
I suspect that I'm one of many who has wondered about all the hooplah surrounding the Miley Cyrus photos for Vanity Fair photos. I saw them and thought...meh, so what? Whether she's topless or not (those involved claim she isn't), she's not showing any of the bits or pieces the law forbids us from seeings, so what's the big deal? I saw girls her age and younger at the beach showing way more skin (and only barely covering those "forbidden bits") just last week.
The other "scandalous" photos of Miley that have been popping up on the Internet over the past few months have looked like nothing more than a teenager goofing off with her friends. I didn't see the faux lesbian kisses or sexual connotations that all the other busybodies so quickly pointed out. I saw a kid being a kid. Big deal. If she had pulled a full-on Vanessa Hudgens, that would be different (though still well within the realm of typical teenage misbehavior), but the photos have been pretty tame.
So I've ignored this non-issue and blathered on about other stuff. And then I happened across this blurb today (a New York Times blog post from April 29):
QUOTE
Last night, I decided to show the Vanity Fair photo to my daughter, because I knew she’d eventually hear about it from friends. Her reaction was what I expected from a third grader. “Mom, she doesn’t look that good,'’ she told me.
I agree, but for different reasons. To my daughter, Ms. Cyrus just looks unkempt without the trademark cute clothes and hair she sports on the Disney show “Hannah Montana.” But to me, the photo of a 15-year-old wrapped in a bed sheet with tousled hair has a disturbing Lolita quality.
source
I agree, but for different reasons. To my daughter, Ms. Cyrus just looks unkempt without the trademark cute clothes and hair she sports on the Disney show “Hannah Montana.” But to me, the photo of a 15-year-old wrapped in a bed sheet with tousled hair has a disturbing Lolita quality.
source
And I realized that I hadn't thought about it from the perspective of Miley being wrapped in a bed sheet looking like she just went a round in the sack. That angle didn't even occur to me - and I'm usually way ahead of the perv-curve. Either I'm off my game or I just don't have a knack for interpreting innocent (to my eyes) photos of young girls this way.
Unfortunately, now that this perspective has been mentioned...that's all I will be seeing as this photo is shoved in my face again and again by the media. Thanks, you New York Times bastards.
And in other Miley-related news, Hef is already wooing her to be the celeb-mishap-of-the-month when she turns 18.
QUOTE
Playboy editor Hugh Hefner says Miley Cyrus will be "welcomed in the magazine" when she's of legal age. Hefner, 82, told Extra that the 15-year-old Hannah Montana star is a "very pretty lady."
source
source
Damn, Hef's a creepy old guy.
On a non-Miley related note, does anyone else remember the many Brooke Shields advertising campaigns, movies, etc from her childhood? She was way better looking than Miley will ever be and was posed in one sexual pose after another. Yet...there was no outcry. I guess it's a good thing she wasn't on PBS's Electric Company (or whatever the popular tween show of the day was).
