Like most, I too think its not appropriate for a 15 year old girl to be doing a topless photoshoot of any kind. The argument that it doesn’t show a lot of skin is one that misses the point by a mile. Yes, you can see more skin at the beach and yes Cyrus herself has shown more hot hot back-shoulder-and-arm action in award ceremony dresses – aren’t you clever for thinking of that. No. You’re not. The issue is about the context of such things. It’s the same reason its inappropriate for a girl to walk around in a bra and panties but notsomuch if she reveals even more skin in a bathing suit. Adults understand this.
So its by the same token that this Hannah Montana nude on a magazine cover should have been an obvious “are you fugging kidding me?” to any one of her 18million minders, handlers, agents, publicists and oh ya – parents. But whatever – the Cyrus’s say they were misled by the magazine into what the final product would actually be and are shocked and embarrassed now – okay, whatever. That’s not the point for me.
The thing I want to know why the media isn’t making a big deal about is that it’s not just that the photo is under an inappropriately sexy atmosphere, its that she looks like a thrice banged and discarded French whore.
What.. the hell… is with the pale skin, muted makeup and messy sexed hair on a gray background?? This is Tim Burton porn. I don’t get it at all.
One thought on “The unpublicized Miley Cyrus Controversey: Why does she look like a skank?”