Revealing Photo Threatens a Major Disney Franchise

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Nope, was referring to rad's previous comment.

I've read this whole thread and I didn't see an insult from rad.

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:50 pm

Nope, was referring to rad's previous comment.
I've read this whole thread and I didn't see an insult from rad.

Checkout his cornbread statement and you'll be offended.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:51 pm

Nope, was referring to rad's previous comment.
I've read this whole thread and I didn't see an insult from rad.
Checkout his cornbread statement and you'll be offended.

I did, but that was a different thread and I was offended. But enough people were giving him shit for it, so I decided to take it easy on him.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:15 pm

If I knock a few girls up and get in a fight with a stripper, you aren't going to have a discussion with your husband about how you're going to handle telling your children...it isn't going to affect them in the least.

Of course not...but if one of their friends in school, or a neighbor or someone they know does something like this...I would be having the same discussion. And that is just as likely to happen as it is a young celebrity will make a mistake. We've had this discussion many times in the past about various celebrities...so please don't think I'm taking up arms because it's Miley. We have these discussions when Gator football players get in some sort of trouble.

And at least Rad is consistant in his feelings...you could never say he was two-faced or contradictory. He always feels that the players that make mistakes should get the maximum punishment. I just disagree. I think everything should be looked at in a case by case and what is indecent to you may not be indecent to me.

Sorry, but when Miley starts shaving her head, getting pulled over for DUI's and gets "knocked up" by some back-up dancer, then we will likely not be fans anymore. But a kid that is working her way through a career in the public eye who makes a misjudgement (or listens to others who mismanage her) is not going to make me think she's a horrible slut that I won't let my kids see in concert this weekend.

I guess I'm just a horrible parent. Whatever.

RickySlade · Post by **RickySlade** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:51 pm

Of course not...but if one of their friends in school, or a neighbor or someone they know does something like this...I would be having the same discussion

Sorry, but when Miley starts shaving her head, getting pulled over for DUI's and gets "knocked up" by some back-up dancer, then we will likely not be fans anymore. But a kid that is working her way through a career in the public eye who makes a misjudgement (or listens to others who mismanage her) is not going to make me think she's a horrible slut that I won't let my kids see in concert this weekend.

You'd be having the same discussion if your niece did it, but a mother in Alaska wouldn't be discussing the actions of your niece with her daughter. That's my point...celebrities are held to a higher standard because what they do (or don't do) reaches millions of people.

I was just disagreeing with the thought that celebs shouldn't be (or aren't) held to a higher standard. I had a problem with the picture, but if I had children I wouldn't have a problem with them going to her concerts. Pffft...I don't know where you got that idea. Like a portion of Weg's post, maybe it was meant for rad.

GoneFishinGator · Post by **GoneFishinGator** » Thu May 01, 2008 7:00 am

No, seriously, I'm gonna respectfully disagree. A girl wrapped in a bedsheet looking at a camera means sex to me -- more than a girl in a bikini, or even underwear, or even naked. Miley Cyrus gets naked every day on the way to the shower or the dresser, and that has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with having her clothes off.

Miley Cyrus or any woman looking over her shoulder at the camera and holding a bedsheet up over her breasts -- that is, as we English teachers like to put it, a willful adoption of the specular, of the position of being looked at. Refute this: That glance, grabbing of the sheet, and breast-hiding says: You are looking at me in my nakedness.

[img]http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/N ... nypost.jpg[/img]

It recruits us into sexualizing her. It says, I am being looked at. And it makes obvious the act of hiding the sexual body, which is simultaneously to assert the presence of the sexual body.

The nail has been hit on the head. The pic says "Look and see me.....do you want MORE?"

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:51 am

m7, I don't know where you're getting the horrible parent stuff. If anything, the argument was being made that Billy Ray was the bad parent, not anyone here. Somewhere this thread went awry and people assumed that if someone disagreed with their opinion here that it meant it was a personal insult or an attack. wtf?

