Miley Cyrus knew that a picture of her bare back skin was being taken. Did she understand that the sentiment of the general American public has attention span of a boll weevil? Did she know that the paying citizens would not have the capacity to understand the artistic nature of the photographs of current controversy?

EVERYBODY CALM DOWN. The photographs of Ms. Cyrus aren’t meant for sex appeal. They are beautiful, especially in the fact that they connect her in the human form, as opposed to the centrifugal “perfect being” ideal of modern popular culture icons in which we are so accustomed.

Miley Cyrus is a human being, child or not. Adding the label of “under eighteen” does not change the person of whom she identifies. Regardless of Miley Cyrus’ identity, it is solely the responsibility of the parent to rear their own child. When the factor of childhood influence is removed, what does a person have against a beautiful photograph of a beautiful person?

Frame perspective, and you’ll frame perception. Rework your conception of “child” into “person”, and give equity to your “child’s” capacity for reason, and you’ll never have to worry that your own child’s capacity for reason becomes adulterated. Every witch hunt starts with you and whom you accuse.

Disney most of all:

http://www.slate.com/id/2190209/

The line between art and porn is grey at times. However, a photo intentionally promoting the sexuality of a minor seems like its more on the porn side of the line. Reminds of a recent Lindsay Lohan spread. I didn’t see that as art either, but at least she is old enough to legally sell herself.

Be a role model for your kids yourself.

I’m not old by any stretch of the imagination and I did NOT grow up gawking at celebrities and dreaming of being like them. The most admirable people in this world, the ones who should be looked up to, are probably never going to be asked to pose in a sexually-provocative pose. (And yes, the covering makes a difference. Sheet > bikini, but has a whole different set of connotations. Bikini = bra/panty set coverage-wise, but you aren’t allowed out in the latter. And no, most kids won’t get the implication, or care if they did.)

Anyway, this is a celebrity famous for family connections and entertainment frippery. Anything the average person knows about her is based on the public image of her that was crafted by her handlers and a corporation, not her actual person. A stranger famous for prancing around, looking pretty, and singing wouldn’t scream “role model” to me no matter how she was photographed.

What I see in the picture is disgusting, she looks worn out, like she just got up….as if she had sex all night. The day after look. she’s 15…get it? She’s not of legal age yet! Yikes… girls are being taught it’s OK to look trashy… Put on some clothes already!

And I don’t think she was manipulated… she or her manager knew what she was doing. (Here. get naked and look at me.) Right.

I normally love Annie’s work. Not this one. And people are going to wonder why the pregnancy rate in teens goes up.

Annie, get over yourself already; you’re a hack with no new ideas.

This slut is supposed to be a role model for our kids!

Topless (but censored) pic of her here:
http://www.uselessjunk.com/article_full.php?id=102432

I tend to side with the people who are wondering why her parents didn’t think a little harder before they published that.

sad. i remember her talking about promoting a healthy image for young girls.

Wasn’t it socially acceptable to find a 15 year old (or any aged woman) attractive about 100 years ago or less?

Doesn’t Disney exploit her sexually, albeit in a less direct way?

Shouldn’t she be able to express her sexuality?

I may be over generalizing but I get this overwhelming feeling that the majority of the backlash equates sexuality w/ sinfullness and adulthood to something we should be protecting our children from.

I would also like to point out that Miley Cyrus was less likely manipulated by Annie and more likely by her parents. They had to be the ones to OK it. They control her finances. And there’s that whole parenting thing…>.>

And I don’t find them provocative or even particularly artsy. They are good photos, but I don’t recognize them as “Leibovitz” either.

IT HAS BEEN STATED CLEARLY THAT MILEY AND HER FATEHR SAW THE PICTURES RIGHT AFTER THEY WERE TAKEN, THUS THEY SHOULD HAVE SPOKEN UP THEN.

THIS IS JUST A DUMB MEDIA STUNT, ANNIE IS AN AMAZING PHOTOGRAPHY WHO DOESNT DESERVE THIS IMMATURE STUNT.