| Author | Message | ||
     Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080430/tuk-father-s-suicide-over-school-place-dba 1618.html | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
The things we will go to to avoid chavs. Speeding buses are the devil, tempting me in the wilderness. "Under me!" But there are too many stories to puzzle editors with. Why did God choose this plan for me? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.23.225.121 |
I know. The chavs do evoke these feelings, that you think it's better to let them get on and just die. It's such a vast, spiritual issue, like cancer or something. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.23.225.121 |
I mean, US just die. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
As a humanitist I blame societies' inability to love the the idea of just shooting them in their dirty stolen beds. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 172.201.141.187 |
There is a type of human you recoil from because you instinctively know they'll harm you and yours if you let them into your life. I've seen right on liberal middle class people learn this the hard way!  | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 172.201.141.187 |
I've come to suspect that evil and or negative emotions want to spread like an illness. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.31.119 |
Opinions anyone? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/1907038/Vanity-Fair-sho ts-of-Hannah-Montana-star-cause-scandal.html | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
If it's art is alright. Your, David Sullivan | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.251.78 |
If this loon was capable of throwing himself in front of a train over this, then he very well should have thrown himself in front of a train over this. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 172.143.195.157 |
The pressure people are under in this country is ridiculous. The place where you get an education can have a huge impact on your life. It's getting worse not better. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
I get your message, Craig, but there must surely have been other factors. The guy probably wasn't thinking. Ally; that's sort of sleazy, and sends out a slight pat on the back to paedoville. There's a guy in Japan, isn't there, who famously takes pics of kids dressed up in sexy poses and wearing little? Apparently he's very popular among families. Even Bjork likes his stuff. It made me feel uneasy. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.16.79.62 |
I get your message, Craig, but there must surely have been other factors. The guy probably wasn't thinking. Yes, my larger point, Tony, that we've discussed; the ability of news to so skew a situation, and make it seem like this was what "caused" this lunacy. Careful! If you don't get your kid into the right school, you may suddenly find a train hurtling your way! | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.38.212 |
I actually showed my 9 year old daughter that photo and explained to her why I was angry with the photographer and all involved. She was quite surprised by the photo - thought for a second and said I guess that I will have to find a new role model now. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
I read up; apparently the girl felt bad after giving it some thought. I'd cut her some slack, see her as another victim of this sleaze machine that is the modern world. That said, she is absolutely gorgeous in that pic! But that's society; we don't curtail our likes, our whims and fancies. And that is dangerous. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.21.163 |
Who exactly was the photo supposed to be aimed at? Her target audience with Disney is around 7 - 16. If she is being groomed for a adult market she should make sure that she has finished with the kid's market first. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
>>There is a type of human you recoil from because you instinctively know they'll harm you and yours if you let them into your life.<< Hear-hear, sir. As for that pic of the 15 year-old: she looks about 21, which is very deliberate. She has been utterly manipulated into being a sex object. She looks completely gorgeous... but she's a child. A child. Our society is fucked. Fuucked. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.236.86 |
"There's a guy in Japan, isn't there, who famously takes pics of kids dressed up in sexy poses and wearing little? Apparently he's very popular among families. Even Bjork likes his stuff. It made me feel uneasy." Well, in Japan the age of consent is 13, so it's perfectly legal and normal there. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.183.41 |
The age of consent in Japan is officially 13, but in reality it varies from place to place (in many prefectures it's actually 18). | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.236.86 |
Be that as it may, I don't think there's anything remotely scandalous about anyone's naked back. The girl looks as though she might be 30 or 35, plus the picture is far from titillating. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
Is the image sexual? Surely no more so than many nude paintings over the centuries. I agree with Hubert. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
I thought she looked sexy, so it must have stirred something up. Maybe it's me. She looks like she's just been fucked. Anyways, I thought these days we were moving away from the sexualization of children, not embracing it all over again. Right; off to book a plane to go shag some Japanese thirteen year olds! (It is, after all, ok isn't it?) Hubert; this photographer took pics of kids younger than that. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
"I thought she looked sexy, so it must have stirred something up. Maybe it's me. She looks like she's just been fucked." My thoughts as well, Tony. Why did she do it? What image was she trying to convey? Where does sexualizing minors begin and end, what are the boundries? Do we call it art and "pooof!" it's fine? | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
Is there a problem with sexualizing minors in the UK? If so, in what way does it happen? | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 99.225.111.224 |
