The Camera Click Heard ‘Round the World
By Glinda
Sigh. I didn’t really want to go here. I really didn’t. But…
Who exactly are we trying to kid?
All these people who are screeching in outrage at the photo above of a “naked” Miley Cyrus need to step back for a second and take a deep Zen breath. And unfortunately, it seems I must disagree with my esteemed colleague on this issue.
I happen to live in an area that is not only hot, but not too far away from the beach.
Compared to half the girls parading around the area, Miley is looking pretty freaking demure.
A year or two ago it was de rigeur for teen girls to wear tight crop tees with micro minis, which as a combo happen to show quite a bit of flesh. I mean, go take a look at one of the dresses from Juicy Couture’s current line. Go ahead, I’ll wait for you. Now ask yourself, what is the huge difference? And then tell me, because I’d really like to know.
Is it the sheet? Is it the tousled hair? Is there an uncomfortable whiff of something post-coital about the picture?
Because I don’t remember quite this type of outcry when young Jamie Lynn Spears announced her pregnancy, and she obviously didn’t just hint around at the whole sex thing.
Why are we so surprised that young people are embracing the provocative and sexual?
I mean, we are the country of Brazilians for young girls, of plastic surgery for teens, of flaunting everything we’ve got. The media role models of these girls are the likes of Paris “Skank” Hilton and Lindsay “Drunk” Lohan. They see Britney flashing her hoo-ha practically every month, naked photos of Vanessa Hudgens, and I don’t think they give it much thought.
I’m not saying that it’s a good thing, but there it is.
Frankly, I’m shocked that anyone else is shocked.
And if you truly think this picture is trash-tastic, then I advise you to never go onto MySpace.
*Hat tip to superfantastic reader Seana for alerting me to the SFGate article!
April 29th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I don’t especially like the photo, but it’s not shocking. What is disturbing to me is her cries of “it was supposed to be artistic!”. Don’t we hear that every time photos surface from someone’s past? “I was just starting out/making my way/starving in Tribeca and he offered me $200 to take some artistic pictures. He said he’d keep them private!”. The only difference here is that Miley is embarrassed before the photos come out, not 10 years later.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:25 am
This is simply the next predictable career-building step in the great teen star game plan. File it under “any publicity is good publicity”, and get ready for the inevitable stint in rehab and all the other trappings of a life of contrived fame. Shame on anyone who thinks this whole thing wasn’t deliberately choreagaphed, right down to the apology, in order to sell magazines and Miley Cyrus. And shame on any parent who goes along with this escapade or any parent who allows their daughter to emulate Miley’s “style”. Just because you see it “everywhere” doesn’t make it right.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am
The issue is not the amount of coverage; the issue is the fact that a 15-year-old is topless, clutching a rumpled sheet to her bare chest. That is not clothing.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I think if you saw a 15-year-old walking around the beach wearing nothing above the waist but a sheet clutched to her boobs, you would think someone was out of line. And if the kid was doing it because it was her JOB, you’d certainly think that her bosses were scummy, wouldn’t you?
The fact that overexposure and sexualization of the underage is common does not mean that it’s proper: it’s common.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Oh, and the reason you don’t remember the Jamie-Lynn outcry is that A) the impregnation did not take place in public and ever since she’s been draped like a circus tent and B) I’m the gossip blogger here. Trust me, it was HUGE.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Is it me or does anyone feel like they’ve seen this picture before, either on the cover of or inside Vanity Fair or some other magazine, albeit with the head of some other current female celebrity? I do believe that VF was creating what it thought was another editorial in lines with what they’ve consistently done. I think this is actually somewhat tame compared to the other stuff I’ve seen. Does anyone know how the photo will appear on the cover, meaning how much will you really see with all the words splashed across all over the cover, was it going to be cut off at the middle of her back, etc.? If you just look at her face, I think it’s a beautiful and haunting look/picture but when you pull back and you see her bony and pale back, it does make you squirm a bit because she looks so innocent, but I think that’s the “art” side they’re trying to capture, no? Compared to the cover of Britney on Rolling Stone that was explicitly suggestive, meh.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
@gemdiva and raincoaster- Young girls dressed skimpily are everywhere. Therefore, that must make it acceptable in our society, yes? If it is common then it must be an accepted practice. Because somebody is buying those types of clothes. If nobody was buying/wearing them, they wouldn’t sell them anymore.
And listen, I have seen teen girls much more exposed than Miley walking down the street. I would gladly hand them the sheet, because that would actually cover them up.
