Vanity Fair's Miley Cyrus Near-Topless Photos Should Trouble American Parents
Fifteen-year-old Hannah Montana star Miley Cyrus is virtually topless on the cover of Vanity Fair. Disney blames the magazine, the magazine says that her parents and minders were there throughout the Annie Leibowitz photo shoot. But it doesn't much matter who is at fault. This is a major wake-up call to American parents.
Young girls are being sexualized at an increasingly early age. It was bad enough that Britney Spears started showing off her body when she was nineteen. But Miley is 15. How much younger will it go? A few years ago, Time magazine reported that 40% of American high school girls wear thongs to school, a great many with the underwear strap showing above their jeans. Our daughters need to be protected from sexual exploitation. They need to hear that they have a brain and not just a bust. A strong message must be sent both to Vanity Fair and Disney that the sexual exploitation of a young girl for commercial profit is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by American parents who buy their products.
Also, the line between the female recording industry and soft porn was erased years ago first by Madonna and then by Britney Spears. We need to reconstruct that line. Women should be appreciated for their music talent and not exposed body parts. Young girls who want to succeed in music should not have to feel the insane pressure to expose themselves. Music is a dignified profession. A talented fifteen-year-old shouldn't feel that unless she starts taking off her clothes, her star will begin to dim. She's a kid, for goodness sake. The message she should be conveying to her young fans is that "I succeeded through hard work and talent, not shortcuts like compromising my dignity in order to get attention."
And without wanting to be judgmental, I do have to ask, where are Miley's parents in all this? Have they not seen what happened to Britney Spears? This is a slippery-slope. Please step in here and protect your daughter. She is an inspiration to millions of young girls. Tell her that she should never compromise herself to feed the hungry media beast that loves to shock. Tell her that the message she should be giving to her fans is that she loves being a kid, she's not rushing to grow up too fast, and that exposing her body is not what she or any other fifteen-year-old should be about.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the author of Hating Women: America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex.www.shmuley.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Oh who cares. The kid is just making a buck at other people's expense, which is what the US has always been about. Stop assigning "role model" status to these people. Play your kid something else, ditch the satellite. My 8 yr. old knows of her from Disney.com, doesn't like her music, and what does she ask for in the car instead?
Beatles-Yellow Submarine
Here is where "Daddy Dearest" was during the shoot. He can be seen with his daughter, after his mullet was blown dry and the makeup was dusted on. If the link don't work by clicking, please cute and paste.
http://www.dlisted.com/node/25543
I believe that the parents left before the "shoot" was over because they knew what was coming up and they could be absolved of all responsibility for the final photograph.
If Daddy can do anything else to push this child's career (think Lynne Spears and Joe Simpson), it will be done.
Rabbi:
"Young girls are being sexualized at an increasingly early age."
This is a false tautology bandied about by any number of culture warriors who do not bother to investigate the facts. The age at which sexual activity has been regarded as "acceptable" has been rising for the past couple of centuries. Look at marriage ages. Yes, there has been a coarsening of attitudes towards sexual behavior, if not the act itself, but that simply recognizes a reality: teenagers going through puberty are interested by the changes in their bodies and sexual activity with their peers.
The truth is that this girl, on the edge of womanhood, took a provocative photo for the cover of a magazine aimed at adults. If not for the mass cultural hysteria (hmm, why does the name Janet Jackson spring to mind?) the average tween would never have seen the photos in the first place. The small percent that might have found it on the Internet have much more to worry about because THEY ARE ON THE INTERNET.
Why do we demand that our public figures live up to the title of "role model" ? Aside from Barack Obama, there has never, ever been a pop-culture figure, an actor or singer, a politician or broadcaster, who I have considered a role model.
Wow, Rabbi does your wife have to wear a burqua?
You kinda went off the deep end with out knowing the facts of the photo shoot.
"without wanting to be judgemental"? Your are reveling in being judgemental!
Did you even look at the photos?
It seems Rabbi Shmuley wants to turn the US into Iran and/or Saudi Arabia.
Maybe he should visit sometime and see what sexual repression does to young people.
It is distressing to read American Jews advocating for the Talibanization of America.
Good grief, what an enormous pile of drivel. Thank god this article is posted electronically so that no trees had to die for this BS.
I mean, seriously -- WTF is "near-topless"? Aside from the fact that it is the ranting of an obviously repressed mind, it bears absolutely no relation to the actual photo. Have you actually seen the picture, rabbi?
OH NO! a 15 year old girl has exposed shoulders! quick--put a burqa on her! the hysteria in the media is on ludicrous speed, as usual.
the vanity fair photo is beautiful. the fact that she is wearing a sheet doesn't make any difference. she is not wearing any less clothing than girls and young women wear anywhere in america during the summer time. if anything, she is exposing FAR LESS than what you'd see at your average high school. and anyway, sex and sexuality have ALWAYS been prevalent among teens. if this weren't normal, boys wouldn't have their hormones raging till they were in their 20s and neither would girls get their periods as early as 10 or 11. oh i'm sorry, i mentioned boys when our puritanical standards only apply to girls--my bad!
the media "outrage" over this comes from the need to make a story out of nothing, by asking the puritanical freaks of america "aren't you outraged over this??" and the puritanical freaks eating it all up by responding, "yes, yes we are! shocked and appalled!". hook, line, and sinker. congrats! you've helped make this issue of vanity fair probably the highest selling issue of 2008. somewhere a VF executive is laughing maniacally.
Just a question, what were the young girls of the 60s or the 70s or the 80s or the 90s doing? Being sexualized at an increasingly early age.
