Revealing Photo Threatens a Major Disney Franchise

[annarborgator]

Suggestive of sex rad? or what?

[Weegie]

Speaking as someone who used to be a young girl, one who has always been a fan of pop culture, I was never remotely influenced by anyone on any of my shows, etc. I enjoyed the entertainment, and that was about it. I knew the difference between real life and all things show biz; it's not brain surgery, after all. Kids have common sense, too. There are always followers and stupid people, kids and adults alike, but, for me, it does not follow that all or most or many little girls will make bad decisions simply because a TV or music star does. That train of thought is a bit insulting to the girls.

The sheet picture doesn't bother me. It's more adult, but that doesn't automatically mean "sexual." She is, after all, (to use a cheesy phrase) becoming a woman. And, if it bothers her or her parents now, who are the only people who matter in this scenario, then they should have chosen a different photographer.

[Toothy]

I guess I'm an outlier because the first pic's message doesn't seem to be about sex to me. Maybe indirectly, but it's a stretch IMO to gain some sexual message from a girl wrapped in a bedsheet.

You know how I know you're gay?







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.

[Toothy]

There are always followers and stupid people, kids and adults alike, but, for me, it does not follow that all or most or many little girls will make bad decisions simply because a TV or music star does. That train of thought is a bit insulting to the girls.

The sheet picture doesn't bother me. It's more adult, but that doesn't automatically mean "sexual." She is, after all, (to use a cheesy phrase) becoming a woman. And, if it bothers her or her parents now, who are the only people who matter in this scenario, then they should have chosen a different photographer.

Maybe it is insulting to girls. Boys do it too. I would maintain that that train of thought actually does go somewhere.

Is this becoming a woman now? Posting pictures of your body/underwear on the internet? Because that's an even more depressing message for our daughters.

[RickySlade]

When I grow up, I want to be like Toothy. You, sir, are the motherfucking man.

[annarborgator]

Even though the picture recruits us into sexualizing her, that is only one step in the process. The next step of assenting to that sexualization is wholly personal on an individual level, inside each person's head. That leads me to believe that the picture in itself isn't very sexual because it requires the next step of personal assent.

I see your point about the intent behind such a picture, because I realize that for most people such assent toward sexualization of a person often happens before they even decide consciously to sexualize the person. For me, though, assent to any idea takes consideration, even one involving such a basic thing like sex. I think that's why ultimately it's tough for me to say what the picture is truly about, because I am the only one who can decide for myself what the picture is about. Absent that assent to a particular idea, the picture in itself is really about nothing at all, IMO. (I know, I live within a strange logical scheme.)

You're probably right that people in general will assent to sexualizing her given the pose in the photo. It's still tough for me to judge the photo though, because I think it's still up to the viewer to choose how to view a picture and what ideas to take away from it.

[Toothy]

Help me out here -- what would comprise "assenting to that sexualization"?

Is it possible that a photo can be sexual in and of itself, or does it need a sexualizing viewer to complete it somehow? (If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise?)

I think I am part with you and part against you, AA -- I think you're right that the sexuality in the photo originates in a particular cultural interaction. But I think that that interaction predates the photo -- I think it has to do with signs and archetypes.

But I'd like to know what you mean by "assent."

[Mlrtime]

[img]{SMILIES_PATH}/popcorn1.gif[/img]

[annarborgator]

I think sexuality as a characteristic of images exists on a sliding scale. At one end you have photos that depict sexual acts, many of which would be considered pornography, and at the other end of the spectrum you have images that are disconnected from sex almost entirely and require a logical chain of some sort to connect the image itself to sexuality. I'm likely thinking along the lines you were when you mentioned signs and archetypes.

This leads me to think that images that can connect to sexuality without being overtly sexual are representational in a way. They refer to some part of sexuality or somehow relate to sexuality but the connection requires some logical leap (even if it's a small one) on the part of the viewer to really make the image be about sex. It's this logical leap (whether it be a small step or a huge jump) is what I call "assent". It's the choice to apply a meaning to a representation of the real world. Each person uniquely sifts through all the images we see and evaluate them in a completely personal way, IMO. That process of sifting and analyzing things is when we decide what things mean by assenting to a particular idea as the "meaning" of an image (or any other piece of representational art, maybe).

