BTW, I'm hearing a lot of this "15 year olds shouldn't look sexy."

I know there are a few states where the legal age of consent is 15. There are a few cultures (including our own until around last century) where the average age of marriage was 13-17. So, is it so wrong for a 15 year old to want to dress sexy? Why?

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

The thoughts that entered my mind is that Miley's whole life has been in the limelight. She craves the attention and knows just how to get it. She knows nothing else. She is a 15yr old girl who is surrounded by Hollywood. And what does Hollywood sell? SEX

Society obviously loves to sexualize our children. If they didnt - it would not sell! The problem lies with society FIRST. You dont like this kind of "art" or "entertainment" dont buy it. But that is not what is happening. Society is lapping it all up and begging for more.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by greeneyedleo]

greeneyedleo,

I respect your position and agree with the majority of your post but I have to say, I think there are a few comments I would like to offer, if you don't mind.

Many years ago there was a 'quaint' comment that used to get passed around, it actually was thought of as old-fashioned and almost provincial..., "Stay away from show-biz people, they are not to be trusted!" I used to think the same of it myself, but now I see where it came from. People in the arts never seem to grasp, for reasons that elude me, that once you put the 'business' in the show, it stops being art. Show biz folk live in a world of their own making, without anything other than their self-congratulatory narcissism to keep them warm.

Hence the outcome of taking some presumably talented youth and building an 'empire' around them. (Not to digress, but these kids are RARELY super-talented, they are usually groomed and marketed to the consumers - our kids. Hollywood, and Disney, et. al. stopped scouting for talent years ago, they MAKE their stars, not find them. - why do you think they are all related?)

Could this photo shoot be looked at as an artistic expression?, yes. Could we look beyond the 'glamorization' and 'glitz'? of course. But that's not the point is it? They could have taken ANY pleasantly attractive young lady and accomplished the same 'artistic expression' but they didn't. It HAD to be a child star, someone that people (mostly parents codling their own children) just HAD to pay to see. ART has NOTHING to do with the selling of millions of copies of this 'shoot.' The girl is irrelevant, it's her marketability that matters. I doubt strongly that Papa or Mama Cyrus had any input in whatsoever, why - because this is the business they are in - and Hanna Montana is a gold mine. Many children want to BE her. Not all parents can accommodate that questionable 'goal', and many who can prey on that fact WILL.

Blaming society is too easy I think. This is a function of what is being 'peddled' as 'good and cool and all things Hanna Montana!'. When it isn't her it's another , and another, and another. Society is far too large to fit into a theory that we all spontaneously came up with a desire that our children to be sexual objects. (Although I can bet some Hollywood-aligned talking head will refine such a position for our on-air consumption soon enough) This is about media exposure, 'show-biz', and selling things to a willing audience devoid of understanding, kids.

Our kids are simply lost to the media machine. Taking them back isn't something we can do without making them social outcasts, and at 15, that's a fate worse than death. I haven't any solutions; I only ask you talk to your kids, tell them how you feel about it, don't apologize that things are this way - neither you nor I made it so. 'Show-biz' made it so, with a lot of help from the 'following commercial messages...'

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
BTW, I'm hearing a lot of this "15 year olds shouldn't look sexy."

I know there are a few states where the legal age of consent is 15. There are a few cultures (including our own until around last century) where the average age of marriage was 13-17. So, is it so wrong for a 15 year old to want to dress sexy? Why?

Because adult men should not be lusting after children. And 15 IS A CHILD.

Despite what other cultures may do or have done is irrelevant. There are some cultures/religions where children as young as 10 are being married off. I know this for fact, as I attended the wedding of a 10yr old Muslim girl - in England

So if we are to accept the sexualizing of children based on what other cultures/religions do, then should we accept little 10 old girls marrying and having sex? Where is the line drawn then?

Yes, Disney and Hollywood have an ungodly alliance to mold and harvest new popstars but the subject of the OP was the Miley Cyrus ad and the photoshoot that many people are up in arms about. Do any of you remember being 15? Getting your driving learners permit? Listening to your own music and forming your own identity? Trying to attract the opposite sex (or whatever -no judgement) ?

I swear she looks like a teenage kid who maybe just woke up. I don't see ANYWHERE the suggestion that she had SEX with anyone. That is in the viewers head. I have worked with these aged kids for 8 weeks out of the summer for 4 of the past 7 summers and they actually have their heads screwed on pretty good. They deserve more credit than we give them.



Just a side note: I actually don't follow this celebrity stuff all too close as I was shocked to find out that Miley Cyrus and Hannah Montana were one and the same and THEN to find out Billy Ray "achy brakey heart" Cyrus was her pop was a mindblower.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
I swear she looks like a teenage kid who maybe just woke up. I don't see ANYWHERE the suggestion that she had SEX with anyone.

