« Only In America | Main | I've Done Seen About Everything... »

Tuesday, April 29, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nice post! Seems you are calling the wrong person idiot. You may want to take a good look in the mirror.....WTF EVER!!
Have a great evening stewing about this. hahaha

forgot who it to.....I think everyone knew.

I don't regret one word of my post. The comments about Culley's photo ARE offensive, even if they were preceded by a "no offense intended" remark.

And yeah, if you look at those photos of Miley and the only thing you see is a slutty teenager who's just been "f*cked" (as it was so indelicately put) then you are a Philistine, a Neanderthal and an idiot. If the shoe fits, wear it.

By the way... Valerie, if you want to make a comment aimed specifically at me, try using my name. It's Lori. And I get offended when I see Linda and/or her family being insulted without reason. The comments made about Culley were OVER the line.

Yep...Let's all shake hands, put this one to rest, and get ready for a fun AI recap!

No, you didn't speak too soon.

The subject just touched a nerve in people, and the opinions happen to be wildly divergent.

DGMS is a family. And God knows, I don't always agree with everyone in mine.

Don't worry - I'll lighten things up tonight. Neil Diamond on AI. Dreads is singing Forever in Blue Jeans, Brooke is doing I'm A Believer - ought to be good for a few laughs...(oh, they all sing TWO songs tonight. Pack a lunch, people.)

People are so complex and life's experiences so vastly varied, that getting one's self in high dudgeon over another's beliefs (or strong statements about those beliefs) is really pointless. This is an interesting and mostly fun place to share perspectives.

Lori in TX, the intensity of your post ("rant," as you described it) surprises me given your normal level-headedness, but your opinions are borne of your experiences, and I choose not to be offended by your viewpoint, although I disagree with most of it.

Sonia in MO, you don't have to accept any labels for believing what you believe. Unless, of course, someone is calling you something nice. :-)

I agree Anke. It's unfortunate that one can ruin it for the rest. It's happened before on Linda's blog and with the same 'very opinonated' person. Who seems to not have any problem giving her opinion, but sure takes offense. If Linda were offended I'm sure she would let the person know. But she said:
"As always I appreciate the civility, respect, and passion which go into the thoughtful discourses taking place at DGMS.

We don't have to agree. But the freedom to not agree and not be castigated for it is pretty rare - especially on the Internet."

Thank you Linda, I agree totally.

What bothers me is that just ealier today I was bragging to a friend about how on this blog, no one bashes anyone else for their opinions and how you can always find intelligent conversations on a variety of topics. Maybe I spoke too soon?

Art is in the eye of the beholder, and although I think these photos are not the best way to portray a young beautiful teenager, it's not my opinion that drives the media or society. We all have our opinions of what is OK, what is "a little over the top," and what is totally unacceptable. That's the beauty of America. We don't all have to agree, and as my late Papaw used to say, "It's a good thing we're not all looking for the same things in life, because there wouldn't be enough of it to go around!"

I know I'm old-fashioned, and I'm proud of it. I consider myself well educated and open-minded, but when it comes to children growing up too fast or being portrayed in a way that might lead SOME people to thinking the wrong way about their "beauty," I'm definitely a prude. No Doritos. No couch. Just a computer, a career, a family, and an opinion.

And NO offense intended toward Linda, Rudy, and their beautiful daughters. If it's cool with Culley and her loving, protective parents, my opinion doesn't matter the least little bit.

that was supposed to be "as" I did and Sonia did, not "and" - - just pretty upset right now and not proof-reading....

You know, I've read alot of what you've written here, and respected your knowledge on a lot of topics we've discussed, but right now, I'm really disappointed in you. And you did notice that a LOT of people felt the same way about the pictures and I did and Sonia did, so what give you the right to call ALL of us idiots? And as far as hat is "art" it's in the eye of the beholder. I don't recall anybody calling you names when you posted your original comments.

"if all you see is nasty, degrading pornography when you look at a beautiful photograph of a beautiful woman, then you have some serious issues." But I did not see a photo of a beautiful woman. I saw a photo of a beautiful CHILD. There is a HUGE difference there. A few weeks ago there were photos of Lindsey Lohan posing nude in reminisance of some Marilyn Monroe photos. I did not give them much thought, even though they were also considered art, because Lindsay is 21 and of legal age to do what she wants. Not 15. I can appreciate art as much as the next person. But with all due respect, I do have serious issues when this comes to children, especially in TODAY's world. So I guess I'll just have to accept the "idiot neanderthal" label and live with it.

