century virgin eyes can take it
Hollywood is as Hollywood does...that has always been the case, just ask shirley temple
I'm calling it.The Charlie Hustlers said:I'm sorry, I think you have the problem. She is obviously underage, and that just doesnt do it for me. Not to mention the fact that I can observe a naked woman and appreciate her body without always thinking of sex.toshiba said:I am not able to observe a naked girl wraped in a sheet or blanket covered in horine-whore makeup without thinking sex.The Charlie Hustlers said:I don't see anything sexual in the pictures. I wonder what makes you think there is anything sexual in seeing a naked 15 year old girl. Are you incapable of observing a naked body without assigning a sexual connotation to it?DoubleG said:goonsquad said:Like a greek tragedy, the Moral Majority continues to be stuck in their own self-fulfilling prophecy. This picture wouldn't be on every homepage in the first place if social conservatives wouldn't gather the pitchforks and torches every time they see something that clashes with their Puritanical sexual repression.DoubleG said:
And blaming the "Moral Majority" for the sensationalistic media coverage is equally as ridiculous. The media's "sex sells" mantra, I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that it is all over the place. It's amazing that the ultra-consevratives have the time to put down their pitchforks and torches and type on message boards.
Someone once said that there are people that are so open minded that you'd think their brains had fallen out. Every now and then I read posts on interenet message boards that confirm that very fact.
This post will be ignored because it is too logical. It doesn't fan the flames of the point some are trying to make. But rest assure this is 100% accurate and the way it should be.
AgreeIf you expect Miley to be some sort of role model for kids.I personally don't, so I don't care about pictures or if she did porn, drugs or that athletes do steroids, cheat, murder etc... But yes, if you expect that out of her/Disney/athletes etc. You have every right to voice your concern about any issue you take with her/them.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear. You're insufferable and annoying in a way that's completely different from the Christian Right.timschochet said:
And that is key, I want my kids to know that doing things like porn, drugs, steroids, cheating, murdering, ... have consequences. Thus I do care.
It is also a huge step back from Tim's initial reactions in this thread. He was the one fanning the flames of outrage until he saw firsthand that his daughter isn't interested, nor affected, by the pics. Which is exactly the point CE and others were trying to make in the first place.
In that you're willing to make the distinction, I thank you (I guess.)
I don't believe I've taken a step back. Have I contradicted myself? How so?
I agree, those are valid distinctions. I was referring more to the "they market themselves to kids, therefore they have a responsibility to those kids to refrain from doing things that undermine their sqeaky clean image and when they don't meet our expectations with respect to the responsibility we have put upon them, we should get really upset and they should apologize and ask for forgiveness and we shall extend forgiveness to them should we deem them sufficiently repentant" mindset.Christo said:
Right. If Britney Spears has taught us anything, it's that we should take great care in letting these prepackaged child entertainers become role models for our kids or, as Tim put it, develop "direct connections" with our kids. If this Vanity Fair thing is actually going to damage your child, you probably should have taken steps long ago to dissuade the development of the type of adoration or obsession that the kid apparently has with a child star.
Sure, but I blame her parents/the magazine more than her. Kids are supposed to do stupid things.
The Charlie Hustlers said:
bigbottom said:
Add a few of CE's "I don't have a kid, but I'm a parenting expert" and it really gets annoying. Here's why:Miley: (takes half naked pictures in an adult-oriented magazine). "I'm so embarrassed."Concerned Parents: (disappointment) You've been selling yourself to the under 12 set for two years. What were you even doing there?The anything goes crowd: You "concerned parents" are bad parents. She can do what she wants and you're either wrong A) for letting your kids watch her; or B) inept at explaining to a six year old why a 15-year old is taking half naked pictures in an adult magaizine.Concerned Parents: We talk to our kids every day about this stuff. We're just disappointed in Miley. The anyting goes crowd: You shouldn't be. Stop drawing a distinctions between right and wrong. Or, er, maybe draw a distinction for your kids, using this as an example. Or, eh, maybe you shouldn't be letting them watch it anyway. But, I'm not being judgemental. You make up your own mind. Except you're wrong here. I mean, not wrong technically, cus that would be wrong..scoobygang said:
Notwithstanding my choice of words above, disappointed is fine. But being "upset" or outraged and saying she has a "responsibility to her fans" and extending "forgiveness" to her because she is repentatnt is melodramatic in my opinion. Feel free to disagree.And I am most definitely not in the anything goes crowd. I can be quite the judgmental fellow on a number of parenting issues. I just think all the handwringing and outrage over this particular issue is silly.