What I find more disturbing is that this a typical reaction from an increasingly puritanical society. We fiddling with trivialities while Rome burns. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
I've worked with abused children. It's not trivial. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 99.254.205.129 |
Please. She's not an abused child, and it offends me you're comparing her to one. The facts are these: 1) this is hardly a new phenomenon. This goes back centuries 2) from where she was born, less than a hundred years ago she'd be married by now with childern. 3) the models you see in magazines and ads are just as made up as her and I don't see the members of this board burning crosses over each of them. 4) this is just the first salvo in a calculated attack on her "tween" stardom. Every other girl in her position in the last decade (at least) has gone through this same virgin/whore act to migrate their fanbase. There is nothing accidental about what is happening her, not the photograph or her apology afterward. Does anyone remember Britney Spears dancing like a stripper and proclaiming she was a virgin? It happened at the same time: a "tween" start getting too old for the role. This is a distraction. It's a non-issue. It's marketing, plain and simple. Our planet is dying, our populations fighting, we're on the brink of extinction and all we want to talk about is this cult of celebrity and the issues that it tells us we're supposed to care about. It absolutely sickens me. Get outside and take a breath of the rancid air and break your social programming. None of you would have noticed this idiotic manufactured issue if you weren't told to do so by a culture that strives to control you and distract you from real matters. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.188.84 |
Have to say, I'm in complete agreement with Simon on this one. BFD, I say. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 99.254.205.129 |
Thanks, Huw. For the record, in my rant, number 3 was supposed to point out that today's models often start out at the same age Ms Cyrus is now. In all my steam, I neglected to fill in that piece of the puzzle. Anyway, you all have G Fry to thank for re-introducing my cantankerousness to the RCMB. Go stone him and leave me the eff alone! | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
"Please. She's not an abused child, and it offends me you're comparing her to one." I don’t care if your delicate and misguided sensitivities are offended. The key question is whether there is a link between the increasing sexualisation of children and child abuse. Simon this DOES have wider consequences. I've had to deal with these when I worked for a local authority. It’s too important and the consequences to grim to be swept aside by some glib and naïve remarks. I can’t speak for others here but I suspect think there *is* a link between the sexualisation of young teenagers, children and abuse. *1) this is hardly a new phenomenon. This goes back centuries* A straw-man argument, Simon. Many ugly aspects of human nature go back centuries - do we allow them to continue and condone them because of this? Do we reduce the age of consent to 12 as it was in the Victorian era? "2) from where she was born, less than a hundred years ago she'd be married by now with childern." They were also getting married earlier, Simon. Again, is this acceptable and should it be encouraged or an atmosphere created where having sex with young teenagers is fine? *3) the models you see in magazines and ads are just as made up as her and I don't see the members of this board burning crosses over each of them.* That's probably because the other models are grown women, she isn’t. *This is a dirstraction. It's a non-issue. It's marketing, plain and simple. * This isn't a non-issue for the reasons I’ve outlined above. However, it is “marketing” which is exactly why it deserves to be criticised strongly. The use of young teenagers in sexually provocative poses to sell commodities has happened before, but was stamped down during Clintons presidency. The rise in child abuse isn't a moral panic manufactured by the right wing press to sell newspapers, it's happening. This is one of the reasons. Not THE reason but A reason. To ignore it and claim it’s a minor distraction from more important issues is misguided at best. "Get outside and take a breath of the rancid air and break your social programming." If being genuinely concerned about the welfare of the vulnerable in society is part of my social programming I’m happy with that. "None of you would have noticed this idiotic manufactured issue if you weren't told to do so by a culture that strives to control you and distract you from real matters." I’m sure many of us on the board, particularly the parents, already a have genuine and legitimate concerns about what our children are exposed to. It’s not a choice whether to care about global warming, warfare or the vulnerable, Simon. *This is a distraction. It's a non-issue. It's marketing, plain and simple. Our planet is dying, our populations fighting, we're on the brink of extinction and all we want to talk about is this cult of celebrity and the issues that it tells us we're supposed to care about. It absolutely sickens me. * Protecting the vulnerable in society is one of the "real matters". | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.185.60 |
"an atmosphere created where having sex with young teenagers is fine." Eh? How does that relate to a picture of a young actress/singer willingly showing her bare back? How does that equate with abuse? It's no different to any number of photos that have appeared in mainstream magazines and newspapers over the years of young actresses (Christina Ricci and Natalie Portman, to name just two). I can't believe the fuss over a simple photograph. Was this girl abused in some way of which I'm unaware? Saying this leads to child abuse is like the old argument saying that films like THE EVIL DEAD lead to real-life violence. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.189.45 |
As Griff said, a straw man. Just because something has been around for a while doesn't make it right. Using that logic, we could argue that children as young as ten should be working 60+ hours a week doing manual labour, and a woman's property should become her husband's upon marriage, because 'That's the way it was for hundreds of years.'
