Disgusting Ad....

Originally posted by budski
I find ANY picture of a child posed as an adult disturbing - like those child "beauty queens" in full hair and make up.

Well theres a point to ponder.

Strikes me that the US has a few double standards really.

JonBenet Ramsey comes to mind - probably because she was the most famous (for terrible reasons) of the "beauty pagent" kids - image google the name and you'll see the type of stuff she was made to wear.

And then there's cheerleaders at junior high and highschool level. No one seems to mind them. In fact they are an accepted - aspired to - part of American culture.

But Miley Cyrus like this in Vanity Fayre causes a storm?

Me - I don't like the picture. I don't think Vanity Fayre should have run it. Its uncomfortable - I'll go so far as distasteful even.

BUT - Its also put Miley Cyrus in the headlines, and given her column space, and I really don't buy the "didn't know anything about it" routine.

Originally posted by budski
It looks to me like an attempt to "sex-up" an underage girl

And therein lies the crux of what people are concerned about. It's not that the back is evil, or that she's wearing anything that you couldn't see on any other channel worn by any other celebrity, it's that the image itself is a sexed up image implying nudity of an underage girl who is herself a massive role model for untold girls half her own age.

It's one of those complicated things that makes me think of it as more of criminal negligence on the part of her agent than any sort of actual pornographic crime.

Originally posted by thelibra


And therein lies the crux of what people are concerned about. It's not that the back is evil, or that she's wearing anything that you couldn't see on any other channel worn by any other celebrity, it's that the image itself is a sexed up image implying nudity of an underage girl who is herself a massive role model for untold girls half her own age.

It's one of those complicated things that makes me think of it as more of criminal negligence on the part of her agent than any sort of actual pornographic crime.

THANK YOU! That's what I've been trying to say! It's not the back, or the hair, or the lipstick, or the bedsheet...it's all these things put together to make a provocative scene out of a 15 year old girl!

[edit on 6-5-2008 by louiekid333]

reply to post by thelibra


yes thanx too, i cant believe people are even discussing this its so obvious and the fact that they are dismissing it as merely distasteful just goes to show you how the public fell into the spell of the media. yet no one gets it its not what she reveals she could be wearing a swimming suit and it wouldve never been that bad. except she didnt instead she a 15 yr old is covered her naked body, topless with bed sheets, WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS TELLS YOU!
can it be sexual roleplay or constructed to satisfy your fantasies? is that normal to see a girl at such an age like that one who works for Disney. would you ever let ur daughter do that? people im sorry but it seemed so clear to me that its so wrong and actually i think people havent made such a big deal about this as they should. vanity fair shouldve paid a price. and ya i dont care what kind of famous female photographer that person is ok she should be hanged regardless, in fact if it were a male photographer people wouldve cried NOOOOOOOOOOO!



[edit on 6-5-2008 by DuneKnight]

reply to post by Fossilized


Fossilized, AKA Temelechus, AKA PooPooButt, AKA 2nts_astk, AKA Who knows how many other accounts you have...

Give it up.

If she consented to the photo that was her decision and her right, law be damned. If you don't like her work, don't look at it.

Originally posted by apc If you don't like her work, don't look at it.

It was an ad on this webpage... i didn't choose to look at it.

I am sure i am not the only one who had never heard of this girl before this...

A glance may have been unavoidable, but nobody forced you to stare at it long enough to come to the detailed conclusion that she looked like she was a little whore who had just been raped. A bit obsessive actually. I see a lot of sick, twisted things, like people wanting to pass laws forbidding this sort of free speech. But I find that as long as the bigots don't actually get their way, it doesn't affect me and the best thing to do is just ignore it. So, just ignore it. Save yourself the headache.

Originally posted by apc
A glance may have been unavoidable, but nobody forced you to stare at it long enough to come to the detailed conclusion that she looked like she was a little whore who had just been raped.

My brain can thing more in a second then my hands can type in a hour.

I just was noting what i saw. Mabye some people realy like the picture. Mabye some people have that photo of her as thier wallpaper.

Mabye the best thing ffor this thread is for it to be closed... or moved to the place for Ad complants...

ATS kicks (blank), and when they have ads that piss members off, they get rid of them.

This is what the ad was.

Originally posted by louiekid333
heres a screenshot of the picture we've all been talking about.