No where have I said, stated, claimed, or even proclaimed to be a child rearing expert. If my advice to you and others concerning 'how to' or 'how to make' the situation better told your mind that I was acting as an expert, than so be it because I can not change your interpretations of things. With that said, your arrogance as to you being or you being a better ideal for a parent because you were able to get a woman pregnant is a pretty immature argument. My work, literature, practices, knowledge all lend to the sound advice that I have offered here. I was attempting to make light of the situation by calming the fears of some and how they thought their kids were affected by this picture incident. As evidenced by tim's admittance with his child shrugging it off seems to follow the 'advice' I offered. Not make a big deal about it and it only becomes a big deal if the parent makes it into one first.
I'm glad my daughter hasn't made a big deal about it. Whether this remains true, only time will tell. But I hope it does.This does not change, however, my disappointment over this story. And it doesn't change my disagreement with those that believe I should at best refrain from making judgment, and at worst, be at fault myself for allowing my daughters to buy into the Miley Cyrus persona being marketed to them.No where have I said, stated, claimed, or even proclaimed to be a child rearing expert. If my advice to you and others concerning 'how to' or 'how to make' the situation better told your mind that I was acting as an expert, than so be it because I can not change your interpretations of things. With that said, your arrogance as to you being or you being a better ideal for a parent because you were able to get a woman pregnant is a pretty immature argument. My work, literature, practices, knowledge all lend to the sound advice that I have offered here. I was attempting to make light of the situation by calming the fears of some and how they thought their kids were affected by this picture incident. As evidenced by tim's admittance with his child shrugging it off seems to follow the 'advice' I offered. Not make a big deal about it and it only becomes a big deal if the parent makes it into one first.
Nobody has ever said you did not have the right to be disappointed. Nobody has said you should not disagree with the actions taken by Miley. Nobody has said you do not have the right to pass judgement on Miley for her recent actions, be them appropriate for her or not.What people have argued are some statements you have made concerning the responsibility Miley has or should have towards your children. She has zero responsibility for your children nor should you, or others, claim her to have responsibility. Others have also argued that you appear to have put a financial investment as well as an emotional investment into the Hannah Montana image. Your investment into that image has maintained a level after the pictures as well as it was before the pictures. Why? Because the image of Hannah Montana was not sold to your children in the new Vanity Fair magazine. The Vanity Fair article has to do with Miley Cyrus and I know that her latest CD involves the Miley Cyrus name but maybe, just maybe, the Miley Cyrus image is going to be a more grown up image when compared to Hannah Montana. Both certainly have a different persona as well as costume, if you will. Be disappointed how much you would like to be, however, the images will not damage your or anyone else's daughter. The picture is also in no way offensive, or should be considered offensive to Hannah Montana fans because she is not portrayed as Hannah Montana in the picture. For the most part that is what people are trying to explain.I'm glad my daughter hasn't made a big deal about it. Whether this remains true, only time will tell. But I hope it does.This does not change, however, my disappointment over this story. And it doesn't change my disagreement with those that believe I should at best refrain from making judgment, and at worst, be at fault myself for allowing my daughters to buy into the Miley Cyrus persona being marketed to them.
