Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Majorie]

Keep in mind that she is fifteen. I can't believe her parents would allow her to do this. She is way too young to be seen as a sex symbol like this. If she doesn't end up turning out like a Britney Spears or a Lindsey Lowan it will be a miracle.



http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=454075

[Invisible Friend.]

Oh nose not Hannah Montana.

I would not let my 15 year old daughter pose topless, even if you can't see anything.
But I guess it's up to Mr and Mrs Billy Ray.

[Lexii-]

Of course she'll turn out like Britney Spears & Lindsay Lohan.
Every young, respectable hollywood teen in the entertainment industry does.
And hey, she's probably just doing it for a publicity stunt.

[Kelchables]

she's beautiful.

[Kelchables]

right, in more depth, I can understand both sides of the argument. She's a role model for youngsters, in which case this sort of portrait wouldn't be seen positively in the eyes of mothers. However making a fuss about it would make kids wonder hat's wrong about it. I mean, look at it - it's a naked back. Oh dear god, sue me! she could just be wearing a cress with a low back ffs, but I suppose we don't want youngsters getting into that do we.

but it is such a beautiful photo. I love Leibovitz.

[Invisible Friend.]

I love the picture too.

But even if it is just her back that is shown she still isn't wearing any clothes.
And I guess it's not the fact that you can see her back anyways, I mean as Hannah Montana she wore backless shirts and things, I think it is more the sexuality of the photographs, she is seen as a sex symbol now and she isn't even old enough to legally have sex yet, let alone 18.
I mean she's under the age and the thing is if you pass any age restriction then, some people will be like well ok lets get 12 year olds posing like that now.

[Majorie]

However making a fuss about it would make kids wonder hat's wrong about it. I mean, look at it - it's a naked back. Oh dear god, sue me! she could just be wearing a cress with a low back ffs, but I suppose we don't want youngsters getting into that do we.

but it is such a beautiful photo. I love Leibovitz.

This is a little different from wearing a backless top. She's not wearing anything, she's covering  her pre pubescent breasts with a bed sheet.

I personally think it's not a particularly flattering picture of her either. She looks waaaay too pasty

[Kelchables]

IT'S OKAY TO SLEEP NAKED

I don't think she looks pasty. I think it goes with the image, mirrors the bed sheet to a certain extent. Young pure paleness, I suppose the darkness around the shadows of her body make the image more sultry and sexulised. But the lighting and composition, give this image a neo-classic appearance to it, which in the article, is what they were talking about (Leibovitz and this chick), but taken out of context means it's just a sultry half naked chick. I think people are being immature about this, but I suppose that has to do with her audience.

And she'll turn out more like Hillary Duff than those other chicks. It's not like her knockers (or lack of) or flaps are hanging out.

[Majorie]

IT'S OKAY TO SLEEP NAKED

What's that got to do with anything?

And she'll turn out more like Hillary Duff than those other chicks. It's not like her knockers (or lack of) or flaps are hanging out.

Give it time.

[Kelchables]

What's that got to do with anything?

 

Bed sheet.

[Thaluikhain]

Erm, who is Miley Cyrus?

[Invisible Friend.]

Billy Ray Cyrus' daughter who plays Hannah Montana in Hannah Montana.

[Pinball Neil]

I like the fact msj chose to include the exploitative picture in her indignant self-righteous thread.

[Lexii-]

Well since it's Naked month, I call dibs on using Miley's photo.

[Keridwen]

Erm, who is Miley Cyrus?

And indeed, who cares?