Some people choose to pattern their choices in assenting to ideas after popularized Hollywood stereotypes (these are the kids who get hurt by bad social role models). But I think you can teach kids to decide for themselves how they will choose to assent to ideas. Obviously, when the shit hits the fan it's going to be up to the kid and nobody else to make the decision to press the right button (metaphorically speaking). It's depressing that we seem to throw our hands up in the air so quickly and say a role model has done kids a disservice by doing something borderline. But shouldn't it simply present another opportunity to talk with kids about choices and perceptions and personal evaluation?

I'm an idealist in the end.

[Weegie]

There are always followers and stupid people, kids and adults alike, but, for me, it does not follow that all or most or many little girls will make bad decisions simply because a TV or music star does. That train of thought is a bit insulting to the girls.

The sheet picture doesn't bother me. It's more adult, but that doesn't automatically mean "sexual." She is, after all, (to use a cheesy phrase) becoming a woman. And, if it bothers her or her parents now, who are the only people who matter in this scenario, then they should have chosen a different photographer.

Is this becoming a woman now? Posting pictures of your body/underwear on the internet? Because that's an even more depressing message for our daughters.

I actually didn't say that posing in a picture constitutes becoming a woman.

[texgator]

I think it has to do with signs and archetypes.

But I'd like to know what you mean by "assent."

I think I agree with aa here, but only to an extent.

It takes an interpreter to make the image/sign anything at all, sexual or not. Whether you use a sliding scale or look at absolutes, you still have to have two entities in the event, object and interpreter.

I think aa is trying to say that the photo appears to be somewhere in the middle of the sliding scale when viewed as just a picture. What I think is missing in that analysis is the cultural background of the model and current phenomena of sexualizing "underage" females.

1. Cyrus has a recent history of trying to capitalize on her sexuality by appearing in clothing chosen to portray her as a sex object. And recent pictures on the internet and elsewhere can do nothing but lead us to believe that this girl is to be admired for not only her singing talent, but her latent sexuality.

2. The prevalence on the internet and in the news of stories and photos of teenage girls engaged in sexual acts or portrayed in an overtly sexual manner.

Had this photo been taken and published in 1985, I believe the reaction would have been much different. However, the picture probably would not have been taken in 1985.

[radbag]

Speaking as someone who used to be a young girl, one who has always been a fan of pop culture, I was never remotely influenced by anyone on any of my shows, etc. I enjoyed the entertainment, and that was about it. I knew the difference between real life and all things show biz; it's not brain surgery, after all.

unfortunately, your attitudes towards such things are of the minority these days....i'd say 5 to 1

[radbag]

Suggestive of sex rad? or what?

yeah - what else could it be suggestive of? good business acumen?

[G8rMom7]

Speaking as someone who used to be a young girl, one who has always been a fan of pop culture, I was never remotely influenced by anyone on any of my shows, etc. I enjoyed the entertainment, and that was about it. I knew the difference between real life and all things show biz; it's not brain surgery, after all.

unfortunately, your attitudes towards such things are of the minority these days....i'd say 5 to 1

While Lainie is still young and the jury is out, I will say she seems to lean more towards Weg's attitude. Once she found out about Jamie Lynn Spears being pregnant, she just said she didn't want to watch Zoey 101 anymore. Although it wasn't only the "pregnancy" issue, it was also because that show is a little too old for her and she is actually uncomfortable seeing teenagers kissing or acting overly "sexual". I just do my best to get her to talk to me and ask questions when she has them. She is sort of accepting the idea that she will likely be with the smart kids or nerds when she gets bigger. I dunno, I'm doing my best.

That said, I am convinced if Bill saw this he would totally agree with Rad and Toothy and I believe Lainie would be quite disappointed. Although I don't think she would think anything of the one of Miley and her dad. She sits and hangs out with her dad and I think, like BG said it would not even enter her mind that it would be creepy for a dad and his daughter to hanging on each other like that.

[annarborgator]

It takes an interpreter to make the image/sign anything at all, sexual or not. Whether you use a sliding scale or look at absolutes, you still have to have two entities in the event, object and interpreter.

I think aa is trying to say that the photo appears to be somewhere in the middle of the sliding scale when viewed as just a picture. What I think is missing in that analysis is the cultural background of the model and current phenomena of sexualizing "underage" females.

1. Cyrus has a recent history of trying to capitalize on her sexuality by appearing in clothing chosen to portray her as a sex object. And recent pictures on the internet and elsewhere can do nothing but lead us to believe that this girl is to be admired for not only her singing talent, but her latent sexuality.

2. The prevalence on the internet and in the news of stories and photos of teenage girls engaged in sexual acts or portrayed in an overtly sexual manner.

Had this photo been taken and published in 1985, I believe the reaction would have been much different. However, the picture probably would not have been taken in 1985.

