This is topic Hannah Montana scandal in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/11640.html

Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
link

Evidently some kinda-sorta racy photo of Miley Cyrus (aka Hannah Montana on some tv show) is making some moms upset because it sexualizes their little girls' role model/celeb hero/favorite Disney product.

I'm not overly freaked out about the picture. I'd call it inappropriate, but not scandalous. However, it's another piece of evidence that in some ways, our society just can't wait for girls to grow up before regarding them as sexual objects. It's easy to understand - secondary sexual characteristics appear, and certain responses are predictable - but it's disappointing that there isn't more cultural restraint.

But these mothers are even more disappointing.

I catch references to Miley Cyrus from time to time and it's been my impression that her famous dad and Disney management have created yet another bland plastic pop star for kids to waste their allowances on. Nothing new or interesting. I hadn't seen her perform or anything until she guest-starred on American Idol last week (or the week before?). I saw part of her performance and I noticed that like most pop singers, she has little elements of her movements (not what I'd call 'dancing') that appear designed to look sexy and provocative. I thought, at the time, how it was inappropriate for someone her age to be performing that way. How Disney has lost any semblance of child like innocence in their products (did they ever have it? I kind of think they did in the Bambi/Cinderella/Sleeping Beauty era. Could have just been me). But it was clear to me after about 10 seconds that she was a sexualized product. That her sexuality was a part of the performance.

So I wonder what these mothers saw. When they take their kids to the concerts, or let them watch Cyrus on TV all the time, was it just the right amount of sexuality? And the photo goes beyond that right amount?

Seriously, what's going on with this photo that is so much different from her pop music act?
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
They already ate Brittany and expelled the resulting waste, and now they're hungry?
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Fabricated Controversy

Everyone wins
 
Posted by msquared (Member # 113) on :
 
Her family was at the shot and saw all the pics that were going to be used. Now they complain.

I know that alot of teen age girls can't wait to grow up. They do these glamour shots that make them look 22 instead of 15.

Is this any different than Brooke Shields was in the late 70's?

msquared
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Celebrities Celebrate Sexuality: ccs

They sell the ccsizzle but we get upset when they show us their ccsteak.

Weird.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
"What!? She posed for suggestive photos? I'm outraged, where's the link?"
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I wanna see her titties too!
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
Hanna who?
I haven't had TV service for a year now and I grow smarter every day [Wink]

Though, I do admit to knowing who she is now after I googled her last week.

Either way, so what.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
"Is this any different than Brooke Shields was in the late 70's?"

I'd say showing a little back is a long way from full frontal nudity.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
This is a non-issue. Come on... where was the outrage over racy pics of a 16-year old Angeline Jolie that surfaced? This is nothing new.

Same old, same old. People wanna see skin, magazines oblige, lines get crossed and the media consumes itself like Pizza the Hutt.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Oh come on folks....it's patently obvious. The one way to guarantee maximum publicity for the magazine is to manufacture this so called "controversy."

I'm not overly freaked out about the picture. I'd call it inappropriate, but not scandalous. However, it's another piece of evidence that in some ways, our society just can't wait for girls to grow up before regarding them as sexual objects.

Perhaps it's because society has created an artificial construct called "adolescence" which purposely delays maturity. Up until one hundred years ago, sexual maturity was considered adulthood with all of the attendant responsibilities and freedoms that entailed.

Most 15 year old girls throughout most of human history were already married and either pregnant or having their second child already.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Ok, I'll buy that it's a manufactured controversy.

The other thing I want to say is that adolescence may be a social construct, but mental and behavioral maturity are definitely affected by its existence - today's 15 year olds really are more like children than the 15 year olds of 1728. And adolescent celebrities offer plenty of examples of what happens when you don't allow kids to grow up gradually.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
I have a friend who dated a girl who was like 1 year younger then him. Naturally, my other friends and I brutally harassed and humiliated him for it. One of our running gags was his unhealthy obsession with Hannah Montana.

We mailed him a copy of the Hannah Montana movie, a doll, and a bottle of lotion and tissue paper for his birthday. He was less then pleased.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I would be too. Tissue paper? I like chamois.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
I prefer black velvet paintings of Elvis for the wiping up.

Anyone noticing a trend in how things go when the little cuties let someone besides Disney make cash off of them?
 
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 1392) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:

I have a friend who dated a girl who was like 1 year younger then him. Naturally, my other friends and I brutally harassed and humiliated him for it. One of our running gags was his unhealthy obsession with Hannah Montana.