Probably because back then she'd have had a life expectancy of around 50 years, rather than the 70+ it is now. There'd also have been a far higher risk of her dying in childbirth. Hence the pressure to get women married early, so they could have lots of kids before popping their clogs. Marrying them off early also got them off their fathers' hands, and made them someone else's responsibility.
Because they're fully grown WOMEN, not girls, and as such have to be presumed to have a somewhat better idea of what they're doing.
I'm hardly an obsessive follower of tween stars, but I can't really believe that ALL of them have felt compelled to go this route; perhaps it's just that the ones who do get all the coverage, because after all there's more mileage in 12-year-old Drew Barrymore checking herself into rehab, or Britney Spears doing whatever, than there is in photographing a teenage celebrity actress or singer who, between film roles and albums, leads a quiet family life and pursues her education.
With respect, Simon, it's NOT a 'non-issue'. It's the sexualisation of an age group - Miley Cyrus's target fan-base is 8 to 14 year olds - who are closer to sleeping with teddy bears than with guys. Like it or not, Miley Cyrus and Jamie Lyn Spears are role models for these girls, and with the money and adulation and fame comes a certain responsibility. By sexualising themselves, they are telling the millions of girls who admire them 'Hey, it's okay to dress sexy and act provocative, even if you are only 10!' Walk into any clothing store catering to girls, and you'll see thongs being marketed to girls in grade 3; skimpy belly-baring tops with 'Sexy' spelled across them in sequins; clothing that wouldn't look out of place on a hooker on Vancouver's Davie Street routinely being marketed to girls who are barely old enough to start menstruating. If women want to wear this stuff, great, fine; they have - or should have - some idea of the message they're sending out, to the world at large and guys in particular, and should be prepared to deal with the result. A 13 year old doesn't have that maturity. When she dresses provocatively, in emulation of Miley or Britney or Jamie Lyn or Lindsay or whoever, she has little idea of what message she's sending out; but believe me, a lot of guys do, and if her parents are willing to let her dress like that, they had better be prepared for what might happen. I am not at all arguing that she is 'asking for it', and deserves what might happen; but if she's sending out certain signals, no one should be surprised if some guys decide to respond to them.
These are all serious problems you mention, Simon; but as a parent I'm afraid I'm more concerned, on some level, about what's happening to our children in my own community than about wars elsewhere, say. I want our kids - the ones who'll seen be dealing with all these problems - to grow up healthy and happy, equipped to deal with themselves and the world around them when the time comes. I don't want to see them treated like pawns in some media marketing game which sexualises and trivialises girls, and gives the idea to half the population that it doesn't matter if you do well in school, you better look sexy or you're a failure. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.189.45 |
By sexualising young girls - and I know it's been done for a while, it's simply a lot more prevalent now - you're sending out a signal to certain people (mostly men, I'm afraid) that sex with 14 and 15 year olds is okay, because look at the sexy way they dress, they're obviously old enough to know what they're doing and are signalling what they want. When in fact they're not old enough to know what they're doing (in most cases), and aren't signalling anything other than the fact that they're emulating someone who's seen as a role model. The more of this sexualising of young girls we see, the more 'normal' it will come to be seen as, and I'm afraid there's no shortage of men - and I'm talking grown men, 20+ men, not boys of their own age group - who will take advantage of this fact, doubtless whining 'But she asked for it!' when they're up on charges of raping a 14 year old. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.159.156.247 |
I saw a young girl of three or four recently wearing a t-shirt with "Porn Star" across the front. Lovely. Anyway, I'm glad to see you here, Simon! | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.177.49 |
I should probably add that I didn't find the picture sexy or arousing in any way. I actually thought she looked kind of bland and unattractive. I'm surprised that anyone would be titillated by it, frankly. Maybe it's just not my thing... | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 99.254.205.129 |