Haha that I had not seen. I thought you were talking about the actual original photo of Cyrus. That picture would have just made me laugh like it did now!

In any case my understanding is if you have a problem with a specific ad you should report it directly through the complaint form. It avoids eight pages of ranting and debate like we have here.

reply to post by apc


Is dressing up a child to look like an adult (in a sexual sense) freedom of speech?

In that case are peadophiles merely mis-understood?

Perhaps when the cops raid the homes of people who have pictures on their computer of kids only slightly less covered up, they can cite freedom of speech or expression as their defense.

It's not the girls fault - it's the fault of the publishers, and to an extent the photographer, for their cynical posing and sexing up of a child.

This picture attempts to make a sex symbol of a child - that's wrong on so many levels.

Fifteen is not a child. As far as our evolution is concerned, fifteen is middle-aged. Fifteen is old enough to make reasoned, intelligent decisions. Old enough to get married, have sex, or make any other choice in their life. There may be consequences they don't consider, as one would expect from someone lacking life experience, but that does not mean they lack the capacity to choose their own fate.

As far as any sexual attraction, that's subjective and I don't really care about that. But if you want to take some moralistic standpoint and label someone who would be attracted to a fifteen year-old, at least call them the right thing. Ephebophile. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children, not teenagers. Understand it's not my thing... I like experience. But this modern day generalizing of anyone attracted to someone not of government-approved age as a pedophile is nothing more than simple intolerance and bigotry.

In the end it boils down to the fact that nobody forces you to look at Cyrus' picture. Yes, it's her free speech. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

Originally posted by apc

Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children, not teenagers. Understand it's not my thing... I like experience. But this modern day generalizing of anyone attracted to someone not of government-approved age as a pedophile is nothing more than simple intolerance and bigotry.

I also like experience, which is why I am only attracted to prostitutes. *sarcasm* sorry man i just hate the use of the word 'experience' when it comes to sex as its a glass half full type of thing. and ya i totally disagree with you and you are dead wrong. 15 yrs old is way too young to make any decisions concerning sex, wow really i thought you would know that. kids that age can be easily taken advantage off whether by a fellow teen or a creepy old guy, easily manipulated into doing the wrong thing and will no doubt bear regret. and people who are attracted to kids that age are of a manipulative predator kind who lure children into their world of sin.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by DuneKnight]

reply to post by apc


apc thanks for succintly saying alot of what I have been trying to say in this thread. I don't suppose there is a section of law dealing with 15 year old dress code and hairstyle yet. Is that what you all want? Sharia law perhaps?

Outrageous self rightousness IMO.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
reply to post by apc

 

I don't suppose there is a section of law dealing with 15 year old dress code and hairstyle yet. Is that what you all want? Sharia law perhaps?

Point taken...

A girl like this wouldn't be alive under Shria Law...

I guess that seems to be the one redeaming fact about the muslem world, thier daughters are not turning into Tramps... (Please, don't comment on this, i have already brought out the Hana Montana Hordes... now the pro-Islam people are going to break my balls...)

reply to post by TKainZero


LOL, woke up in bed after being raped? I didn't see that at all.. I saw a young girl wasting away because of American Pop Culture, but then again, I also don't see that as any different to her being Raped. Metaphorically of course.

How can a child whos built a multi billion dollar empire expect to be normal and do the stupid # that kids do?

This is why I refuse to watch TV. Ever.

Originally posted by DuneKnight
15 yrs old is way too young to make any decisions concerning sex, wow really i thought you would know that. kids that age can be easily taken advantage off whether by a fellow teen or a creepy old guy, easily manipulated into doing the wrong thing and will no doubt bear regret. and people who are attracted to kids that age are of a manipulative predator kind who lure children into their world of sin.

You are aware that the AOC in the UK - and many other western countries is 16 aren't you?

So - you've piqued my curiosity - whats the difference between 15 + 364 days, and 15 + 365 days - the magical flick of a switch?

reply to post by neformore


I think it has a lot to do with personal morals. Myself I find dating outside of a +7 -7 year timespan morally reprehensable. A 16 year old in my opinion is still a child and as such should not be photographed in a provocative way.

However saying that the photo shoot as described above is rather tame by todays standards. We see a lot more skin nowadays on teenage shows anyway I just don't see the whole hubub about it.

Okay, which image is more scandalous? The advertisement in question, or her usual attire?