We mailed him a copy of the Hannah Montana movie, a doll, and a bottle of lotion and tissue paper for his birthday. He was less then pleased.

What's unusual about dating someone one year younger than you are? That's effectively the same age as you.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
15 is the least of it. While I'm entirely comfortable with an age of consent of 16, I'm fully aware that quite a few young women are ready - in a raw, dangerous way - before that. History is, among other things, a continuing lesson on the futility of trying to seriously repress human sexuality. (Channel, yes. Set boundaries for, yes. For it is equally unsustainable for sex to be everywhere. In a commune, maybe and generally not even then for long. Not on anything larger.)

Anyway, what I'm saying is that a 15 yr old dressed to fock is inappropriate. It's the 10 and 11 year olds I have a serious problem with.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
So scifi...you think immaturity in teenagers is a good thing? I disagree...and I say that as a guy who avoided adulthood as long as possible - I stayed in college until I was 26!

I think using celebrities as a measuring stick for promoting the construct of extended adolescence as beneficial is not a good idea. Fame and all that it entails has unique circumstances that don't apply to the average person growing up in America.

Furthermore, I no longer think it is disgusting for grown men to find provocative photos of 15 year old females appealing...nor is it as outrageous as some people make it out to be (I'll give the caveat that it's natural for a Father of a 15 year old female to be outraged at an older man leering at his daughter...)

Sexual attraction is the natural, biological phenomenon that is responsible for the continuation of the human species.

Is it REALLY so abhorrent that a 15 year old female would be fully sexually mature and males would find that appealing? Why is a man that feels a completely natural attraction to a sexually mature female considered deviant?

[ April 29, 2008, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
When I was 17 I exchanged virginities with a 15-year old girl.

We were both quite happy to do so.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Daruma, I didn't say there was anything deviant or abnormal about adults finding post pubescent individuals appealing.

I do think that trying to make individual exceptions to the general rule that today's 15 year olds are immature and stupid is likely to cause problems for those excepted individuals. Because they are not likely to be capable of handling it.

For a 15 year old to be deliberately sexed up to enhance her sexual appeal is a bad idea, IMO, since she is most likely a mental child.

Your other point is taken: celebrity pressures don't make a good general example.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Any sane system of age of consent has to be sliding. a 17 year old consensually with a 15 year old? no punishment really. definitely not the first time it actually even gets to any court. 27 year old? A-hem.

And I agree with Daruma - it's not "outrageous" it's natural - and off limits. It's natural to be turned on by your hot sister. But it's been a tenet of almost every civilization worth jack for 6 thousand years or so that you don't do that.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
Ricky, that's stupid. 17 is waay old enough to be sleeping with a 27 year old. Some 17 year olds might not be able to handle it. But I've definitely known quite a few girls who were/are in successful relationships with that large of an age gap. (For instance the last girl I dated/respected started going out with a 27 year old when she was 17 after I broke up with her. They've been going out for like a year now.)

27 year old banging a 15 year old? Maybe.


"What's unusual about dating someone one year younger than you are? That's effectively the same age as you."

Nothing at all. In fact, at the time I pointed out to those guys that I was going out with a girl who was a year and a half younger then me, and 1'1" shorter then me. It wasn't the relationship, it was the fact that he's the guy we all make fun of. Obviously you've never been a teenage boy [Wink]
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
I was a little amused by the timing of this. Just a couple of weeks ago Conde Nast Portfolio had an interesting article about Disney and Hannah Montana.

portfolio.com

There was an interesting quote near the end of it.
quote:
“For Miley Cyrus to be a ‘good girl’ is now a business decision for her,” Marsh says. “Parents have invested in her a godliness. If she violates that trust, she won’t get it back.”

 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
"27 year old banging a 15 year old? Maybe."

That's what I was referring to. A 17 year old is over the age of consent in most places.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
"I was going out with a girl who was a year and a half younger then me, and 1'1" shorter then me"

are you one of those obnoxiously tall dudes, or is she tiny?
 
Posted by OceanRunner (Member # 5605) on :
 
quote:
17 is waay old enough to be sleeping with a 27 year old.
Not that I'm necessarily judgmental for the general public, but... were it my daughter, 17 is old enough for a 27-year-old to get his nuts cut off.