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:54 am

Hater, I think it's because raising kids is a very personal thing and people get defensive about it quickly.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:54 am

This thread went straight up Too Hot.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:56 am

I didn't think anything about the picture except how I hate Billy Ray's hair. I showed the pic to BG, and he didn't think anything about it, either. He said, "You work on the assumption that father and daughter aren't humping, so there are no sexual overtones to take note of." Sorry, just a fancy, Hollywood-ish pic of father and daughter to me.

I meant to comment on this before and forgot.

If you didn't know who these two are, and didn't know they were father-daughter, you would assume they were knockin' boots. That's what makes the picture creepy.

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:56 am

This thread went straight up Too Hot.

Not if you don't read the posts that are longer than two sentences. [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/ride.gif[/img]

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:58 am

Hater, I think it's because raising kids is a very personal thing and people get defensive about it quickly.

could be. Being as I have no kids of my own at this point, that is something I'm not capable of completely comprehending.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Thu May 01, 2008 9:03 am

Hater, I think it's because raising kids is a very personal thing and people get defensive about it quickly.

Correct. I'm sorry...I think I took some of the posts a little too personally and I was probably wrong to do so.

And we could go round and round about what people see in the pictures. I do think there is a difference between men and women in these situations. Have any of you picked up a Teen Beat magazine lately? There are some pretty sexy pictures of teen boys in those mags...their shirts off giving that Fabio look in the camera. No one says a peep about those. Why is that?

In fact, I remember getting a picture of Dirk Benedict from the original Battlestar Galactica and hanging it on my wall when I was about 13...he had no shirt on and his jeans were unbuttoned and sort of opened to right above where his pubes started. And guess what...I didn't have sex till I was 20. Just a funny thought.

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Thu May 01, 2008 9:10 am

Hater, I think it's because raising kids is a very personal thing and people get defensive about it quickly.
Correct. I'm Have any of you picked up a Teen Beat magazine lately? There are some pretty sexy pictures of teen boys in those mags...their shirts off giving that Fabio look in the camera. No one says a peep about those. Why is that?

I'll let Hater answer the bit about the Teen Beat magazine but come on Alli, this wouldn't be the first time there in inequality in how men and women are perceived. That and this is an adult magazine where as Teen Beat is just that, a magazine for teenage girls and guys like Hater. So there is a pretty big difference there IMO. Put that same picture of her on the bed like that on the cover of Playboy and then the picture takes on a whole different meaning.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu May 01, 2008 9:14 am

Hater, I think it's because raising kids is a very personal thing and people get defensive about it quickly.
Correct. I'm Have any of you picked up a Teen Beat magazine lately? There are some pretty sexy pictures of teen boys in those mags...their shirts off giving that Fabio look in the camera. No one says a peep about those. Why is that?
I'll let Hater answer the bit about the Teen Beat magazine but come on Alli, this wouldn't be the first time there in inequality in how men and women are perceived. That and this is an adult magazine where as Teen Beat is just that, a magazine for teenage girls and guys like Hater. So there is a pretty big difference there IMO. Put that same picture of her on the bed like that on the cover of Playboy and then the picture takes on a whole different meaning.

damn. so now I'm gay....and a pedophile? TSIFU.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Thu May 01, 2008 10:07 am

Todd...of course this isn't the first time there has been inequality on how men and women are perceived...it doesn't make it right and that is what I'm saying. It is just annoying that this exists. And believe me, it exists in my house. Bill is constantly saying how the girls will not date till their 30 but with Nate he does not have the same standards. Eh, it's just annoying.

As far as the picture on Playboy...this picture is not going in Playboy...it's going in Vanity Fair which always has these "artsy" photos...remember the shot of Demi Moore when she naked and preggers? Not comparing the two, just pointing out that this mag is known for having sometime controversial pics.

And Hater, if you need some copies of Teen Beat, I'm sure I could find some for you...are you more into Zac Efron or Corbin Bleu?

