digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at scandalouscandice.com

Miley Cyrus Slutting It Up Once Again

scandalouscandice.com — Disturbing new images of Disney star Miley Cyrus nearly topless for Vanity Fair have surfaced. Its ***** up because she is only 15 years old. The photos sow her holding a sheet over her breasts and lipstick that looks like Kool-Aid stained lips. Talk about the ewww factor.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • thirdcoastborn, on 04/27/2008, -7/+3i feel for her dad.
    • richman241, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6i dont, who do you think let her do this
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5He and her mother were at the photoshoot!
  • KevinRWright, on 04/28/2008, -0/+11Somewhere...Pedobear is lurking.
    • mvandemar, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8Miley is secretly a 19 year old FBI agent, deep undercover, tracking every single visit to every website that mentions her, ever.
  • killbert24, on 04/28/2008, -6/+1I can't wait to see you again.
    • richman241, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2shes 15, way to young for you
      • killbert24, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1Its one of her lyrics.
        • Coven, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8Buried for knowing Miley Cyrus lyrics.
        • vault, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Yeah I think knowing the lyrics to her songs is actually worse than fantasizing about her.
  • EatingPie, on 04/28/2008, -4/+8Look at the pictures before judging. They're artsy, and NOT revealing at all. The press is just trying to hype this (Entertainment Tonight "broke" the story calling her "topless.").

    They're taken by Annie Liewbowitz, and are far more artsy than sexual... and a far far cry from "slutty." My kids watch Hannah Montana, and I have no problem with them seeing these pictures.

    -Pie
    • saltinekracka20, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"Entertainment Tonight "broke" the story calling her "topless.")."

      Technically, she is topless.
    • ssn697, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3artsy or not, she is 15 years old. Technically, under present law, you could be considered as committing a crime just by viewing the pictures.
    • EatingPie, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Why would it be illegal to look at the picture? She is completely covered up by a sheet. There is nothing showing but her back. If it *were* illegal for us to even look, then Annie Liebovitz has much more to fear than us, since that would make her a child pornographer. And Variety itself would be in an equal amount of trouble.

      -Pie
  • Cfahooligan, on 04/28/2008, -5/+7Oh come on EatingPie this is a thin line they are waking on. Revealing pics of a minor is not art. I don't care how good they look. They made her look like she has kool-aid stained lips like a child. That's creepy.
    • cquinnd, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2You get from the pictures what you put into them.
  • EatingPie, on 04/28/2008, -4/+4Make sure you see the ORIGINAL pictures. The ones on this site, and generally circulating the net, are the ET ones; they're CUT to support ET's claim that she's "topless." The real pictures show her obviously completely covered up, they are NOT REVEALING at all, and are a fairly typical artsy pose.

    And on the kool-aid thing? I don't see anything but lipstick, and if you look at the color palette of the original picture, you'll see why it stands out.

    This is total media sensationalism. The pictures are not that big of a deal.

    The NYTimes has one of the originals...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/2 ...

    -Pie
  • Cfahooligan, on 04/28/2008, -5/+5EatingPie I have seen the original photos and it doesn't change the fact that they took a 15 year old and made her appear semi nude. I don't care if its artistic or if it was Annie Leibovitz who took the shot. She is a Disney child star and a role model. Her parents were not even there when they took the shots.

    This is not media sensationalism. It's ***** exploitation of a minor.

    It wouldn't be a big deal if Miley was 18. A proper adult. Even 18 for some people is questionable. It's only a few years from 15 not that different to some.

    I am not trying to be a party pooper or anything. I just prefer trashy whore celebrities to be of age.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Actually her parents were there, which makes it worse in a way.
  • EatingPie, on 04/28/2008, -3/+2Cfahooligan.

    I'm glad you saw the originals. We definitely have different interpretations. For me, I don't find the pictures sexually provocative; I see them as artistic. The best analogy I can come up with -- though it's far more extreme than these images -- is that of a Playboy vs. something like artnudes.blogspot.com. None of the girls on the latter site come off as "trashy whores" or anything like that. (And, certainly Entertainment Tonight sensationalized these images to make them seem Playboy-esque, and thus more controversial.)

    And I do not believe Miley's photos fit that description either (and once again, those two sites are far more extreme than Miley's images, and surely the women are all 18 or over). She doesn't seem to be either trashy or whorish in these images. She doesn't look sexually provocative or erotic. Though I would *not* call them devoid of sexuality. Which is what I find them striking, compelling, thought provoking... The muted colors, and her questioning gaze, her not-quite smile is interesting. Does this represent her coming of age? Wondering about her future in an over-sexualized society? Or maybe she is protecting herself from a culture that over-emphasizes sex, protecting herself from the path Brittney Spears embraced and followed?

    This is why I find the images more than appropriate. They are not *sexy*, but they are art. They are thoughtful, not porno. And to me that makes a ton of difference.

