Is the Annie Leibovitz Photo of Miley Cyrus Immoral?

[lilithu]

I don't pretend to know why so many tween pop stars exhibit self-destructive behaviors. Obviously, you believe you do.

I'll take your word for it that you're completely unaware of the trials and tribulations of Britney, Christina, Lindsey, etc, etc.

So, please elaborate on precisely how the Leibovitz photo will cause Cyrus to exhibit self-destructive behaviors. Either that, or withdraw your rhetoric.

Nice try. That's like saying "please elaborate on precisely how smoking this particular cigarette will cause Cyrus to contract lung cancer. Either that, or withdraw your rhetoric."

I didn't say that the Leibovitz photo will cause Cyrus to exhibit self-destructive behaviors. I said that the sexualization of young stars in order to sell products does in general lead to harm as evidenced by the self-destructive behaviors exhibited by many of them.

Go back and re-read what I said. You have clearly misunderstood my meaning.

If I misunderstood your meaning, does that suggest that you recognize that not everyone who objects to the photos are prudes?

 

[lilithu]

I haven't heard anything from Annie Leibovitz to the effect that her photo is a statement that girls like Miley and Britney are being sexualized to sell stuff. Is there anything about the photo that actually suggests that to you? What am I missing?

Perhaps a familiarity with Leibovitz's body of work and a willingness to interpret based on that.

If it the photo is at Miley's expense, then you should be able to describe what the cost to Miley is. Please do so.

See the other post.

How did you come to the impression this has anything to do with Miley understanding sex. To understand sex, you read a textbook. This is about Miley expressing her sexuality, not about her understanding sex. Your comments are way far of the mark.

And here you were asking me to "look beyond literalism in making a good faith effort to interpret what I'm saying."

Let me rephrase it for you: "Jeez louise, if you look at the pics she's taken of herself, she clearly knows how to express her sexuality."

It fascinates me you would think so.

Knock yerself out.

What harm has come to her from this? People are used all the time and it is found perfectly acceptable so long as they are consenting and no harm comes to them through it. So what harm has come to Miley from this?

Wow, so much for you previously stated admiration of Kant.

 

[Sunstone]

I'll take your word for it that you're completely unaware of the trials and tribulations of Britney, Christina, Lindsey, etc, etc.

I'm sorry. I don't subscribe to Seventeen Magazine. I've heard of Britney Spears' and I've heard something of Spears' problems. I don't know who Lindsey or Christina are. I didn't know who Cyrus was until the Leibovitz photo attracted so much attention.

But that's beside the point. The point is, how do you know that the Leibovitz photo will harm Cyrus?

Nice try. That's like saying "please elaborate on precisely how smoking this particular cigarette will cause Cyrus to contract lung cancer. Either that, or withdraw your rhetoric."

Slick. You're arguing a strawman.

I didn't say that the Leibovitz photo will cause Cyrus to exhibit self-destructive behaviors. I said that the sexualization of young stars in order to sell products does in general lead to harm as evidenced by the self-destructive behaviors exhibited by many of them.

Again, you are professing to have more certain knowledge of what is causing the self destructive behaviors of so many young stars than you are willing to back up with evidence. Anyone can speculate as wildly as you are doing here. I speculate it is the reaction of prudes to their sexuality that is screwing them up. How is my speculation any less founded than yours?

If I misunderstood your meaning, does that suggest that you recognize that not everyone who objects to the photos are prudes?

Of course I recognize that not everyone who objects to the photos is a prude. Let's at least give each other credit for possessing more than three brain cells each. Good grief!

 

[Sunstone]

I'll be back tomorrow. Have a good night, Lilithu. And thank you for the discussion.

 

[lilithu]

Of course I recognize that not everyone who objects to the photos is a prude. Let's at least give each other credit for possessing more than three brain cells each. Good grief!

Really then. Ok, you tell me, one what basis would a non-prude object to these photos?

If you recognize that not everyone who objects is a prude yet see no redeeming value in my stated pov, I really am curious as to what you think are other reasons someone would object.

 

[Alceste]

IMO, Britney Spears was cracked to begin with. I don't think her trials are the result of being sexualized for cash - I personally think they're the result of a twisted moral foundation. Who's to say she wouldn't have gone wrong just working at MacDonald's as a nobody? I knew she was in big trouble way back when she was splashing her Christianity and virginity all over the news in order to sell records to Christians.

 

[OutOfTime]

guys...read this, article's all over the internet:

[SIZE=+3]Miley Cyrus: Pedophilia, the Next Frontier
Moderator cut: image removed
[/SIZE]By Henry Makow Ph.D

Tween idol Miley Cyrus, 15, has apologized for provocative pictures that appeared in Vanity Fair and called them a "mistake," but they are yet another calculated assault on the American psyche, which is being prepared to accept pedophilia.