There's nothing strange about an older guy looking at a young girl - say a 27-yr-old looking at a 17-yr-old - but there's generally something wrong with a guy who needs to be with someone that much less mature than he is. Even with men's much, much slower rate of maturity. [Wink]
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Before you answer him, be aware that Ricky is a lot shorter than he acts, Tommy.

____________________________

The 17 year old could be really mature, rather than the 27 year old being really immature.

Still, ick.

My wife was 18 years and three minutes old when I got her, and I was 23, but that made it a lot easier to browbeat her into spending her life with a misogynist.
____________________________________

Ricky, it's 18 in most of the US.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
"Before you answer him, be aware that Ricky is a lot shorter than he acts, Tommy."

I figured he was compensating for something with that intellect ;-)


"are you one of those obnoxiously tall dudes, or is she tiny?"

Little bit of both. I'm 6'2", she is 5'1". We couldn't really kiss and do other things at the same time.
 
Posted by msquared (Member # 113) on :
 
For the record my brother is 6'5" and his wife is 5'1". You should see the wedding video. The guy had to back up another 5 feet to get them both in the frame.

msquared
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
Shouldn't we have a "Yawn" smilie for something like this?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Actually, I was thinking something more like this:


(*)(*)
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
You think small.

( * )( * )
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I am a narrow-minded fool for sure.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
He was talking about 15 year old girls mosquito bites, methinks.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
But the mosquitoes were HUGE!!! (And someone had to suck out the venom [Wink] )

[ May 01, 2008, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 1217) on :
 
Ahh.

You know, a 17 year old I know was dating a 25 year old.

It was... well, considering the girl, her maturity level, and whatnot, it was basically at the edge of propriety. Yeah, technically she was too young, but whatever. In her individual case, it was no big deal.

Granted, I was still grossed out by it.

Here's an interesting rule of thumb. Where I foudn this, I have no idea.

(Your Age)/2 + 7. That's the reasonable limit of dating.

For a 20 year old like me, that means 17 is the lowest. When I'm 22, 18 is the lowest. At 24, 19, and so on.

But that's just a rule of thumb, and in reality even that's a bit more conservative than, um, reality.

Jesse: what was all that about browbeating and mysogyny?
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
That formula is from the XKCD comic,

http://xkcd.com/314/

LetterRip
 
Posted by Brian (Member # 588) on :
 
Louisa May Alcott mentioned that formula way before xkcd did. I doubt she invented it, though.

[ May 01, 2008, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 1217) on :
 
Ha! Yes! That's where I found it!

I'd totally forgotten. It was like one of those things that you pick up, but lose the source to, but utilize it nonetheless.

Either way, it suggests something. I'm not sure what, but something about things influencing you, and which things, and whatnot... I'm too groggy to think clearly about it, though.
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
That's funny. Without any knowledge of the formula, I figured I wouldn't have anything in common with a girl below the age of 28 (except pure lust) which works out about the same.
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 1217) on :
 
Funny, yes. I have no idea how old you are, flydye. I'm sure knowing your real age would make me feel like some mere upstart neophyte, which I suppose I am.

But anyway, it's a useful formula, one that I will pay attention to.

Using it, I'd set a basic limit to my children's dating. Under 14, no way. At 14, only with someone their own age. And so on, as the thingie says, unless there's some terribly convincing argument to not follow it.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Apparently from the xkcd comments it was previously popularized on loveline

quote:
that creepiness dating rule is from adam carolla on loveline a few years back. ive been using that for a while. pretty good rule.
LetterRip
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Ricky, it's 18 in most of the US. [/QB]

if you're referring to the age of consent, jesse it's not 18 in most of the usa, its lower, like 16, or even lower ("In some U.S. states a lower age applies when the age gap between partners is small, or when the older partner is below a certain age (usually 18 or 21).")

Average age for the usa is 16.20 or 16.67 if you take the higher age thing.

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

If it wasn't about that at all, regard this as not written?
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
TSG, averaging the various states does not reflect where most of the US lives.
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
TSG, averaging the various states does not reflect where most of the US lives.

That STILL doesn't make it 18 in MOST of the usa.

In itself, your statement reflects a lot about 'most' of your math skills (or lack thereof? [Wink] ). I sincerely hope that it isn't accompanied by the usual present-day smugness about that lack.

Okay, fuggedaboudid.