And I'm not eating Dorito's or sitting on a couch, I have a college education and a professional career, thank you very much.

Well, I don't appreciate your comments and I don't think I'm a gutter mind for seeing what I think most people see. She's a teen for God's sake. I posted earlier that the picture Ann took of Angelina Jolie, which was backless as well, was fine, Angie's an adult.
And so you see what YOU see, but if we disagree, then we're all a bunch of old fashioned, uncultured, what was it - Philistines. Neanderthals. Idiots. I don't appreciate being called an IDIOT because I don't happen to agree with you.

Way to go Lori ! Like I said earlier, I had to go back and look again but I still didn't see "sexy" or JBF'ed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions - I just wish I was brave enough to express mine like Lori did - but I still think some people just look for issues where there are none.

When I first heard about it (in a doctor's waiting room, listening to the nursing staff discussing it) I thought, "Oh great. Another Britney, another Lindsay." I thought Linda's article yesterday was very convincing as to it's being no big deal. Still, if my 15-year old daughter (which she will be in a few years) posed with a tousled, where's-my-post-coital-cigarette look like that for mass, public consumption, I'd be changing her outlook on life real quick.

I don't know what happened to my post, but I'll try again. Don't apologize for your sentiments or blame it on PMS-ing. I happen to agree with everything you said, from being old-fashion, wanting a child's innocence to last as long as it can, for them to enjoy being a kid and not knowing the ugliness of the world out there. And all the people I've discussed this with, some who are parents, some have no kids, all seem to agree. The picture was meant to be sexy, and to sell magazines. And Ann L and supporters hiding behind the "it's art" is a bunch of crap - - didn't we just have a Yale art student try to do that with her "art"?

I said it yesterday and I'll say it again - I don't see what the freaking fuss is all about. And what I *do* see is a whole lot of people with their nasty minds in the gutter. It's disgusting.

I look at the photo of Miley Cyrus and I see a pretty young girl with mussed-up hair, posing for a highly artistic photographer. I do NOT see a pretty young girl who's just had a "roll in the hay" (or as one other person put it - JBFed). I swear, some people are just Philistines. Neanderthals. Idiots.

Does no one appreciate ART anymore? Do you look at incredible masterpieces by Degas, Botticelli, DaVinci, Cezanne, Renoir, Raphael, Monet, et. al. and see only PORNOGRAPHY??? What the hell is wrong with some of you? The human body is beautiful and it should be celebrated and admired in ALL its forms.

Miley Cyrus wasn't showing any boobs or pubes in those photos - every single picture was tasteful. But that's not good enough... some people are only happy if she's wearing a knee-length Simpsons t-shirt or a friggin' burqua. Is that it?

And as for the comments about Culley's pageant photo - PLEASE. "Implied" nudity???? And that the photo "implied" that Culley was "very comfortable" being nude??? WTF!!!!! I didn't look at that photo and think, "Oh my God, she's bare-assed nekkid below the frame of that camera!!! And, wow, she must pose nekkid A LOT!" Culley is a gorgeous, intelligent, accomplished, talented young woman - she would no sooner pose nude than her mom and dad would allow it. Yeah, I'm pissed off about this and I'm not afraid to speak out. I won't sit back quietly and see people I care deeply about being insulted. I know Linda welcomes all disagreements, but I think some of it has gone way too far.

After reading all the comments on both blogs about Miley (and Culley), I have to repeat this - GET YOUR MINDS OUT OF THE GUTTER. Or, better yet, put down the bag of Doritos, get your "old-fashioned" butts off of your sofas and head for an art museum - open your eyes and take a peek at a Botticelli painting, or a Renoir, or a Raphael. Or take an art history class - or a Drawing class. Learn about ART and what it involves. ART is not pornography - and if all you see is nasty, degrading pornography when you look at a beautiful photograph of a beautiful woman, then you have some serious issues. I promise you that your eyes aren't going to burn out of your skull if you look at an attractive, bare-shouldered woman with mussy hair posing for a work of art, whether that are be on canvas or on film.