I understand what you are saying; I just continue to disagree with the bolded parts:1. As I have stated several times, those who market themselves to young children bear a level of responsiblity to those children, something that is really not applicable to any other category of artist. I would not try to define the level of that responsibility, but it is there, at least IMO. I realize you disagree.Nobody has ever said you did not have the right to be disappointed. Nobody has said you should not disagree with the actions taken by Miley. Nobody has said you do not have the right to pass judgement on Miley for her recent actions, be them appropriate for her or not.What people have argued are some statements you have made concerning the responsibility Miley has or should have towards your children. She has zero responsibility for your children nor should you, or others, claim her to have responsibility. Others have also argued that you appear to have put a financial investment as well as an emotional investment into the Hannah Montana image. Your investment into that image has maintained a level after the pictures as well as it was before the pictures. Why? . Because the image of Hannah Montana was not sold to your children in the new Vanity Fair magazineI'm glad my daughter hasn't made a big deal about it. Whether this remains true, only time will tell. But I hope it does.This does not change, however, my disappointment over this story. And it doesn't change my disagreement with those that believe I should at best refrain from making judgment, and at worst, be at fault myself for allowing my daughters to buy into the Miley Cyrus persona being marketed to them.No where have I said, stated, claimed, or even proclaimed to be a child rearing expert. If my advice to you and others concerning 'how to' or 'how to make' the situation better told your mind that I was acting as an expert, than so be it because I can not change your interpretations of things. With that said, your arrogance as to you being or you being a better ideal for a parent because you were able to get a woman pregnant is a pretty immature argument. My work, literature, practices, knowledge all lend to the sound advice that I have offered here. I was attempting to make light of the situation by calming the fears of some and how they thought their kids were affected by this picture incident. As evidenced by tim's admittance with his child shrugging it off seems to follow the 'advice' I offered. Not make a big deal about it and it only becomes a big deal if the parent makes it into one first.
The Vanity Fair article has to do with Miley Cyrus and I know that her latest CD involves the Miley Cyrus name but maybe, just maybe, the Miley Cyrus image is going to be a more grown up image when compared to Hannah Montana. Both certainly have a different persona as well as costume, if you will. Be disappointed how much you would like to be, however, the images will not damage your or anyone else's daughter. The picture is also in no way offensive, or should be considered offensive to Hannah Montana fans because she is not portrayed as Hannah Montana in the picture. For the most part that is what people are trying to explain.
There have been several of us with young girls that have expressed some level of disappointment at Miley. Your answer has been that we shouldn't be and then you proceed to give advice while laughing at us. If you think this is an effective way to give advice, don't be surprised as people continue to ignore you.If any random poster would have said something like this: "Duck, I hear ya, man. That was pretty stupid of Miley and I'd be upset with her too. Here's what I might do if I were in your situation with your children." I'd, at least, listen. You, in particular, have not demonstrated any level of empathy, perception, knowledge, or understanding of the issue. Thus, your advice cannot add value to my particular situation.
I understand what you are saying; I just continue to disagree with the bolded parts:1. As I have stated several times, those who market themselves to young children bear a level of responsiblity to those children, something that is really not applicable to any other category of artist. I would not try to define the level of that responsibility, but it is there, at least IMO. I realize you disagree.Nobody has ever said you did not have the right to be disappointed. Nobody has said you should not disagree with the actions taken by Miley. Nobody has said you do not have the right to pass judgement on Miley for her recent actions, be them appropriate for her or not.What people have argued are some statements you have made concerning the responsibility Miley has or should have towards your children. She has zero responsibility for your children nor should you, or others, claim her to have responsibility. Others have also argued that you appear to have put a financial investment as well as an emotional investment into the Hannah Montana image. Your investment into that image has maintained a level after the pictures as well as it was before the pictures. Why? . Because the image of Hannah Montana was not sold to your children in the new Vanity Fair magazineI'm glad my daughter hasn't made a big deal about it. Whether this remains true, only time will tell. But I hope it does.This does not change, however, my disappointment over this story. And it doesn't change my disagreement with those that believe I should at best refrain from making judgment, and at worst, be at fault myself for allowing my daughters to buy into the Miley Cyrus persona being marketed to them.No where have I said, stated, claimed, or even proclaimed to be a child rearing expert. If my advice to you and others concerning 'how to' or 'how to make' the situation better told your mind that I was acting as an expert, than so be it because I can not change your interpretations of things. With that said, your arrogance as to you being or you being a better ideal for a parent because you were able to get a woman pregnant is a pretty immature argument. My work, literature, practices, knowledge all lend to the sound advice that I have offered here. I was attempting to make light of the situation by calming the fears of some and how they thought their kids were affected by this picture incident. As evidenced by tim's admittance with his child shrugging it off seems to follow the 'advice' I offered. Not make a big deal about it and it only becomes a big deal if the parent makes it into one first.