If you had actually looked at that table, your vast mathematical skills would have revealed that under 67 million ppl live in states where it's 18

Arizona
California
North Dakota
Oregon
Tennessee
Virginia
Wisconsin

while the rest does not.
It's even 14 in 6 other states, all of them Red States. Which explains the whole FLDS drama a whole lot better.

So, 67 million. I'll leave it up to your math skills to decide which is 'most of the US'.
You ARE sloppy. [Wink]

[ May 12, 2008, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: TheSteelenGeneral ]
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
That's it?

But I do agree with the article that the pic evokes a Lolita quality. And maybe people who know who she is and are invested in her for their kids feels different but I don't see the big deal.

I also agree with Omeg's scale.

27 dating my 17 year old daughter? I agree with OR.

Where's the link to the Angelina nude photos?

KE

[ May 12, 2008, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Florida, with close in age exemption, is 18.

Idaho is 18 period.

New Jersey is 18 if the adult is over 22.

Oregon has a three year exception, otherwise, it's a misdameanor to have intercourse with someone under 18.

Tennesse, 4 year exemption, otherwise 18.

Virginia, 18 with close in age exemption.

Wyoming is essentially 18 due to a complicated court ruling.

Many more States will prosecute for contributing to the deliquency of a minor, even though that minor has reached the technical age of consent.

Close in age exemptions do not change the age of consent.

Someones sloppy. Not a good idea to go by the first outdated website you run across.

[ May 12, 2008, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Jesse ]
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
Jesse,
first of all, what are you on about? I MENTIONED Oregon, Tennessee AND Virginia as states where it's 18.
2nd. even with those other states, it STILL doesn't make it MOST of the usa, it applies to 95.708.985 ppl.

At least I provide links, you don't.
And I have to take your word for it that it's outdated? Don't think so.

And sorry about that thing about your math skills, I shouldn't have made fun of that.

I guess that makes it 3-0 for me, including the other thread.
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheSteelenGeneral:

And sorry about that thing about your math skills, I shouldn't have made fun of that.

I guess that makes it 3-0 for me, including the other thread.

Congratulations, you have won the forum. Here is your prize.... ->

Now that we've all acknowledged that you are a 'winner', can we get back to having interesting discussions without the pissing contest?
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
why thanks vulture! [Wink] [Smile]

I teach business and I like numbers, it always annoys me greatly when ppl are sloppy with numbers and statistics. I really dislike it when ppl say that anybody can lie with statistics. You CAN'T, not if you don't lie about what they mean.

Sorry, it's a thing with me. I'll stop now.


For the record, my view on Hannah: if you see a photo of a girl with a bedsheet and think Lolita ... says more about the viewer than anything else.

Also, does the target group (8 year olds) have even a faint understanding what Lolitesque means, who Nabokov was and all that? Chances are, that they are curious now, and start googling it, yes.

[ May 12, 2008, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: TheSteelenGeneral ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
just a girl with a bedsheet, not necessarily. a girl nude save for the bedsheet, making bedroom eyes... yes, sorry. I call a spade a spade even if the campus affirmative action office doesn't like it. [Smile]

8 year olds? maybe not, tho I don't know how far things have changed since I knew what was happening in those age groups. 10-11 year olds, which from what I read are also HM's target audience? They know from Lolita, bro. Maybe not the book, but the phenomenon for sure.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
It's not "a girl with a bedsheet". It is precisely what that picture is supposed to evoke. The photographer knew it, she knew it, I know it, and if you looked at it and have ever heard of Lolita let alone read the book or seen the movie you'd know it too. Although I do plead guilty to be attracted to hot young girls, See Daruma's Posts, but like Ricky said just being attracted doesn't mean a grown man can't restrain himself.

KE
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Its erotic imagery without crossing our legal boundaries. The people in all of this I have a real problem with are the parents making a stink. Sorry, you have no right to control what someone else's 15 year old daughter does to make money, unless you change the laws. And you have no right to expect that someone your children look up to won't do things that you don't want them to see.

You don't have to buy it if you don't want to, though.
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
"Although I do plead guilty to be attracted to hot young girls"

If people didn't want to do it, they wouldn't have made a law against it.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Or as David says, when Bathsheba mentions anal sex: "That.... that's so disgusting there's isn't even anything against it in the torah!"

(God Knows, Joseph Heller)
 
Posted by Stevarooni (Member # 6053) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Its erotic imagery without crossing our legal boundaries. The people in all of this I have a real problem with are the parents making a stink. Sorry, you have no right to control what someone else's 15 year old daughter does to make money, unless you change the laws. And you have no right to expect that someone your children look up to won't do things that you don't want them to see.