And if I have offended anyone with my personal opinions and comments, then tough toenails. I couldn't let this go without a response... and I don't feel like being all nicey-nice politically-correct about it right now. I'm pissed as hell.

End of rant.

OK...one last question, pretty much off the current subject. What's the significance of the string around Culley's wrist? It seems rather out of place in an otherwise "a naturale" photo. I'm sure there must be a story behind it.

OK...one last question, pretty much off the current subject, but something I've wondered about since I first saw Culley's pageant photo. What's the significance of the string around her wrist? Looks really out of place in an otherwise "elegantly natural" photo. I'm sure there must be a story behind it and a reason she chose to include it.

Ladies: Don't apologize for your comments or blame in on PMSing - I was just going to post that I agreed TOTALLY with Sonia and her comments about this photo and being old fashion, and wanting kids to be kids and enjoy it for as long as they can and NOT have to know the ugliness that's out there. And most every person I've talked to about this, whether they have kids or not, agree. You can hide behind call this "art" but wasn't that the same thing that Yale student was trying to do? It's sex and it sells magazines.

Was the picture vulgar and disgusting? No. But was it necessary? No. It portrayed of a 15-year old girl exactly what it would portray of most any female wrapped in a satin bedsheet - "I just rolled out of bed and I wasn't alone there."

It just wasn't necessary, and they had to know what shit-storm they would stir with it, and they went forward with it because of it/despite it.

Interesting thought - a friend of mine owns an ad agency, and I was asking him about what he thought of this pic. His response? "I wonder if Annie Lebowitz just got a new publicist?" This is the second provacative photo shoot she's done in the last few weeks. The other was the Lebron James/King Kong - Giselle Bunsgen/Fay Wray cover that raised a furor over whether they were trying to compare a black man to an ape.

Good point, Julie G. There are so many other ways Miley could have been shown in an "artistic" way, so why even push it? This whole thing reminds me of those old Calvin Klein commercials with the teens in provocative positions.

I agree with Sonia.....I'm probably PMSing too!
I think that 15 is too young to be posing for a photo like that. How about waiting a few years....like maybe when she's 18.
I also agree with Julie's statement that what's implied is often sexier than what's seen and that's my problem with the photo. 15 yearolds shouldn't be made to look like sex objects. And look at the outcome...Miley is upset over the picture. Nothing like putting more pressure on a kid that's already carrying a heavy load!

I don't think the picute of Culley is bad at all. If you look at the other pageant photos, her's is very tame. At least she isn't wearing enough makeup for an avon convention like alot of the others. My daughter did pageants from 3-7 and when she went to nationals when she was 5 I couldn't belive the photos that were submitted of these girls. My daughter work a little mascara and that was about it...these girls had on more makeup than I would ever wear and they were 3 - 5 years old. Talk about feeding dirty minds... there is no way a picture like that is "innocent" in some people's minds, but those moms just didn't see anything wrong with it.
OK, done ranting now...going back to work.

Sorry about the previous rant... (note to self - do not post about sensitive subjects when PMS'ing...lol...) I'm going to go knock back an extra-large diet Coke and a few tylenol and look forward to the AI recap tonight... it's Tuesday, isn't it?? :) :) :)

I agree with KelBel that it's not really the amount of skin, but rather the "roll in the sack" pose that kind of turns me off. That's not really the image that Miley has tried to project thus far, so I'm surprised that she and her parents OK'd this photo. Artistic? Perhaps. But I think the subject is a bit young to be taking this kind of "artistic" liberties with. Why not a dramatic (but fully dressed) shot of her hair blowing in the wind as she looks out over the ocean? My son (8) is a Hannah Montana fan, and I suspect his comment would be something like "Who would take a picture of her in her bed with no clothes on?" or "Why didn't they let her at least comb her hair first?" I don't think he's old enough to get the "sexual" connotation out of it, but as a mother I think it's a little too risque for a 15-year-old whose image you're trying to keep G-rated. Is this "controversial" photo going to taint her career? Of course not. But I don't think it was a wise choice.

And...don't hang me for this one. I think Culley is a gorgeous, fresh-faced girl and from what I've read of her personality and accomplishments, she sounds like a fantastic, well-balanced, confident young lady. Her bare-shouldered photo was certainly stunning, and her healthy skin, innocent expression, and breath-taking blue eyes are to die for...but this 40-year-old Mom would still like to have seen some spaghetti straps on those shoulders! Nothing was "showing," but sometimes what is IMPLIED is even sexier than what is actually SEEN, and that photo IMPLIED that she was nude (and very comfortable being so).