I was just a kid during the 80s, but honestly, if you're having such a difficult time remembering how sexualized teenage girls were, try watching a John Hughes movie. Or what about the 70s and 60s and free love? Do you think that was only restricted to 20 year olds and up? Or even the 90s, I was a teenage girl then, and since you're having so much difficulty remembering it, why not try the movie "Clueless"--that is an excellent example. Cher is 15 about to be 16, wears very revealing and tight clothing, goes partying, and is criticized by her best friends for being the only virgin out of the three of them.
Gosh, girls have been sexualized at a young age for quite a while now. This is nothing new.
I am not sure I see the issue here outside of Disney execs losing their shit becasue it's goldmine (and her parents) decided to have a little fun. This is about damage control to cover a potentially large profit loss for Disney as the tabloid media and puritan parents across America start snapping synapses about what's happening to "our youth". Who's exploiting who? That's the question.
She's revealing even less here than the even younger girl modeling the "Hannah Montana Girls Rock Bikini" (I'm not kidding, howz that for irony and hypocrisy?) which is advertised right on the Disney site. (Thanks, Atrios)
So a 15yo is having fun in an artsy shoot with Annie Leibowitz. Big f***ing deal! She sure doesn't look embarrassed to me in these shots. Girls are girls, boys are boys, let them express themselves and educate them about sex as soon as they start getting their urges and we'll all be better off than trying to slap chastity belts on them.
Is anyone really going to believe that this girl went and did a Vanity Fair photo shoot without anyone in her family knowing? I am sure this was pretty big news for the Cyruses and I'm also sure Mom and Dad negotiated and were well-paid. Maaaybe the Disney lawyers and execs are now waving her contract in front of her and trotting her out there to condemn the act to rescue their profit margins and futures...ya think?
Grow up America!
You say and ask:
And without wanting to be judgmental, I do have to ask, where are Miley's parents in all this? Have they not seen what happened to Britney Spears? This is a slippery-slope. Please step in here and protect your daughter.
Well, her father was in make-up and hair getting ready for the more disturbing pictures of his daughter laying on his crotch. They saw the pictures right there on the set (it was all done with digital cameras and the go-ahead was given by all.
As for female sexuality being "Young girls are being sexualized at an increasingly early age." My grandmother was married at 16, my great grandmother was married at 15, and it wasn't until recent history that women waited until they were older to get married. With the advent of technology and women's liberation from being chattle, the age of sexuality has gotten later, not sooner. And then again, there's that old "family" show called "Little House on the Prarie" where Laura Ingalls was married at 14. That was how it used to be, and yet you falsly claim we are sexualizing children at an earlier age, when in fact the opposit has taken place over the last century.
You really need to dust up on your history...
"Miley Cyrus is virtually topless on the cover of Vanity Fair"
No, she's not.
She's wearing less makeup than I've seen her wear in almost any other photo and in this one, she looks more her age than she normally does. She is showing off her back and shoulders and nothing more.
The Cyrus family "outrage" didn't happen until after the moral outrage started by Disney fans. Her father and handlers were on site during the shoot and had full say over what would be done. They loved the shot before they heard the criticism.
I think the larger issue is how disgusting it is for parents to thrust their children into an adult world to help support their own egos.
I don't get the problem with this particular photo shoot. It has all of the revealing aspects of the average prom dress--some bare back. The fact that it's a sheet doesn't change the fact that it reveals only as much as an otherwise acceptable piece of clothing.
Stop being logical!
LOL!!!
The Vanity Fair photo was rather beautiful. Worrying about that is another sign of the rampant political correctness that's derailed the current Democratic nomination campaign. The photos of Cyrus partying (it seems) with friends are where her parents should be more concerned. That's only because the LA party scene is so extreme, compared to what we grew up with, though.
my goodness....the way people are reacting to this you'd swear she's naked on the cover with her legs spread! there is nothing remotely screaming sex from that photo.....she was at the oscars earlier this year in a grown up dress with lots and lots of make up actually looking rather Tarty! ( is that word)
its her Back that is exposed...why no one has a problem with bikinis and young girls at the beach ill never understand.....the photo is quite nice actually..its only when the "adults" start making everything dirty and shameful that it becomes a problem.....PROJECTING....the ones making the b iggest stink about it are the ones im concerned about.......what exactly are they thinking when they see the photo....
why no one has a problem with the violence that is on TV.....the shameless and despicable manner in which americans behave on these reality shows is baffling to me...that is something i wouldnt want my children exposed to.....
america's FEAR of sexuality is so absurd.......there are so many more things to concern ourselves with...if you dont dig it....change the channel....or better yet DONT buy the magazine.......get over yourselves .....
*and finally.....Madonna was 26 years old when she started....an adult....her sexuality was on display ....but she was in on the joke with you.......
dont' take it seriously........
!
I think the problem here is the good ol' double standard. This girl is making tons of cash by singing rather average music to girls spending their parent's money. A slightly sexual image like these pics counter the image that sells. I don't think very many of Miley's fans or their parents know who Annie Leibowitz is or read Vanity Fair, so they don't know the prestige attached to it for those who know. All they'll see is a half-naked 15-year-old, and the fantasy world they've created will come crashing down. And that is the biggest sin here, because with the image torn down, sales will drop, and the Cyrus name can go back to where it belongs: that achy, breaky dude with the massive mullet. If the girl' scareer is going to last past the "montana" crap, she'll need to do publicity shots like this. Madonna is a better blueprint than Spears.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