Again, I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying this is the point we have reached in our culture.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
*applause* Agreed. There is a reason my children will NEVER get a MySpace account. EVER.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
When I heard about this, I went over to the Vanity Fair site to have a look at the photo that was causing so much drama. And I looked, and I looked, and I looked. I actually didn’t believe THIS photo was the problem. It’s positively tame compared to the other stuff we see in people. Does no one remember Britany Spears first video? She was only 16 then and don’t try and tell me that video wasn’t provacative. People LOOVE to get their panties in a wad.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
No, Glinda. Skimpily-dressed young women have been around for quite some time. But they are irrelevant to this discussion: this is not about a skimpily-dressed young woman. It’s not about Britney dancing like a stripper either. And hey, look how well she turned out!
This is about an underage girl who is not wearing clothes. Who was asked to pose post-coitally by a woman kind of notorious for asking actresses to take off their clothes for her. Annie Leibovitz may indeed be an artist, but she’s also a creep.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Rain, I’m going to disagree with you on this one. The girls running around skimpily clothed are indeed underaged. And teenagers have always had sex, adults just don’t particularly like thinking about it.
I don’t see anything overtly sexual in this picture, I’m sorry.
I do see teens displaying overt sexuality all the time, so maybe I am just immune to the shock value at this point.
If we are going to lay any blame here, then it should be on the parents.
Hey, maybe that’s a Lazy Parenting Award post!
April 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Glinda, I realize that today’s girls routinely dress very skimpily and provacatively. What gets me riled up is people (parents) acting like this is OK and, in many cases even encouraging it. Putting this photo on a magazine cover sends the message to millions of teen girls who idolize Miley, that what she looks like she just did is A-OK for them, too. I think the fact that this photo tries to pass itself off as a portrait of innocence or a work of art is what makes it all the more objectionable. As for Annie Leibovitz, I’m surprised she didn’t want Queen Elizabeth to disrobe.
But the bottom line is Miley’s parents and her entourage were present during the shoot and no one stepped up to be the grown up. IMHO the picture of her with Daddy is in some ways even more disturbing than the sheet shot, and one wonders whose flagging career is actually being promoted at the expense of their precocious offspring.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Gemdiva,
The most recent report I have seen is that Miley’s parents were not present at the time of this particular photograph. Her grandmother and a teacher were, but not her parents. Everything I have read about her parents is in direct conflict with the idea that they would have agreed to this sort of photo.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:24 am
We have to remember that it wasn’t her idea to do this: it was the idea of an adult, Annie Leibovitz, who should take responsibility. Did a kid get talked into something over her head? Yeah, probably. Does the fact that it happens all the time let the adult off the hook? Ask Roman Polanski.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Gemdiva- agreed!
And rain, I’m going to have to lay the blame on Mom and Dad, who are ultimately responsible for their fifteen year old, not Annie.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Okay, this is really backwards for me, as a relatively conservative person and parent I usually agree with Glinda, but I do have to side with Raincoaster this time.
It’s not that everyone is shocked, is more about how unhappy they are about it. An underage teen being photographed like this is disturbing (no not unexpected in today’s world, but still disturbing) and you can’t blame people for bei outraged.
As for the blame, it belongs to pretty much everyone here. Parents who raised a girl to be okay with this sort of thing, a photographer with no scruples about exploiting a young girl, the editors who allowed it to be published, the adults who bought the magazine and displayed it for all to see.
I also agree that there’s an unpleasant difference between a rumpled girl holding a sheet to her chest and a teen running around with too much skin showing around her trendy outfit. It’s not about how much is showing. It’s about how it’s being shown. I don’t like the way girls dress today, but I really hate seeing a young girl exposed in an overtly sexual photograph.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
But it’s ok to be overtly sexual walking around on the street, but not in a controlled environment?
This is where people lose me with the difference between regular girls and this picture.
And hey, I didn’t say I thought the picture was fabulous, I just couldn’t understand the sudden outcry over teen sexuality on display.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I think part of the outrage was the hope that maybe, just maybe, Miley would turn out to be “different” and then there’s the crushing disappointment when she’s not. There is so much over-sexing of little/young girls these days that it is refreshing and uplifting when you find a popular figure who seems to be able to be popular and famous WITHOUT going all trashy. Moms think, finally! someone I can let my precious little girl look up to without worrying about what it will lead to and then this happens, and you think, sigh, just like all the other ones. So I think the outrage isn’t over “underage girl posing naughtily” in general; it’s “oh no, i really thought she was going to be different” specific to Miley.
And while there may be a large proportion of young girls parading around in skimpy clothes where you are Glinda, what you see may not be representative of many parts of the country.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Marvel- Now that is an explanation I can understand!