A society always takes the values of its ruling class, and America
(indeed the world) is run by a satanic cult of pedophiles, occultists and criminals known as the Illuminati. They represent the top rung of Freemasonry which is now putting the capstone on its satanic New World Order , which involves turning Christian civilization on its head.​

Cyrus and her father, country singer Billy Ray Cyrus, do not become mega-stars without being part of the Illuminati. That's Miley flashing the sign of Baphomet (right.)​

Of course she has some alibi to gull the willfully ignorant. (They aren't going to tell you they are flashing the sign of the devil. The point is to get you to do it!)​

And that's Hillary flashing the same sign, because you don't become President unless you are a member of this tight little club.​

Illuminati defectors have provided abundant evidence
<savethemales.ca - Illuminati Sex Slaves Paint Horrifying Picture> of the proclivity of our secret masters to have sex with children.​

Children are passed around like"bottles of fine wine" among many notables in the world of politics, finance, justice etc. They are protected by underlings in the courts and police. Thus Madelaine McCann can be stolen from her parents in Portugal, and ferreted to a waiting yacht, and Portuguese police can only level absurd accusations at her parents.​

Society will continue to condemn and punish some pedophilia and child porn, while at the same time conditioning the public to its eventual
acceptance. Pedophilia is the logical outcome of the values promoted by the New World Order: sex for its own sake, without reference to love or
marriage.​

Schools are teaching children to have sex as young as age 13 and to experiment with homosexuality. MTV has taught a generation of young girls to believe their whole value derives from how "hot" they are. Having an adult lover would be the ultimate status symbol.​

"Wholesome" tween role models like Miley Cyrus ( whose favorite TV show is "Sex and the City") "accidentally" pose in sexually provocative ways.​

Gay organizations have been pushing to lower the age of consent, and you know how important "gay rights" are. Heterosexuals have been onditioned
to imitate gay sexual behavior. For example, courtship has been replaced with "hooking up" which in gay terms is "cruisin." Pedophilia is the last gay behavior pattern we must learn.​

Photographer Annie Leibovitz
Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair photo 'beautiful': Leibovitz?ref=rss>
says she's sorry her photos have been 'misinterpreted.' Geez, how could a picture of a half-naked 15-year-old on the cover of a national magazine be misinterpreted? And lying in father's lap with her pelvis thrust forward, how could that be misinterpreted? Is this the way fathers and daughters relate in the New World Order? Is incest the next"next frontier?"​

In the bottom right photo, a reader, Rob, writes: The bottom right photo has the "devil's salute" with the right hand. The left hand is pointing down, therefore, one hand is pointing up, whilst the other hand is pointing down--indicates the dualistic (marriage of opposites, or reconciliation), cabalistic magical philosophy "As Above, So Below" (The devil goat Baphomet performs the same sign). What is being said is that, "White magic is the
same as black magic." Furthermore, the tongue is out, this is a well known satanic sign​

[Note from Ken Adachi-recall all of those publicity photos over the years of the members of KISS sticking out their tongues. Fritz Springmeier said that the KISS initials stood for " Kings in the Service of Satan"].​

Oh they'll pooh-pooh and feel self righteous, and everyone will rush to see the pictures. This is where it's been going for some time. Sex is
the lowest common denominator and it is the best way to degrade the human race and destroy social structure and values.​

The Satanist Sabbateans, who organized the Illuminati in the 18th century, are a primitive sex cult. The world is in their grip. Their values will be ours.​

Henry Makow​

 

[MysticSang'ha]

:biglaugh:

YEAH!!!! Rock n' Roll!!!! WHOOT!! *does sign of the "horns" with hand and sticks out tongue*

 

[lilithu]

Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls

 

[Scuba Pete]

My cousin Bocephus sez: "That report is worthless without pictures!"

 

[Starfish]

Although I wouldn't want my daughter to take a photo like that I think it is kind of artistic.

Artistic when it's someone else's daughter?

The more I read about the public reaction to the Leibovitz photo, the more I suspect many Americans would use any handy excuse to deny the girl a right to express her sexuality.

She's 15. Her parents disapproved. Enough said.

quote from Miley Cyrus: "And you can&#8217;t say no to Annie [Leibovitz]. She&#8217;s so cute. She gets this puppy-dog look and you&#8217;re like, O.K."

15 yr old posing for the first time in front of world famous photographer. It was totally cooperative, right. :sarcastic

I have no respect for an adult who influences a minor to do anything she's uncomfortable with. It was wrong.

 

[lilithu]

Although I wouldn't want my daughter to take a photo like that I think it is kind of artistic.

Artistic when it's someone else's daughter?

From my pov, if the photo had been shot and displayed AS ART, if it was stated up front that she was making a social statement and Miley and her parents were made aware of the intent, and the photo was part of an exhibition of Leibiovitz's work in say, MOMA, I woulda had no problem with it.

The fact is, that it was shot for Vanity Fair magazine. And the intent of the photo was to sell more magazines. And for anyone who claims that the photo is not sexualization of a minor for profit, do you seriously believe that Vanity Fair would have sold as many copies if Miley were posed in a t-shirt and jeans? Seriously?