quote: 1) this is hardly a new phenomenon. This goes back centuries As Griff said, a straw man. Just because something has been around for a while doesn't make it right. Using that logic, we could argue that children as young as ten should be working 60+ hours a week doing manual labour, and a woman's property should become her husband's upon marriage, because 'That's the way it was for hundreds of years.' --- No, but it also means this issue is not some harbinger of the end of all things. This is an issue that's been with us for a long long time and is nothing new and to react to it the way the media has been reacting to it is ludicrous. There has been no more harm here than before. Were the news reports to focus on the issue in general, I wouldn't care, but to hear people losing their "role model" because of a picture that is, let's face it, practically wholesome compared to what else is out there, strikes me as nonsense. quote: 2) from where she was born, less than a hundred years ago she'd be married by now with children. Probably because back then she'd have had a life expectancy of around 50 years, rather than the 70+ it is now. There'd also have been a far higher risk of her dying in childbirth. Hence the pressure to get women married early, so they could have lots of kids before popping their clogs. Marrying them off early also got them off their fathers' hands, and made them someone else's responsibility. --- and back then girls matured later and society itself was hindered by philosophies that taught them that their natural instincts were wrong. Fifteen years old nowadays is like 20 years old even back in my day, and she is far from a child, especially considering the showbiz environment she comes from. She's not some naive girl, nor are her parents naive. There was no mistake about what was happening here. quote: 3) the models you see in magazines and ads are just as made up as her and I don't see the members of this board burning crosses over each of them. Because they're fully grown WOMEN, not girls, and as such have to be presumed to have a somewhat better idea of what they're doing. --- as I mentioned later, I was directing this at new models, many of whom are no older than this girl. quote: 4) this is just the first salvo in a calculated attack on her "tween" stardom. Every other girl in her position in the last decade (at least) has gone through this same virgin/whore act to migrate their fanbase. There is nothing accidental about what is happening her, not the photograph or her apology afterward. Does anyone remember Britney Spears dancing like a stripper and proclaiming she was a virgin? It happened at the same time: a "tween" start getting too old for the role. I'm hardly an obsessive follower of tween stars, but I can't really believe that ALL of them have felt compelled to go this route; perhaps it's just that the ones who do get all the coverage, because after all there's more mileage in 12-year-old Drew Barrymore checking herself into rehab, or Britney Spears doing whatever, than there is in photographing a teenage celebrity actress or singer who, between film roles and albums, leads a quiet family life and pursues her education. --- no, of course they don't all go this way, but this method is increasingly common, and for the most part works . . . until other pressures crack them. quote: This is a distraction. It's a non-issue. It's marketing, plain and simple. With respect, Simon, it's NOT a 'non-issue'. It's the sexualisation of an age group - Miley Cyrus's target fan-base is 8 to 14 year olds - who are closer to sleeping with teddy bears than with guys. Like it or not, Miley Cyrus and Jamie Lyn Spears are role models for these girls, and with the money and adulation and fame comes a certain responsibility. By sexualising themselves, they are telling the millions of girls who admire them 'Hey, it's okay to dress sexy and act provocative, even if you are only 10!' Walk into any clothing store catering to girls, and you'll see thongs being marketed to girls in grade 3; skimpy belly-baring tops with 'Sexy' spelled across them in sequins; clothing that wouldn't look out of place on a hooker on Vancouver's Davie Street routinely being marketed to girls who are barely old enough to start menstruating. If women want to wear this stuff, great, fine; they have - or should have - some idea of the message they're sending out, to the world at large and guys in particular, and should be prepared to deal with the result. A 13 year old doesn't have that maturity. When she dresses provocatively, in emulation of Miley or Britney or Jamie Lyn or Lindsay or whoever, she has little idea of what message she's sending out; but believe me, a lot of guys do, and if her parents are willing to let her dress like that, they had better be prepared for what might happen. I am not at all arguing that she is 'asking for it', and deserves what might happen; but if she's sending out certain