I think we're basically in agreement. Ultimately I value my own judgment over the average or expected social judgment--I have a healthy skepticism in society's ability to effectively evaluate such things. I understand the purpose in including society's judgments in the definition of an expression, though, because so many people DO follow society without making their own individual judgments. Y'all are saying, basically, that the reactions of society to a picture should help determine how we interpret it because those social reactions are practical, real effects of the image. Does that sound right?

I like to play devil's advocate in these situations for discussions like this. I definitely get where y'all are coming from, I think it's just that when it comes to deciding what I actually think a picture or a book or a painting means, I refuse to let the stupidity of society undermine my omniscience in making such judgments for myself.

[radbag]

i always appreciate AAs views and opinions regardless if it's devils advocation or not.

i think the opinion of the majority matters in all cases....not so much to draw your own conclusion but to help you draw your own conclusion....in all cases.

i too, like aa, am a contrarian in that i like to go against the grain and try and adopt the out-of-the-box view or approach in most cases...we do this just to differentiate ourselves....

in this case, i don't see how being a contrarian helps me personally...i don't see how or why i'd want to differentiate myself from the pack in this case....maybe it's the content? dunno really...

i do know that i would not allow my daughter to be photographed in such a provocative manner...doesn't matter if the subject is a child superstar or not...she's 13 and it's in poor taste...more appalling to me is billy ray's participation in a photo that imo is borderline abusive....they needn't have to hang on each other, straddling each others private areas to achieve a good cover shot...my daughter's have both been studio photo'd for promotional shots of their dance recitals, theater productions, etc and i'd never approve of something a tenth as provocative as those shots.

i'm thinking that my stance on this is so strong because i am a parent of 3 and understand the repercussions of supporting such smut as it relates to what the young people would think....aa has eluded to admitting knowing nothing of that and i respect that...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.

[G8rMom7]

So those of us that are parents and don't share your point of view...what are you saying about us? I have no way of understanding the life of being a celebrity. I'm not making excuses for them, I'm just saying that I am not able to understand their decisions because I don't walk in their shoes. Again, Rad...you say you would never pose for pics with your kid like that...that's understandable. But you are not a celebrity in front of the best known photographer in the world and surrounded by people who think your shit don't stink. They are not the most rational bunch after all.

My mother used to work at MGM studios way back in the 50's. She met some of the biggest stars in the world including Grace Kelly and the Prince of Monaco, and Frank Sinatra. Anyway, she always told me that even though some of them were very polite and nice, they ALL had HUGE egos...it was inevitable...24/7 you have people telling you how great you are...you can't help but believe it. They all have issues...just like us, just VERY different issues.

[RickySlade]

So...how do you disagree with rad's POV?

[radbag]

So those of us that are parents and don't share your point of view...what are you saying about us? I have no way of understanding the life of being a celebrity. I'm not making excuses for them, I'm just saying that I am not able to understand their decisions because I don't walk in their shoes. Again, Rad...you say you would never pose for pics with your kid like that...that's understandable. But you are not a celebrity in front of the best known photographer in the world and surrounded by people who think your shit don't stink. They are not the most rational bunch after all.

My mother used to work at MGM studios way back in the 50's. She met some of the biggest stars in the world including Grace Kelly and the Prince of Monaco, and Frank Sinatra. Anyway, she always told me that even though some of them were very polite and nice, they ALL had HUGE egos...it was inevitable...24/7 you have people telling you how great you are...you can't help but believe it. They all have issues...just like us, just VERY different issues.

you don't have to have people telling you 24/7 how great you are to have a big ego...hell - i have the biggest ego i know[/size] and no one tells me shit about how great i am (well - i hear a lot about how much of an asshole i am but that's content reserved for another thread i guess)

i don't really understand your point about what fame has to do with having decorum, decency and propriety....truly...i don't really understand what you mean when you say that my viewpoint is understandable but not so understandable if we were celebrities...what's that all about?

being a celebrity, athlete, public figure, in my mind, should be held to higher standards...standards of decency...standards of grace...standards of displaying sensibility...we've gone through this already with regards to mr jermaine cunningham, mr tony joiner, mr eliot spitzer, etc....when you are in a position of mentorship or idolization (state governor, all-american football player, parish priest, girl scout leader, teacher, parent, successful businessman in the neighborhood), whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, you are and should be held to a higher standard....the more public and more exposed to the general masses that you are, the more of a a higher standard you will be held to....obviously, a parent of a child in an igloo in northern alaska is subject to the criticism of a much, much fewer than the president of the united states of america.

so explain it to me again if you please how it is that celebrities in your mind get a pass on showing common sense and common decency....i'm in student mode right now and wish very much to learn.