(Yes, I know I'm a prude. I sleep in flannel pajamas and don't let my kid play video games, drink soda, or have hard candy. Just old-fashioned, I guess.)

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned... and I guess this subject has hit kind of a tough spot for me this week. I just hate to see ANY kid have to grow up too fast, and lately it seems like that's all you hear about. My fifteen-year-old niece got into BIG trouble this week because she was not at the appointed-place-at-appointed-time for pickup by her grandfather after school - turns out she had walked down the street with her best friend to the local drugstore to pick up a PREGNANCY test for the friend. Pregnancy Tests? At FIFTEEN? When the heck did THAT happen? I think that is what bothers me so much - yes, I know kids can be sexually active at that age and it's been going on for years - I'm not totally in the dark ages - but at fifteen I was still thinking about when I'd get my first kiss, not whether I'd have to worry about having a baby. It just seems like kids are losing thier innocence at a younger and younger age these days - and I'm not talking about virginity. At one of the public schools here a group of third graders were caught having ORAL SEX on the playground. These are NINE year olds. NINE! Why the hell do these kids even know about this stuff at that age?? Why do they have to be exposed to this on television and radio and in music...Oh, I could go on and on and on - this is one of my major soapboxes.

I have a two year old. She's smart, precocious, animated, loving, gorgeous... and I will spend the rest of my life protecting this child and watching out for her and doing every thing I can to keep her life safe and innocent for as long as I can. The fact is it can be an ugly world out there and I don't want her growing up any faster than she has to - even though at times it may be out of my hands. And as her parent, and one who knows about the ugliness out there, I would never let a picture of my child be put out there in public that was so provocative that you know some asshole pedophile is going to be jacking off while looking at it. Even if the photo was taken by a world famous photographer. (Because let's face it - if this same photo had NOT been taken by a world-famous-photographer, and was snapped by her uncle Bubba Ray at home in Kentucky, the public would NOT be claiming this photo was artistic. ) As her parent, I just could not do it. But again, maybe I'm just old-fashioned... I would not want my daughter going from Play-doh to posing like that in 12 years. It just makes me feel, well, sad... to think about it. And disillusioned. And even more determined to protect the innocence as long as I can.

I don't find the amount, or lack there of, of skin shown offensive at all. You can't see a thing that is offensive. BUT, I don't understand why people would want to set up a scene where a 15 year old girl looks like she woke up naked after a, ahem, "good time". That's the part that I find weird. All in all though, these pics don't affect my life or my kids, it's a stupid thing to get all worked up about imo. I'm actually quite sure my 11 yr old daughter (who is a fan) wouldn't think anything of them, I think it's adults that question it.

I worked in the entertainment industry, specifically in publicity and I can tell you one thing. In almost all cases, the celebrity has final say about what shots can be used from a photo shoot. They often ask for airbrushing, etc... That said, you cannot tell me that her mother as her manager did not get a look at the pics before they went to print. I am not buying that. Besides the fact, I find nothing wrong with the pictures at all. I can't believe it is making news.

Miley and Hannah are known in my household, but no one could be counted as fans. My daughter (14) really doesn't like the intense focus and publicity that Miley gets and complained when she got to sing TWO numbers at Idol Gives Back. But at 14 she has risen past the target age that the Disney Channel goes after.
The situation with Miley fascinates me on a certain level because she is so young and yet is the bride sitting on the billion dollar wedding cake that Disney has constructed. Disney has been developing the phenom of Hannah Montana for years as they have learned from the molding of the careers of their other young stars, Shia LeBouf, Hillary Duff, and Raven - just to name a few. Yes, Britney was in the Mickey Mouse Club, but she was under the Disney umbrella for a very short time period and it was before the studio had their other ancillary markets in place. All of this is to say that if DISNEY viewed the photos as inappropriate, then they would never have seen the light of day. When Miley was cast for Hannah Montana, the studio was well aware that she was not being cast just for a TV show on the channel.