signals, no one should be surprised if some guys decide to respond to them. --- Look, I'm not arguing that we should sexualize children, what I'm rebelling against is this notion that this girl is somehow innocent of knowing exactly what she was doing, and that this photo -- one that can hardly be called "topless" despite what the media says -- is not the cancer to society it's being made out to be. This issue -- the issue of this specific photograph -- is a wholly manufactured one, created by a hype and marketing machine that constantly hungers for fresh grist. quote: Our planet is dying, our populations fighting, we're on the brink of extinction and all we want to talk about is this cult of celebrity and the issues that it tells us we're supposed to care about. It absolutely sickens me. These are all serious problems you mention, Simon; but as a parent I'm afraid I'm more concerned, on some level, about what's happening to our children in my own community than about wars elsewhere, say. I want our kids - the ones who'll seen be dealing with all these problems - to grow up healthy and happy, equipped to deal with themselves and the world around them when the time comes. I don't want to see them treated like pawns in some media marketing game which sexualises and trivialises girls, and gives the idea to half the population that it doesn't matter if you do well in school, you better look sexy or you're a failure. --- Western society has many issues, and have no hope left for any of it. I would nonetheless like to make sure there's a world for my children to inhabit that isn't rotting out from beneath them. I'm more concerned about a society that has it's tastes and thoughts dictated by major corporation. I'm frightened of the mass-consumer automatons I see popping up more and more every day. This world is full of sheep thinking what they are told to think, and while they're busy worry about what the left hand is doing, the right hand is knocking done everything we've spent thousands of years building. Against this, the act of a celebrity trying to transition from a role model to 12 year-olds to something more just doesn't strike me as important. This issue, this specific issue, reeks of manufacture. BTW, I apologise for not knowing how to "quote" here on this board. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 99.254.205.129 |
I agree, Huw. It's a depressingly ordinary photo. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.177.49 |
Just seen your post Barbara (and yours, Mick), and I see your point, and agree with some of what you are saying (I've seen kids wearing such t-shirts too, and I don't agree with it, obviously). I don't see that this picture is such a big deal, though, or how it can be mentioned seriously in the same breath as the words 'child abuse'. There are always going to be people who, for whatever reason, prey on the young, or don't give a damn whether they are having sex with a fifteen-year-old or an eighteen-year-old; but the vast majority of us are well-adjusted enough not to be affected in the wrong way by such images (even if some do find them appealing), just as the vast majority don't go on a killing spree after viewing a John Carpenter film. Just my two cents worth... | ||
| Matthew_fell (Matthew_fell) Username: Matthew_fell Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.189.45 |
<<<<but>>>> The argument here isn't about the vast majority of us being well-adjusted; it's about the effect something like this has on impressionable kids. Christopher | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.189.45 |
Physically, girls of 15 today are probably more like the 20 year olds even 30 years back - I've taught at the local high school, and I see girls of 14 or 15 there who look, from the neck down at least, like full-grown women - but mentally they're still 15. Physically they might be ready for sex and childbirth - although having had a child myself, at age 33, I wouldn't have wanted to go through the process when my body was half as old - but mentally they aren't. Unfortunately, the people who manufacture the teen idols these girls look up to don't recognise the distinction. The Miley Cyrus photos might be - probably are - a cynical exercise in marketing, generated to whip up attention in the 'product' and start moving her away from being a tween star to being a teen and then grown-up star, but that distinction is going to be lost on the millions of young girls who look up to her. And while Cyrus probably has enough people around her to protect her from any fall-out - although perhaps not, as witness what's happened to Jamie Lyn Spears and her older sister - many of those amongst her following don't, as witness the 8 and 10 and 12 year olds who come to school, almost certainly with parental approval, wearing midriff-baring tops and low-cut jeans.