The Vanity Fair article has to do with Miley Cyrus and I know that her latest CD involves the Miley Cyrus name but maybe, just maybe, the Miley Cyrus image is going to be a more grown up image when compared to Hannah Montana. Both certainly have a different persona as well as costume, if you will. Be disappointed how much you would like to be, however, the images will not damage your or anyone else's daughter. The picture is also in no way offensive, or should be considered offensive to Hannah Montana fans because she is not portrayed as Hannah Montana in the picture. For the most part that is what people are trying to explain.
2. It's not just the current CD. From the very beginning of the Hannah Montana show, Miley Cyrus has been part of the package being marketed. Had she chosen to keep Miley Cyrus a private figure, as most child stars do, I would have no right to complain about the Vanity Fair photos, because you're right, it's not Hannah Montana. She did not make this choice.
3. Therefore, the photos are offensive. They show a girl whose only claim to fame was to market herself to young children in a sexual situation. Again, if she had announced she was quitting the HM show, and going to pursue an adult career, I would have no problem with it; I've been expecting such a move for some time. But to make these photos at the same time as she is marketing herself as Miley Cyrus to my kids? Not acceptable. The responsibility is there.
Well said. The line of thought here keeps getting better. It's unfortunate you've had to repeat yourself so much. to Duff. to Miley.
Fighting Duck, your posts here have been excellent and I agree 100%.I understand what you are saying; I just continue to disagree with the bolded parts:1. As I have stated several times, those who market themselves to young children bear a level of responsiblity to those children, something that is really not applicable to any other category of artist. I would not try to define the level of that responsibility, but it is there, at least IMO. I realize you disagree.Nobody has ever said you did not have the right to be disappointed. Nobody has said you should not disagree with the actions taken by Miley. Nobody has said you do not have the right to pass judgement on Miley for her recent actions, be them appropriate for her or not.What people have argued are some statements you have made concerning the responsibility Miley has or should have towards your children. She has zero responsibility for your children nor should you, or others, claim her to have responsibility. Others have also argued that you appear to have put a financial investment as well as an emotional investment into the Hannah Montana image. Your investment into that image has maintained a level after the pictures as well as it was before the pictures. Why? . Because the image of Hannah Montana was not sold to your children in the new Vanity Fair magazineI'm glad my daughter hasn't made a big deal about it. Whether this remains true, only time will tell. But I hope it does.This does not change, however, my disappointment over this story. And it doesn't change my disagreement with those that believe I should at best refrain from making judgment, and at worst, be at fault myself for allowing my daughters to buy into the Miley Cyrus persona being marketed to them.
The Vanity Fair article has to do with Miley Cyrus and I know that her latest CD involves the Miley Cyrus name but maybe, just maybe, the Miley Cyrus image is going to be a more grown up image when compared to Hannah Montana. Both certainly have a different persona as well as costume, if you will. Be disappointed how much you would like to be, however, the images will not damage your or anyone else's daughter. The picture is also in no way offensive, or should be considered offensive to Hannah Montana fans because she is not portrayed as Hannah Montana in the picture. For the most part that is what people are trying to explain.
2. It's not just the current CD. From the very beginning of the Hannah Montana show, Miley Cyrus has been part of the package being marketed. Had she chosen to keep Miley Cyrus a private figure, as most child stars do, I would have no right to complain about the Vanity Fair photos, because you're right, it's not Hannah Montana. She did not make this choice.
3. Therefore, the photos are offensive. They show a girl whose only claim to fame was to market herself to young children in a sexual situation. Again, if she had announced she was quitting the HM show, and going to pursue an adult career, I would have no problem with it; I've been expecting such a move for some time. But to make these photos at the same time as she is marketing herself as Miley Cyrus to my kids? Not acceptable. The responsibility is there.