You don't have to buy it if you don't want to, though.

Don't they have a right to make a stink about it, though? Isn't one of the fundamental caveats of the right to expression the right to express oneself back, with equal and opposite raspberries?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Sure, they have that right. I just think they're idiots for complaining that the girl is a role model and so shouldn't do this stuff. Umm, sorry... the mistake is your own for letting your daughter think of a celebrity as a role model.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Sure, they have that right. I just think they're idiots for complaining that the girl is a role model and so shouldn't do this stuff. Umm, sorry... the mistake is your own for letting your daughter think of a celebrity as a role model.

Completely agree.
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
That gets into an argument about role models. Parents want and need to have folks they can point to as examples of proper action (though the definition of "proper" varies according to the person involved). As the parents are flawed creatures, and distance blurs flaws, they look for a highly visible figure. Once athletes paid the price of hypocrisy for their vice, i.e. The Babe. Not anymore...unless self indulgence and brutality is your metric of "proper".

The squealing you are hearing from the parents is only matched at the outrage over having Obama dragged off his pedestal. It is with rueful confession that supposedly sophisticated adults found themselves buying into the hype and making him a role model...

It is a human thing, and not necessarily wrong. I'm sure if I scratched deep enough, I'd find a figure inside everyone who they treat as a role model...and they would be just as outraged or betrayed if their object of veneration suddenly changed the philosophy which brought this respect in the first place...
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
Unless if they have little or no expectations. For instance, my role model is Greg House. See?

Sorry, as far as politicians go, Obama is pretty good. Just because he doesn't hang out with the same kinds of racists you tend to doesn't make him evil ;-).

Tell your kids to look up to Jesus. At least there aren't any videos or pictures floating around of him having orgies with little boys (just his followers.)
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Jesus was involve in orgies? Hey, I might give this Christianity thing another look. [Smile]

KE
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
"Just because he doesn't hang out with the same kinds of racists you tend to doesn't make him evil ;-)."

WTF?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Gotta remember when dealing with TommySam, fly, that he does double-back flips for relaxation. He means: both sides of the political aisled are deeply invested in racism (because our populace is and they must appeal to our populace).

The finger of racism (and other 'thou shalt not-isms') is almost always pointed away from oneself, not toward.

That's more nicely said, and with more explanatory nuance than TommySam would care for, not to mention that I may be totally misreading him, but too bad: I'm still right.
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because of the smiley. My normal reaction would have been a bit more visceral.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
I think it was a non-specific "you".
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Or as David says, when Bathsheba mentions anal sex: "That.... that's so disgusting there's isn't even anything against it in the torah!"

(God Knows, Joseph Heller)

OMG that book was hilarious! Isn't that the one where he asks his daughter:
"Don't they teach you anything in school?"
upon which she replies:
"They try to, but we outsmart them"
[Big Grin]

Or is that from the other non-Catch 22 title of Heller? :?

I've been trying to find a torrent for those books for ages, but only Catch22 comes up! [Frown]
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
The squealing you are hearing from the parents is only matched at the outrage over having Obama dragged off his pedestal.

Something which the Obama camp have always tried to deflect from the very beginning, because they knew there was the trap of the "Wise Negro"! [Smile]

See "Ghost", "the Green Mile" , and almost any film with Morgan Freeman for "Wise Negro"-reference. or google it. (Million Dollar Baby? Haven't seen it, but heard it was in that schtick)

The only ones who r trying to keep Obama ON that pedestal are Reps like rush limbaw, for obvious reasons.

Besides, I didn't hear much outrage, certainly not in Hanna Montana is a big Ho kind of volumes. What I heard and read was more of a "I TOLD you so" sort of meme.

[ May 14, 2008, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: TheSteelenGeneral ]
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
Bring up my post. or bump
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Dude, I keep hoping this thread will die. Thanks for nothing.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
SHOW ME HER BOOBIES!!!!
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I can't find Wise Negro. I do find Magical Negro.

Dumbledore wasn't only gay, he was an albino Negro.

Rock on!
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
why die? I think it's interesting how mothers, media, gossip crowd succeed time and time again in highlighting absolutely no-nudity and making it seem filthy.
It's like we're snugly back in the 19th century again.