[G8rMom7]

I didn't say they get a free pass...I just meant that their idea of WHAT IS DECENT may be slightly different than yours. The point I was trying to make is that I don't put these people on pedistals...I know some people do, but I don't.

Entertainers TO ME are entertainers. I don't look to them to teach me what is decent. This is the reason why I don't base my vote on what Brad Pitt says or even George Clooney. I would have sex with them in a heartbeat (well Clooney anyway) but I don't agree with how they choose to live their lives.

Yes, I realize that some people do not share my point of view and they DO hold these people to a higher standard.

For instance, back when the rumor was spread about Miley being pregnant, Bill and I talked about what we would tell Lainie and we thought it would be a good chance to show her how these people are not bigger than life...they are normal people who make mistakes. And quite frankly, if she sees these photos I will likely say the same thing.

So what is the punishment you are seeking for this indecency? You are totally in your right to say that your children will never buy her albums, watch her show or see her movies...that is your right as a parent. But if other parents don't decide to do the same thing it doesn't mean they are indecent or have no morals.

That's all I'm sayin'.

[RickySlade]

It's not about putting them on pedestals or looking to them to teach us what is decent (who does that?). Whether you like it or not (or agree with it), what they do is seen by millions of people, and they should be held to a higher standard. Your conversation with your husband r/t what should be said to your children about Miley's pregnancy situation shows that entertainers are not like you and I...they are held to a higher standard. 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.

[Weegie]

It's not about putting them on pedestals or looking to them to teach us what is decent (who does that?). Whether you like it or not (or agree with it), what they do is seen by millions of people, and they should be held to a higher standard. Your conversation with your husband r/t what should be said to your children about Miley's pregnancy situation shows that entertainers are not like you and I...they are held to a higher standard. 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.

It likely wouldn't occur to me to have a conversation with my child about a celebrity's actions because who on earth cares? I don't care what my next-door neighbors do, as long as they're not involved in anything illegal, so I'm surely not going to care about what a celebrity does. My dad always expected me to behave in a way that reflected intelligence and indepenence, and he didn't leave it to chance--he told us explicity not to be stupid. (I never said he was polite about it.) So, being influenced by someone I didn't even know wasn't a possibility in my mind. Thus, I tend to believe that the parents' response to the world at large is the one that matters and the one that influences children. A teenager in a sheet, and certainly a teenager in a publicity shot with her dad, doesn't concern me in the least, and that doesn't mean that I don't understand how children's minds are shaped. I simply disagree with rad and several others on the importance and/or meaning of the pictures in question.

And notice how I stated my opinion without insulting those who disagree with me. I tend to believe that other adults are allowed their own opinions.

[TheTodd]

It's not about putting them on pedestals or looking to them to teach us what is decent (who does that?). Whether you like it or not (or agree with it), what they do is seen by millions of people, and they should be held to a higher standard. Your conversation with your husband r/t what should be said to your children about Miley's pregnancy situation shows that entertainers are not like you and I...they are held to a higher standard. 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.

I believe you get kudos for this, or whatever the kids are calling it these days.

[RickySlade]

It likely wouldn't occur to me to have a conversation with my child about a celebrity's actions because who on earth cares? I don't care what my next-door neighbors do, as long as they're not involved in anything illegal, so I'm surely not going to care about what a celebrity does. My dad always expected me to behave in a way that reflected intelligence and indepenence, and he didn't leave it to chance--he told us explicity not to be stupid. (I never said he was polite about it.) So, being influenced by someone I didn't even know wasn't a possibility in my mind. Thus, I tend to believe that the parents' response to the world at large is the one that matters and the one that influences children. A teenager in a sheet, and certainly a teenager in a publicity shot with her dad, doesn't concern me in the least, and that doesn't mean that I don't understand how children's minds are shaped. I simply disagree with rad and several others on the importance and/or meaning of the pictures in question.

And notice how I stated my opinion without insulting those who disagree with me. I tend to believe that other adults are allowed their own opinions.

I certainly don't care about a celebrity's actions, but if Little Ricky/ette is a huge fan of a young singer and she gets knocked up, I'm probably going to talk to my child about it. I think I agree with you on the other points (other than the picture, of course)...if your last comment was meant for me, I fail to see how I insulted anyone.

[Weegie]

Nope, was referring to rad's previous comment.