However, is Miley to blame for other people’s expectations of her?
Ahhh, these poor Disney starlets! Hillary Duff did fine, while Lindsay did not.
Maybe people should just stop looking at “stars” altogether as role models and stick closer to home.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I’m all for whatever uproar we can muster about the sexualizing of young girls. If nobody notices and nobody cares, then we have truly lost the war. The young women in our lives need to know that, whatever anyone else may think, we think the sexploitation of teens is just wrong.
And it’s wrong with or without the girl’s consent. A child star becomes a child star because she goes to extraordinary lengths to please the adults in charge. How hard is it for an experienced photographer to get the pose she wants from this girl?
May 1st, 2008 at 12:36 am
gamma – I agree! It’s all wrong, both what happens on the street and in front of the camera. Miley gets the rap because she shows up on the cover of a magazine. If only we did make as big a stink about the ordinary girls running around in almost nothing!
Glinda – I do have to agree with you that most (if not all) of the blame lands on the parents’ shoulders. But, I think that applies to your average teen as well. I know a young lady who’s parents encourage her to show more skin! How can she have any kind of perspective when she’s hearing it’s okay from that quarter?
May 1st, 2008 at 7:44 am
Again I have to say, skimpy clothing isn’t the issue. There is a huge divide (in etiquette and more) between underage girls who are wearing clothes, however low-cut, and those who are not wearing clothes. The biggest issue with the photograph is that it’s a photo of a 15-year-old NOT wearing clothes.
Little boys also walk around wearing not very much, but it’s still not okay to have them pose without shorts, clutching a sheet and looking seductive.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
Rain–your last posting got my attention. There is a series of Paul Mitchell (hair products) print ads that feature Mr. Mitchell and his lovely family–in one of the shots, his son (maybe 10 or 11 years old) is shirtless and wearing a snake and it bugs me that this shot creeps me out. It’s just so, so, NAMBLA. I mean, it IS his son, but it gives me the same “euww!” vibe that I get from the other Vanity Fair shots of Miley reclining on her dad (who is skeevy–that soul patch, ick). I love my kids, and encourage them to be loving as well to the adults in the family, but at some point, affection can cross the line…
Know what I mean?
May 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am
That, raincoaster, is what I agree with!
What I don’t know is who everyone is trying to blame for this.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Well, I primarily blame Annie, because I long ago came to the conclusion that the parents here were a writeoff, whatever platitudes they may mouth on-camera. The whole celebrity media industry saw this coming long ago, because her outfits, makeup and behavior were getting more and more publicly “Britney-esque” and even Britney didn’t post bra shots on her Myspace page at fifteen. Kids are kids, but somebody’s got to be the grownup at least until they’re old enough to marry a backup dancer.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I think that parents are, and always will be, the last stop on the responsibility train.
I had to throw that in, because it’s my post and I MUST have the last word! Muahahaha!
May 6th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Sorry to steal the last word, Glinda, but I’d like to point out that these trendy clothes aren’t only skimpy. They’re also covered with slogans like “Naughty” and “Sexy” and “Li’l Slut” and whatever else, in glitter, across the breasts. I’m sorry, but given that teenage girls, when *dressed*, are literal walking billboards for statutory rape, I can’t see much of a difference between that and Miley in a sheet looking like she just danced the horizontal mambo. Same freaking difference.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:24 am
It’s not a sheet. It’s a shawl or something of the sort made of something expensive that I can’t rermember right now. I actually think that helps a bit. Not a fan of the photo, but in regards to the ‘other’ photos (in which she’s in a bra and jeans and there is a boy in the background)…. If I ever have a daughter I will be SO proud if she is keeping her pants and bra on at age 15.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Chiming in late.
The cost of the material is irrelevant; I can’t see how the fact that it’s “something expensive” makes it any better.
The biggest problem I have with the photo is, simply, it’s ugly. She looks faintly corpse-ish, as if she’d just been pulled from the river, AND the angle of her head has managed to make this very slim, slender young lady look pudgy. My guess would be that she put herself on a (n entirely unnecessary) diet when she saw the pics.
I don’t see anything sexually suggestive or risque about the picture IN AND OF ITSELF. (Perhaps because, like Glinda, I’ve seen so, so, SO much worse that this is virtually church-going attire by comparison. Like someone else mentioned, I got WAY more heebie-jeebies from the picture of her reclining with her dad.) However, IMO, when we couple this photo with the MySpace pics of Ms. Cyrus posing all pouty in her panties (ooh, alliteration) and other attention-seeking behavior, *then* it becomes questionable.
And, Maternal Mirth, good luck with that “never” thing. Goooooooood luck.