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu May 01, 2008 10:36 am

[quote]

As far as the picture on Playboy...this picture is not going in Playboy...it's going in Vanity Fair which always has these "artsy" photos...remember the shot of Demi Moore when she naked and preggers? Not comparing the two, just pointing out that this mag is known for having sometime controversial pics.
[quote]

Demi, however, (a) has a bit of a reputation for being a skank, and (b) is an adult.

Yes, the mag is known for having some controversial pics, and again that is the point. Miley (Hannah Montana) along with Disney has an image to protect/market. They are (if I'm not mistaken) are targeting the younger age group of girls. If they were targeting teens I don't think this would be as big of an issue, really, because teens are for the most party already exposed to that kind of stuff. (maybe it would make it worse, I don't know, I'm just theorizing). I don't think anyone is faulting Miley, she's just doing what the people around are telling her is a good idea. The fault lies with Billy Ray, her managers, and yes, to some extent Disney.

If her image was anything other than this "wholesome" girl being marketed to really young kids, I doubt this is an issue. However, just like anything else, image is everything and that's what makes this "wrong". If image wasn't everything you'd go into a job interview wearing a t-shirt, shorts, and flip-flops. But that would be wrong, too.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Thu May 01, 2008 10:43 am

^^^Perfect timing Ihate...I just read teh following in our daily report...

Disney: 'Hannah' To Keep Rolling

(MultiChannel News) – Disney Channel executives said the network has not changed the schedule or any ac-tivity for embattled Hannah Montana star Miley Cyrus over her controversial Vanity Fair pictures, but will have a greater role and presence at the teen's future media endeavors. The 15-year-old Cyrus, who has come un-der fire for seductively posing in a Vanity Fair pictorial that will hit newsstands tomorrow, will perform this weekend in Orlando as part of the network’s Disney Channel Games event, according to Patti McTeague, sen-ior vice president of kids’ communications, Disney/ABC Television Group. The Games fare is slated to air on the network this summer. McTeague said the network has no plans to alter the scheduling of Hannah Mon-tana episodes in the wake of the controversy. McTeague said taping of the fourth season of Hannah Montana will begin late this summer. Cyrus is also expected to launch a new album in July. As for the Vanity Fair shoot, McTeague said there wasn't any Disney representative present. That won't be the case going forward – the network plans to be involved in all Cyrus' dealings with the media. “It will be a collaboration and a partnership from this point forward,” McTeague said. "She’s part of our family, and that’s important to us.”

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:12 am

It really surprises me that Disney doesn't do this to begin with.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:15 am

concur. That's why I faulted them to some extent. Got to protect your investment, ya know?

Weegie · Post by **Weegie** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:29 am

I didn't think anything about the picture except how I hate Billy Ray's hair. I showed the pic to BG, and he didn't think anything about it, either. He said, "You work on the assumption that father and daughter aren't humping, so there are no sexual overtones to take note of." Sorry, just a fancy, Hollywood-ish pic of father and daughter to me.
I meant to comment on this before and forgot.

If you didn't know who these two are, and didn't know they were father-daughter, you would assume they were knockin' boots. That's what makes the picture creepy.

Actually, I wouldn't assume they were having sex if I didn't know who they were; I'd assume they were co-workers on a television show, movie, or music collaboration--because it looks like a publicity shot. That was my point, and that's how I perceived the picture from the beginning.

rad said the following:

i believe those that see nothing wrong with the photos are either young people themselves or do not understand their roles in developing young minds to better society.

I can't speak for Allison, but I don't have a problem with the pictures, even though I do understand my own role in influencing my son's (who is a VERY young mind at the moment) perceptions of the world. The two things are not mutually exclusive and to say that they are is a fallacy--and the argument appears to be meant as insulting to anyone who doesn't agree with rad's point of view. That is what I was responding to.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:38 am

I didn't think anything about the picture except how I hate Billy Ray's hair. I showed the pic to BG, and he didn't think anything about it, either. He said, "You work on the assumption that father and daughter aren't humping, so there are no sexual overtones to take note of." Sorry, just a fancy, Hollywood-ish pic of father and daughter to me.
I meant to comment on this before and forgot.