 

[Starfish]

The fact is, that it was shot for Vanity Fair magazine. And the intent of the photo was to sell more magazines. And for anyone who claims that the photo is not sexualization of a minor for profit, do you seriously believe that Vanity Fair would have sold as many copies if Miley were posed in a t-shirt and jeans? Seriously?

Spot on.

 

[PureX]

I think the photo is meant to be a 'modernized' version of a classical drawing or painting, which would have showcased a young women as being at the height of her sexual desirability. A 'ripened plumb', so to speak, ready to be 'plucked'. I don't see it as an invitation to 'plucking' so much as an exposition of feminine 'ripeness', however.

What I find most offensive about the photo is that Annie Leibovitz is a truly great photographer and I would have expected a much better photo from her. This particular photo is just average, I think.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I just don't get how this photo is so heinous. There is no suggestiveness, no provocative cleavage or even pouty lips.

I remember a long time ago when I was still a Network Consultant. This lady had this almost nude picture of a much prettier girl. She had a loose sheet that barely covered her privates. WHOA. What is this doing in a professional office? Well, it was the manager's daughter and she was as proud of that picture as I was of my daughter holding up a fish on one of our outings. I figured, who the hell am I to judge???

So to be Frank, though I am better at being Pete, I just see what either the photographer or the model should be apologizing for. Call me a pig, but I just don't see it.

 

[OutOfTime]

doesn't matter what way they spin it. porn is still porn...even if it's done in a softcore pedophile sorta way. her dad is RIGHT beside her and was present at the photoshoot. ***.

the age of the understatement. doesn't have to do as much with the photographer. it's like that woman from the golf channel who's one of their lead ppl getting suspended for her tiger woods/black ppl comment. but the thing is that she was TOLD to say that comment, still got suspended and made to look like the bad one.

 

[Alceste]

doesn't matter what way they spin it. porn is still porn...even if it's done in a softcore pedophile sorta way. her dad is RIGHT beside her and was present at the photoshoot. ***.

the age of the understatement. doesn't have to do as much with the photographer. it's like that woman from the golf channel who's one of their lead ppl getting suspended for her tiger woods/black ppl comment. but the thing is that she was TOLD to say that comment, still got suspended and made to look like the bad one.

Just to be clear, pedophiles are into children, not young women. Also, there's a lot of variety in "porn" - some is quite tasteful, and the line between "porn" and "erotica" is not at all clearly defined. I think if you want to disapprove of any kind of sexual innuendo you're in for a difficult life. It's pretty ubiquitous in every culture.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Is this photo by Annie Leibovitz of 15 year old Miley Cyrus indecent or immoral? Why or why not? Should Miley Cyrus apologize for expressing her sexuality? Why or why not?

Moderator cut: image removed

No, she is not indecent in this photo. Immoral? I would not go that far. Apologise? For having the picture taken or for allowing it to be published?

Publishing this picture was using poor judgment at the very least. Taking the picture and looking at it years later would be another thing.

Art? Maybe
Porn? Not even

Expressing her sexuality? Go to your room!


Here is the deal. While she is not exposing anything inappropriate, it is obvious that she has very little or no clothes on and the satin sheet could fall or be blown and she would then be indecent. Men could then be aroused seeing a young woman nakid, and here lies the problem. Grown men are not suppose to be looking at young women and be getting aroused. It happens every day, but it is not suppose to. Miley is in your face with this picture and it sends the male mind down a path that leads to inappropriateness.

Yes, Miley is a sexual being. She is a young women in full blossom. She will get noticed quite alot anyway. Being nakid in a sheet is in your face and makes a man check to see what is available visually to him. When the information is processed, men are conflicted about being happy nothing too personal was showing.

Nothing good can come from this.

 

[Magic Man]

I still fail to see how this exploits anyone, and how there is anything wrong with the photo. You may not think it's the most artistic photo ever, but the intent is clearly not to make porn, but to be artistic, even if it fails at that.

 

[Alceste]

The fact is, that it was shot for Vanity Fair magazine. And the intent of the photo was to sell more magazines. And for anyone who claims that the photo is not sexualization of a minor for profit, do you seriously believe that Vanity Fair would have sold as many copies if Miley were posed in a t-shirt and jeans? Seriously?

What about her motives for having the picture taken? Are Miley and her family "exploiting" Vanity Fair for the purpose of getting a big fat check? Not sure what the pay was for this, but from my understanding high end models get paid thousands of dollars for a single day of shooting. It's unlikely Vanity Fair offered her less than they calculated she was worth - same as for all their models.

This is a business deal, and the arrangement was obviously agreed by both contractors to be satisfactory to all involved. You might second guess the judgment of Miley or her business representatives and feel they got a bad deal here, but "exploitation" would generally suggest unfairness, deception, misrepresentation, coercion or some kind of unacceptable or unethical business practice - like the sort of deal the kids who make toys for our kids are getting.