Annie Liebowitz is an exceptional photographer. She makes everyone look sexy. You could have a wart on your nose and Liebowitz would still be able to make you look like serious Angelina Jolie competition. Oh, what I wouldn't give to have Annie photograph me!!

They call them "flyers" for a reason - its so they can fly out of your magazine - someone will pick them up and subscribe, they think that someone will pick one up and subscribe??? Anyone out there ever subscribed from one of those? Really - Vanity Fair puts about 20 of those in their own magazine - they have A LOT of advertisers too, but it makes the magazine very inexpensive - my subscription is only $1 an issue, and People gets about $3 - what I really hate is the SMELL, when you group 30 perfume inserts together, it is overbearing - (Vanity Fair is the only one I subscribe to that doesn't let you request the magazine without the perfume inserts). I don't wear perfume because the odor always begins to stink (to me) after about an hour, I can't wait to wash it off - and I HATE when other women wear so much you can smell them 10 minutes before they arrive....we have a NO PERFUME/COLOGNE rule here at work. I also have to let my VF breathe for a few days before I can pick it up....am I rambling?

Always wondered why the plastic cover - that makes perfect sense! What I don't get is why the 4,000 plus inserts are to subscribe to Vanity Fair and I'm already getting it!!!!

I seem to remember the same argument was cast for Brittney's first video... hair in pigtails, half naked prancing around...and everyone said then..."oh you see much more than that on the beach"... well we know how well she turned out, don't we?!

The chances that the tweens who worship Miley actually see the photo in VF are slim. However, the parents of these same tweens, are more likely to see it. Since they are the ones to fork over the big bucks for concert tickets, cd's, etc., why take the chance of alienating them with a questionable photo?

I subscribe to Vanity Fair, People and Birds and Blooms, each magazine is very different - with People I get daily dish, Birds and Blooms is for the gardening lover in me. I read Vanity Fair because the articles are always well researched, intriguing and a lot of the time they are controversial - that is what Vanity Fair is all about. They got exactly what they wanted with this cover - controversy. The same way they got it with Demi's pregnancy photo and Suri's baby photos. I don't get the big deal - I haven't received this issue yet, but if it weren't for this discussion, I probably would have torn the plastic off the cover (it keeps the 7,432 inserts they put in from falling out), took a quick look at the cover, gone through and torn out all the stinky perfume ads and tear outs, and then read the article - I wouldn't have given the cover a second thought.

I think the choice of Vanity Fair has to do with the interest in the phenomenom that is Miley/Hannah. It is not a cheap Teen Beat piece. It is a conversation with Cyrus, honest answers, and a look behind the billion dollar world that this girl is sitting upon right now.

Linda, I am with you on your earlier post...I have seen girls her age show more skin than this at the beach....even in the local mall! The pictures were done with her parents RIGHT THERE! If they didn't think it was okay, then they wouldn't have okayed it. My only question is Vanity Fair? I could think of other magazines to display that pictorial....Vanity Fair is for an adult reader....not a teenager.
BTW...I'm with Katy....I only have boys...what do they know !?!

I subscribe to Vanity Fair. For years, I only bought it at the airport just like you Linda, and then about two years ago, decided to get it at home. I don't necessarily agree with their political views but the other stories I've read in the magazine are incredible. I can't remember the actress, and she was not a big named star, but her story of being raped by someone that attended a big hollywood function in the 40's and the struggle and humiliation she endured for daring to report the crime, was a page turner. VF was also where I first read about the "Grizzly Man" and saw the incredible photos he took among the bears.
But back to Miley - the backless photo that Ann L took of Angelina Jolie - that was fine, she's an adult. Do I think Miley's are scandalous? no. But yes, there's a chance my 12 year old could have seen the picture. Would it do psychological damage to him? Again, no, he saw the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated and commented to me that the girl on the cover was naked and said something like "gross." So, I'm a bit old fashioned I guess and want him to keep his "innocence" for as long as he can. And don't misread what I'm saying here - I DO talk to my son about everything, he's aware of sex, drugs, perverts, etc. But he doesn't (and I don't think any of us really) needed to see Miley (Hannah Montana) looking so provocative at age 15. Just my two cents on it.
By the way, it was only about two weeks ago that I learned that Miley Cyrus and Hannah Montana were the same person! (I don't have any girls, just one boy, so that's probably why).

The comments to this entry are closed.