If you didn't know who these two are, and didn't know they were father-daughter, you would assume they were knockin' boots. That's what makes the picture creepy.
Actually, I wouldn't assume they were having sex if I didn't know who they were; I'd assume they were co-workers on a television show, movie, or music collaboration--because it looks like a publicity shot. That was my point, and that's how I perceived the picture from the beginning.

rad said the following:

i believe those that see nothing wrong with the photos are either young people themselves or do not understand their roles in developing young minds to better society.
I can't speak for Allison, but I don't have a problem with the pictures, even though I do understand my own role in influencing my son's (who is a VERY young mind at the moment) perceptions of the world. The two things are not mutually exclusive and to say that they are is a fallacy--and the argument appears to be meant as insulting to anyone who doesn't agree with rad's point of view. That is what I was responding to.

your son's mind is far too young to be influenced by this particular situation. It is way beyond his comprehension levels at this point. I would argue that you fail to see the influence celebrities the children look up to (like Miley Cyrus) do have on children (especially the Children around the age of m7's oldest). If Lainie is not influenced by this (even a little), then I believe her to be an outlier as well.

It's not just children, this world is full of people incapable of thinking for themselves and coming to a rational conclusion (which is why I stated on another thread that we allow too many people to vote), and there are a lot of children who try and emulate their idols. If you want an extreme example, look at the rap culture and how children who are involved in it act. Do I think people should be held accountable for doing stupid shit because they can't think for themselves? sure. However, with children the fault lies with the parents. m7 talked to Lainie (or was going to talk to her before she said something about it anyway) and that is what one probably should do, but to just assume that children won't be affected by it in some way is, IMO, to be naive.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:44 am

Todd...of course this isn't the first time there has been inequality on how men and women are perceived...it doesn't make it right and that is what I'm saying. It is just annoying that this exists. And believe me, it exists in my house. Bill is constantly saying how the girls will not date till their 30 but with Nate he does not have the same standards. Eh, it's just annoying.

I gotta say that I completely agree with you here m7. I must admit, I never thought much about this double standard until I became close friends with girls who were perceived as rather promiscuous. Seeing the BS they dealt with opened my eyes--the judgment is so open and blatant when it comes to women in this regard it's disgusting, IMO. Especially when WE as a society repeatedly tell them they are sexual objects.

Simply retarded.

Toothy · Post by **Toothy** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:49 am

This thread went straight up Too Hot.
Not if you don't read the posts that are longer than two sentences. [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/ride.gif[/img]

Todd is intarweb black belt masta.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:56 am

Todd...of course this isn't the first time there has been inequality on how men and women are perceived...it doesn't make it right and that is what I'm saying. It is just annoying that this exists. And believe me, it exists in my house. Bill is constantly saying how the girls will not date till their 30 but with Nate he does not have the same standards. Eh, it's just annoying.

I gotta say that I completely agree with you here m7. I must admit, I never thought much about this double standard until I became close friends with girls who were perceived as rather promiscuous. Seeing the BS they dealt with opened my eyes--the judgment is so open and blatant when it comes to women in this regard it's disgusting, IMO. Especially when WE as a society repeatedly tell them they are sexual objects.

Simply retarded.

I think the reason men (fathers, brothers, male friends, etc.) are protective of women in the regard m7's husband is protective is that women tend to go into relationships with a little more emotional attachment, commitment oriented, etc. Typically, they tend to "fall" for a guy quicker/easier than a guy towards a girl. Whereas a guy goes into relationships for the physical aspect. Thus, men tend to be protective of their women so as not to see them get hurt. Obviously, not all men are like that, and I'd argue that a majority AREN'T like that as they get older and find the "right" woman. However, when they're younger (teens to mid 20's or so) a committed relationship may not be the first thing (or even the 20th thing) they are thinking about when the meet a woman.