I'd add something about why the responsibility is there. For the 25 years following 1970, network TV got worse for kids. There is nothing for kids to watch in primetime anymore. Very few good movies were available for families. Video games became violent. You can say let the kids play outside, but kids can't run the streets til the lamps come on anymore. It's the backyard or being there at the park with them. The available options for safe, G-rated entertainment became pretty slim.
Disney really revived itself in the mid-90s and many other followed suit. The whole idea was to creat a boundry between child and adult entertainment. It was a clear and very much articulated promise to parents. Not just veiwable entertainment. But themeparks were safe and clean. Employees there had the highest level of background checks, etc. Chuck-E-Chees stamps the kids hands and only lets thier parents take them out of there. The point is that parents had a need for safe, family-freindly leisure options. The market provided it. (I love capitalism.)
Anyway, this is the history that Miley operates in. She has to pick which side of entertainment she wants to be on. I agree with tim. Had she said, I'm leaving Disney and six moths later starts popping up in photo shoots. No problems. Hillary Duff did that. Left the Lizzie Macquire show and about a year later shows up in Maxim magazine. My older daughter liked Hillary Duff, and the Maxim thing never bothered me. I chuckled a little as she tried to remake her image (of, course she was 19 when she did this). And she might just succeed with a couple of movies and more mature sounding CD coming out.
to Duff.
to Miley.
What you and your family do is of no consequence to me.I'll reserve judgment until after I review the list.Do you believe these things are OK, and that we should expose our young children to them? Am I being repressive in not wanting my 7 and 5 year old to know about this stuff?Somehow, this has gotten lost in all of the morailstic controversy. Can we get a table of contents, here? PM if necessary. kthxbye [/hijack]HiWelcome to the year 2008. Lets make sure a few things are clear:
Teenagers have LOTS of sex these days
kids aren't held to the same puritanical modesty as previous generations
kids actually have colored bracelets they wear to show off which sex acts they've performed...this has been going on for years
She is showing her shoulder...oooooo, put your corset back on young lady
Go to a local bar/club and check out what most kids wear out these days...if your 20th century virgin eyes can take it
Hollywood is as Hollywood does...that has always been the case, just ask shirley temple
it is easy to say this when you do not have a daughter or a kidno, but when i do i am not going to raise her to be ashamed of sex or sexuality. I'll try to teach her to be smart about her body, be aware of the situations she puts herself in, and also about actions and their consequences. But, if she happens to be considered beautiful by society, i am not going to make feel ashamed or embarrassed about it. If she chooses to use her beauty to her advantage, she just needs to understand the consequences of those actions. And if she's a troll, i'll just send her to an ivy league schoolI'm guessing you probably don't have a young daughter.Hi
Teenagers have LOTS of sex these days
kids aren't held to the same puritanical modesty as previous generations
kids actually have colored bracelets they wear to show off which sex acts they've performed...this has been going on for years
She is showing her shoulder...oooooo, put your corset back on young lady
Go to a local bar/club and check out what most kids wear out these days...if your 20th century virgin eyes can take it
Hollywood is as Hollywood does...that has always been the case, just ask shirley temple
There is a certain amount of elitism to it. But to be fair, most of the people who have argued with me, Fighting Duck, and others on this thread have done so not out of any desire to tell us how to raise our children, but instead out of a resistance to moral judgments always being thrust in their faces. It's sort of a version of the boy cried wolf: the Christian Right has done so much to antagonize secular people in this country with their constant "any kind of sexuality is immoral", that it makes some want to resist making any kind of judgment at all in these situations, and finding ways to criticize those who do. Obviously, I think they're wrong in this situation and some others, but you can understand what motivates them.
Do you apply this philosophy to every area of life?(at people without children giving parenting tips)
Embrace Hate
Also in the news, Elvis shakes his hips.
For the upteenth time, he wasn't performing for little children. And it's not the same, anyhow.
I think she's trying to move into an Avril Lavigne type mode.
Yeah, but that's not even the part that bothers me the most, to be honest. In the past, all of her songs that I've heard have been positive messages for my children, and I didn't mind them singing the lyrics to themselves. But I don't want my daughters singing about the things they hate. We try to teach them proper manners, how it's rude to use that word-it's not a bad word, but not polite to use it for other people.
