If Miley was appearing at some swanky premiere with a backless dress, no-one would be making such a fuss. From what I’ve read elsewhere, it sounds like it was incorrectly reported that she was topless in the photos, and then it snowballed from there.

First, I don’t think the responses to mostwanted123 have gotten out of hand. At least no one called his/her posts “stupid” with nothing to support the insult.

Now, I always welcome comments, even criticisms, provided they are intelligent. With that said, this is an opinion piece, not a research paper. Therefore, it’s obviously going to have an angle, a bias, a slant. I’m not just reporting the facts. The comments about Annie Leibovitz, however, are closer to pure fact than they are pure opinion. I stated that she is “arguably currently the best photographer in the world,” which you misquoted to sound like rabid fanboyism.

Additionally, “seriousness” comes in many forms. Consider political cartoons in your morning paper. You’re supposed to appreciate the point they’re making and not the caricatures or artwork. The same can be said for opinion pieces. If you disagree with the point of the article, then state as much. We’d love to read your take on it.

What you shouldn’t do is skim through an article looking for things not to like and then misrepresenting the article to the world. That doesn’t add anything to the discourse and takes away your credibility.

I would not call the photo tasteful. I don’t even know why people bother using that word. Apparently if it’s not someone bending over or exposing themself playboy style with their legs wide open then it’s considered tasteful. Can there really be such a thing as a tasteful nude shot of a 15 year old girl ..?

As to what you said about ‘in the eye of the beholder’, if that was Annie’s intention, do you really think that a photographer should be using a 15 year old in that way?
Of course the whole art vs porn thing is an individual thing, but it is utterly inappropriate to use a child to explore this subject.

edit: Oh and by the way, I’ve not read all of the actual article yet. I started reading it (and fully intend to finish it and consider his/her points) but from the very start it’s clear that the writer very much likes the photo and appears to be a rabid Annie Leibovitz fan, actually calling her the best photographer in the world when s/he introduces her.
Hardly objective, are they?

I think if someone wants to make a serious article about it they should stick to the facts and not use flowery words and phrases like “that just sucks”

Personally, I am not a fan of either.

You believe the article makes no sense…why? You don’t even give a reason to support your argument. It’s just: “The article was stupid. Your analogies are wrong. Nice try.” Uh…ok, what was so wrong with the analogies? The whole “controversy” is about her age, which shouldn’t make THAT much of a difference. What the writer of this article is trying to convey is that things that are considered “provocative” or “indecent” are interpreted by each individual. It’s only inappropriate if you see it that way.

You’re right, the picture doesn’t make her look “fabulous”, because it’s meant to be artistic…she’s in bed, it’s kind of the point. <.< But that’s not the point of the article, nor the controversy. Again, what the writer is saying is that you SHOULD compare a backless dress or swimsuit with that photo, because the IDEA of it being wrong is in the eyes of the beholder. Perverts (and honestly…aren’t all teenage boys pervs, in their own way? ) will think she’s sexy, others will think she’s not, while some won’t give a damn…I’m with the latter.

Now, uh, my thoughts…

I agree with this article wholeheartedly. People are getting way too upset about this. She posed for a (tasteful) photo…what’s the big deal? It was meant to draw attention to Miley (both good…and bad :\) and it succeed.

She chose to be a part of it and if she REALLY didn’t want to, she could have just said no…like any reasonable person would if they felt it was too revealing, uncomfortable, etc.

The analogy isn’t supposed to compare two same things; it’s supposed to compare two similar things that share intrinsic values. With that said, I’ll speak my point plainly, because working with analogies is obviously too much for you: If it’s OK to see a child in the same manner as it is to see an adult (bare back exposed), why does the same person as a teen suddenly “regress” into this taboo subject? Furthermore, if Miley were dressed in a swimsuit, which would decidedly reveal more than in her VF spread, would people care?

Once again, this is a case of the viewer having the problem.

If X, happend: “Awww! How precious!” (Nobody really cares about seeing a naked baby)

If Z, happened, then yes, because they are of age.

If Y, happened, everybody would question it. It’s not just with this.

Think back to when you saw your parents watching a movie that was scary. “You’d have nightmares. Wait until you’re older.” Yet, you’d try it out to see if they were right (end up scarred for life, but you found out, right?)

This is the case with Miley. I don’t think this will scar her for life; however, look at the “graduation” of pics and compare them to the “graduations” of sex and violence in movies. (which the article also points out.)

And didn’t Blair, Shields, Fanning all raise eyebrows with their questionable roles that were given to them? (Blair: Foul mouthed demon; Shields: A prostitute; Fanning: a very young victim of rape. Yet, they all came out okay despite it being fake and that they obviously had to be “manipulated” (as in coached) to portray it realistically because I’m sure they couldn’t have been able to wrap their brains around what they had to do.)

Now, those films were like middle/highschool films compared to now whereas all those stars had to be or portray themselves as “college graduates” (Miley undergarment myspace pics)

Now, fast foward twenty years! Casting directors “manipulate” their candidates into a certain role. The director “manipulates” them into making the action given believable: (Running and screaming usually if it’s a horror. thriller or combo)

The Miley Lolita pic.

Sometimes age does come into question; however, if they can’t find the right age for the part, they work around. (Make it seem like you’re older when you’re younger or vice-versa)

Sometimes it’s sex rather than violence. Here, it’s more the natural body than it’s movements! Now, some actresses have cluases in their contracts that they’ll only do semi-nude (Miley Lolita) or completely nude if they aren’t exposed and the camera crew understands this.

I’ve seen teens in films Miley’s age who do such actions, but as I said, whether clause or not they know better as it’s either partial or full, but IMPLIED nudity.

So, the next film (not a porno) that exposes that natural bodies of teens (which will usually be implied unless consent is given), let’s have an uproar! Right! Let’s sue everybody involved, but the actor who was “victimized.” Give me a break!

So, if Miley was supposed naked in the VF pic, I guess Sharon Stone had on no underwear in the famous “cross knee over the other, smoke and talk” scene in Basic Instinct? However, she older. Makes you wonder.