dude...it's a chance for kelch to seem all avant garde and defend some "famous" photographer who seems "cutting edge".
she's one of those artsy fartsy high school types who, instead of making value judgements of her own, and filtering the work of people into good, bad and indifferent, simply lumps it all into the "woo! she rocks because my cool art teacher said so!" basket or the "woo! she rocks because most people hate that picture so i will like it" basket. 
so the more we rant and rave about how "bad" the picture is, the more she will say it's cool, because kelch just has to be anti-norm because of some obvious need she has (see: ponies/hair issues).
ahalolno. "Cool" is not the right word to describe, it is a masterpiece, it's just so elegant and amazing. I honesty do not believe there is anything morally wrong with that image. For the sake of - it's sexually appealing to those who are inclined to think like that, the sexualisation everyone is mentioning has been blown completely out of concept. She is 15, as we have said, okay, technically underage - but her parents, agreed, she discussed it with Leibovitz, everything was understood and planned, Cyrus agreed to it, so I really don't see why everyone is so "huff-huff". Why can't all those mothers who are whining about this portraying the wrong image to kids, say she was just sleeping naked.
Do you actually have an opinion Yak, or are you just here to turn me into a stereotype?
Heh, yeah, so open-minded that you reject opinions which you disagree with.
I'm not rejecting it, I'm trying to have some sort of discussion/debate/whatever the fuck you want to call it, about this photograph. I'm not rejecting your opinions I'm trying for people to see this as art, not some great unholy image of disgust.
Although the picture isn't explicit as you say ( eg she is not showing her tits,) you can't deny that it is extremely suggestive- The ruby red lips, the sex hair, the silk bed sheet. Just because the sexual element is hidden underneath a cloth of 'tastefulness' does that really make it any better when you are talking about a fifteen year old?
I don't think it matters it's a 15 year old, when her and her parents agreed to do the shoot. I think it shows how much media has effected us to instantly jump to the "sex" conclusion. It could just be bed hair ffs. I'll say it is slightly suggestive, but I still don't see what's so wrong about this.
You can use the concept of art to justify most weird and peverse things.
So what? In this case it's just to use it, as you know, famous photographer, for Vanity Fair.... their photos are pieces of art. I don't care about what it contains, but all the photos in there of theirs, are stunning.