Combined with large scale apologism of Republican David Vitter's hypocrisy (Campaigning on 'Family Values' then going to the whores) by the republican party, media etc. this is absolutely fascinating.

Leibovitz made photos of Whoopi in a tub of milk and of Keith Herring fully body painted. This is not art?

[ May 17, 2008, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: TheSteelenGeneral ]
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
Art with a fifteen year old is different from art with an adult.

I think that most people are outraged that here parents were there and let her do it.

Most people, when asked if they could have their fifteen year old daughter take off her shirt for a picture would call the police.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I saw nothing prurient in the Hannah images. The context in which they are interpreted -- Hollywood celebrity culture -- is so biased to the prurient that we insist non seeing the in their capacity to suggest dishabille rather than a graceful tribute to burgeoning young womanhood, in which all wee see are her back and face.

Dozens of young teen girls post images of themselves on the internet that are quite explicitly prurient and lacking artistic grace.

But Hannah's a STAR, see, and stars are dirty. They are designed to float high above us so we can aspire to them and, finding that we can't share their elevation, we then try to bring them down.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Please. Look harder. You're not that old. I know you pride yourself on being contrary, but a naked teenage girl with just been ****ed hair is supposed to be sexy. It is what it is.

I double-checked with Stacy to make sure it wasn't just me or a guys eyes and her reaction was; "Oh please. Or course, that is supposed to be sexual."

KE
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Of course it addresses sexuality. Miley menstruates, you know. Has budding boobies. Has probably made out and probably been finger-****ed.

It's the idea, that a family acknowledging this well known aspect of nubile girls wanting to appear sexy, is somehow dirty that I reject.

When I refer to Hollywood context, I refer to the inevitable Britney/Lindsay comparisons. Hollywood context.

Your typical high school senior photograph of today would be seen as sleazy fifty years ago.

Sexual isn't prurient.

Prurient: : marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire.

Nothing wrong with a young girl displaying her young virginal sexuality. It is the media lens that creates the prurience. You create the prurience. Talking about it creates the prurience. The image itself is sweet, and yes, sexy. Does that mean that miley is appealing to my inner pedophile?

I am sick and tired of people blaming media fore their own interpretations of reality. Those eyes in your head, and that head they're in? Them is YOURS.

Me, I KNOW I wanna see miley's boobies, and I KNOW she didn't show 'em to me. Instead, she did what most girls in high school did: flaunted her budding young sexual beauty without revealing it.

Old as the hills.

Like me [Wink]
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
[Smile] Okay, now I get it.

KE
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
What really gets me is that all those protesters probably have no problems with cheerleaders walking around school in skirts that come halfway their thighs. What, this is the epitome of modesty?
Get real.

quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
[QB] Art with a fifteen year old is different from art with an adult.

It's very hard to come up with a definition of art, but I'm sure that there are no age limits.
Adults can be just as exploited, as a photograph 34 pooping one year olds could be art.
I bet that many of the protesters would love Maxfield Parrish and all his Lolitesque pictures. Double standards.

quote:

Most people, when asked if they could have their fifteen year old daughter take off her shirt for a picture would call the police.

Dude, not "most". All people. And if it were some random person, they'd be right.
However, Hannah Taylor-Gordon went "All Eve" at 16/17 for a film, and even Natalie Portman went nude for Mike Nichols and Milos Forman. Nobody doubts her or their credentials and I think Annie Leibowitz has the most artistic credentials in the photoworld. Let's get real here, it's a great feat for an utterly middle-of-the-road if not mediocre singer and actor like Cyrus to get Leibowitz to photograph her.

[ May 18, 2008, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: TheSteelenGeneral ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
SHOW ME THE TITTIES!!!
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
Still no answer on the cheerleaders.
Did I mention that Gordon, Portman and Leibowitz are all 'good' Jewish girls? [Wink]

Also, that photo doesn't show more skin than a bathing suit and even less than a bikini. So what, photo's of 15 year old girls in swim wear are bordering on pedophilia?

There was this interesting case of the 15 year old girl who posted SELF-made nude photos of herself on the net. The local DA was seriously considering prosecuting her for the making of kiddie porn.
And i think she got kicked out of school.
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
SHOW ME THE TITTIES!!!

For some reason this thread was really hard to find, had to us yahoo instead of google or ornsearch

Here, it seems mackenzie rosman has grown up considerably since her days on squeeky clean show, 7th Heaven.
sorry to burst any bubbles, seemed relevant ;~)
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1