She's, by all appearances, completely naked. Not saying it's totally out of the realm of possibility, but how many 15 y/o girls sleep in the nude? The picture is sexually suggestive, of that there is no doubt. It doesn't take "just a pervert" to see that.

Peace

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by stikkinikki
I swear she looks like a teenage kid who maybe just woke up. I don't see ANYWHERE the suggestion that she had SEX with anyone.

She's, by all appearances, completely naked. Not saying it's totally out of the realm of possibility, but how many 15 y/o girls sleep in the nude? The picture is sexually suggestive, of that there is no doubt. It doesn't take "just a pervert" to see that.

Peace

NO she is not at all completely naked. That is just asinine. Try to see with your eyes and not just what you think you should see. How in the heck would I know how many 15 yeara olds sleep in the nude? Seriously. I have three younger sisters and that was the FURTHEST question from my mind when I was growing up.

Some people are undressing this girl in their minds when as far as they could know she is wearing a wetsuit underneath or a swimsuit for that matter. I do not doubt that you find it sexually suggestive judging from your previous post, but you CANNOT tell me what I find sexually suggestive or not. Not possible. Not fair. You cannot tell me what I am thinking or feeling. The same goes for prejudging the rest of society based on some photographs.

By this measure we should just take kids out of entertainment and advertising. Should we stiffle their creativity and energy because we adults cannot be trusted to be adults?







[edit on 5/5/08 by stikkinikki]

Originally posted by space cadet
But please, don't refer to this child as a 'little whore', reserve that for Perez Hilton!

By the time shes paris's age, you'll look back on this statement and laugh. Or have you forgotten Britney's own disney origins?


[edit on 5/5/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]

Originally posted by stikkinikki

By this measure we should just take kids out of entertainment and advertising. Should we stiffle their creativity and energy because we adults cannot be trusted to be adults?

[edit on 5/5/08 by stikkinikki]

I have to point out that it was not 'we' who put 'kids' into advertising in the first place. The commercial marketeers did. Why? Is it because 'Vanity Fair' is about all things kids? Is it FOR kids? Do kids make up it's consumer base? I can almost guarantee that NO 'creative energy' was put into this shoot by the subject - only the photographer. Could the photographer not have done just as well with another subject? - doubtful at best. Why is that?

You have a point that what people perceive in any image is a subjective matter. The subject of the image carries half that message, like it or not. How 'attractive' we deem something to be is largely influenced by what is 'popularly' disseminated - like I said before, this isn't a picture of a relatively attractive young girl with her back exposed and posture controlled to accentuate her 'lines' - this is a picture of a child super-star thusly posed.

Do you not recognize the difference? (Not meant as a smarmy question, if you do or don't says everything about whether this is an argument about perception or about propaganda).

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Maxmars]

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

I see no issue in that. A 30yr old man being attracted to a girl - a child - is not normal and we should not be encouraging it by allowing CHILDREN to be sexualized for these men.

Thats not true. In fact, for most of human history Men married "children". Whether you look at england, gaul, rome etc, history clearly shows that prior to our modern age there was an average age gap between husbands and wives of at least 10-15 years.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Okay well, you have a point. I will give you that
But that doesnt make it right. Many things used to be "normal" and they were just morally wrong. Slaves is one example.

Hardly the same situtation.
For one I think the age of consent is about right. At 15 a girl can decide what her sex life is going to be. If anything, being married to an older man would probably be beneficial, since he is more likely to be
1) financially secure
2) emotionall stable
3) a better influence on her.

But thats just my opinion.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to Hmmmm. Are you a female? Have you ever been a 15yr old girl?

Glad you brought that up. It is a very good point.

What percentage of teenage girls end up with children that are actually supported by either parent. Quite often it is someone else doing the parenting and bread winning.

Edit: tag

[edit on 5/5/2008 by roadgravel]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


REEEEEALLLLLY?

Hmmmm. Are you a female? Have you ever been a 15yr old girl?

Ahh yes the old "you dont have a utuerus so shut up you beastly man" riposte. How utterly useless.

I have. And maybe *some* 15yr girls THINK they know. But that is so far from reality. It is VERY easy for a MAN to take advantage of a NAIVE inexperienced CHILD. I know.

Ahh but all MEN "take advantage" of women dont they? Bastard patriarchs!

Hm. This sounds like the role a FATHER should be playing in her life. Not a man trying to get in her pants. A 15yr old should be focused on school, friends and playing.....NOT on financial and emotional security from a MAN!

[edit on 5-5-2008 by greeneyedleo]

No. She should be looking for that from a fellow WOMYN!
Rarrrr!

Seriusoly, your obvious misandry aside, if it was good enough for the queen of Egypt and Ceaser, its good enough for me.