    -Pie
  • Cfahooligan, on 04/28/2008, -3/+2EatingPie,

    The only problem is that this is not her first time. And that's why I say artistic or not it's not good for her. The boyfriend pics, the bra pics, the panty pics, and now the topless pics. Had it just been this one instance I probably would have said wow that's borderline, but not that bad. And they aren't THAT bad. It's just a bad choice right after her second instance with slutty internet pics. Her image is going down fast. She isn't making good decisions right now. She seems like a good girl but I strongly sense train wreck in the future.
  • celebmonkey, on 04/28/2008, -2/+6if anyone but Annie Liebowitz had taken these photos I'd call them child porn. they are artistic, yes... AND sexy. which is a combination that goes great together when you're talking about an adult - but not a young teenager. I am frankly shocked that Billy Ray let her do this.
    • pedo, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1"if anyone but Annie Liebowitz had taken these photos I'd call them child porn."

      thats interesting. the pics aren't child porn because annie liebowitz took the pics. nice logic.
      • celebmonkey, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2so do you think any naked picture of a child is pornographic? nice logic.

        clearly then, you missed my point. I strongly doubt that Annie Liebowitz would take pictures of a child that were INTENDED to titillate adults. I respect her larger body of work too much to think that. however, the fact is that she draped a naked teenager in a sheet, a famous teenager whom adult men ALREADY lust after, so it becomes titillating, intentionally or not.

        • pedo, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1so if i took the EXACT SAME picture of my 15 year old friend it would be child porn according to your own logic. the fact that annie liebowitz took the pic and the fact that the girl is a celebrity has nothing to do with the actual content of the pic. i will quote you once again since you obviously don't know what you said:

          "if anyone but Annie Liebowitz had taken these photos I'd call them child porn."
          • celebmonkey, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I know what I said. try to wrap your brain around what it MEANS. I think intention and the reputation of the artist has a great deal to do with it, yes, I do. you don't have to like it, but that's how I feel about it. I STILL think that these pictures of Miley Cyrus are incredibly inappropriate. but porn? no.

            please answer my question now: is ANY naked photo of a child pornographic?
        • pedo, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1furthermore, if you actually think that liebowitz did not intend for the pic to be "titillating" you're a naive idiot.
      • vault, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3You can make the argument it's in bad taste and that if people suddenly buy this issue it's not because of the photos' artistic value, but it's absolutely not child porn. She's not even nude...there's nothing explicit about it.
        • pedo, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2great, then the pics i have of my neighbors kids aren't child porn either. thats awesome to hear, thanks.
  • pedo, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2she issued a statement saying she was coerced into doing it. shes 15. how is this legal?

    quote:
    The magazine refers to the "topless but demure portrait" as Leibovitz's idea and quotes Cyrus as saying, "It wasn't in a skanky way. ... And you can't say no to Annie. She's so cute. She gets this puppy dog look and you're like, 'O.K.' "

    A Disney Channel spokesman, Patti McTeague, said in a statement released Sunday that the photos were meant to sell magazines.

    "Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," she said.
    • EmporerTitus, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1Anything the fabulous Ms Leibovitz does is legal. The laws that would put you in government rape camp for teen erotica don't apply to rich H*llywood artists.
  • EmporerTitus, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1Royalty like Princess Leibovitz are allowed to do things like this just to remind us that there is a dual standard for justice, and that they control the masses using guilt. If I did this I would go to jail, because I'm not a rich J*w.
    Having babies keeps girls happy and out of trouble, so they must demonize young families so people will waste their youth on consumption, parties, and degeneration.
  • tont0r, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0"Sacrifice in March, corn have plenty starch!"
  • DeepState, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1I have no idea who this girl even is.
  • Cfahooligan, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Space Monkey, He was there and then left when she did the topless pics. Its clear he was there as he was in some of the photos but he didn't see the topless photos taken.
    • celebmonkey, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1that in and of itself is surprising.
  • DesignerDan, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0What is "revealing" about this photo?
    Girls wear backless dresses at the award shows that show this much.
    And a pic of Miley in a bathing suit would show more than this.
    I'm not a fan of hers. I didn't even know who she was until a few weeks ago, so I'm not defending her but anyone that thinks this photo is sexy, revealing, or CHILD PORN needs to have their head examined!

    You have to wonder how some people can look at a photo of a child and immediately see it as dirty of sexual. Maybe if your mind is immediately going to that place you need to take a hard look at yourself.
    We as a society, the United States in general, are so uptight about stuff like this it's embarrassing. I have friends from Sweden. They find it funny how the U.S. makes such a big deal about things like nudity. Here in the U.S. it seems that nudity ALWAYS equals sex.

    If the Janet Jackson nipple incident had happened anywhere else in the world other than here it wouldn't have been news for more than a day. But America turned it into a giant scandal that lasted months and has literally changed television guidelines.
    Trust me when I say that Europeans and, well, pretty much every other country is laughing at us.
    When a girl's bare back being shown in a photo makes news and has people up in arms we DESERVE to be laughed at.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.