You're probably right, Simon. But regardless of the intent, a definite message is being sent to young girls, and as a parent I don't like to see that particular message out there. When I was 15, the only thing out there for me that was vaguely sexual was Barbie dolls; the cartoons and TV shows and toys and movies marketed to my age group weren't pushing sex and sexualised images at me. It's a completely different world now, three decades later; and my concern is that the target audience is in no way ready for this, from a maturity point of view. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
"I don't see that this picture is such a big deal, though, or how it can be mentioned seriously in the same breath as the words 'child abuse'." I was talking about it within the wider context of the sexualisation of young teenagers and children. It's a part of it, and shouldn't be ignored. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.236.86 |
Watch your (naked) back, people. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.180.207 |
No, we've been talking about the affect this could have on adults as much as we have the impression it may have on children - read all the posts. ;-) | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
The picture works subtley. It sends out subtle messages. No matter what some of you are saying it's saying to the world that kids are sexy (which they probably are, but the media must not support that view and promote/use it). As some of us writers here know, the subtle stuff is very powerful (we are visitors to Ramsey's board, after all), more insinuative. It's like advertising, something bordering on hypnosis now. Simon - are we saying that because we care about stuff like this we don't care about the other things you've mentioned? Because it seems like that's what you're suggesting. I'd say kids today are LESS mature now than they were; adulthood is actually less encouraged, it seems; being sexual beings is not the same as being an adult. I think some of you need to look around you, look at the texture of this world, the values that are being foisted on our kids (and if you care about the world's future as you claim you are you'll see that these values impact on this area also - have you seen the shit they drop everywhere? The amount of parent who drive their kids a block to school? These are the same parents who let their kids go to the school parties with their bare stamachs showing with fake tats and eye shadow etc etc at around 8+). Sorry; maybe I shouldn't waste time doing this, maybe I should be out there shoving a cork up an exhaust pipe or something. You know, this bugs me, because I know it's linked with Ramsey's anti-Whitehouse thing, and that us mentioning our unease at this subject somehow lumps us in with her, that if we frown on one thing it means we're somehow with the way she went on. We'll that's bullshit. And I will not be called puritanical because caring about aspects of society is not puritanism it's just wanting things right and nurturing, not letting shit slip into our lives and fuck it up. I let my kids swear without getting heavy on them for God's sake, or rather tolerate it it more than some. I let them watch certain horror movies, let them read what they like. But I teach them manners and sympathy for others and morals and that's it's ok to be stupid and be just kids. I hate these broad brush strokes that are being splashed about here. You guys are bright, aren't you? Is it because if this sort of thing is frowned on now by some of us you might sometime in the future have your precious dvds be a bit more censored? Jesus... | ||
| Adriana (Adriana) Username: Adriana Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.230.239.233 |
I think that more 15-year-olds should pose with naked backs covered only in a bed sheet. | ||
| Adriana (Adriana) Username: Adriana Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.230.239.233 |
I'm kidding of course. (Jet lag sense of humour.) What I really wanted to say is that in addition to the concern of sexualising children through the media, we should be doing something about all the hormones being pumped into the meat we eat, and now contaminating our water tables - because 8-year-old girls getting their periods and teenyboppers looking like fully developed women is NOT natural. 15 might be riding the line, but my concern still stands. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.108.241 |
As a father and a concerned American, and also as someone who doesn't give a flying fart about Miley Cyrus, I'd like to offer the few following facts: 1. Brooke Shields appeared in a series of highly famous television commercials in poses at least as provocative as Miley's and said "Want to know what gets between me and my Calvins? Nothing." At the time, she was 15 years old. 2. Brooke Shields is the youngest model ever to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair. Her Richard Avedon-photographed shot was on the cover when she was just 14 years old. 3. In 1974, Linda Blair appeared in a made-for-TV movie (!) in which she was raped with a broom handle in a surprisingly graphic sequence. At the time, she was 15 years old. 4. Annie Leibovitz, the photographer of the Miley photo, had a long romantic relationship with feminist writer Susan Sontag. She is also a well-known photographer whose works have appeared in galleries. 5. Cyrus claims she liked the photo when she first saw it, saying to her it was "artsy." Leibovitz herself described it as follows: "The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful." 6. The New York Times, reporting on the controvery, revealed that Cyrus was not actually "topless" during the shoot. She was wearing clothing on her breasts beneath the blanket she held. 7. The average Vanity Fair reader is female (78% of its readership), over 35 (41%) and makes over $75,000 per year (90%). 8. After some digging, I found no facts to back up the Hannah Montana demographic, alas, but I'd put it somewhere in the area of 8-15 year-old girls. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.184.212 |
Tony, I think you're taking this all just a little too personally. You may think that picture is a problem (personally, I see nothing arousing in it, but that's just me), but please don't try to make out that those of us who don't are somehow callous, cold-hearted bastards who don't give a damn about the how kids are being brought up (which is different from parent to parent and from place to place, and a wholly separate issue to boot). As for needing to take a look around and see the texture of the world: well, I've travelled all over the world since I was a kid, lived in many different places and cultures, and can only comment based on my own perceptions and experience. I wouldn't presume to tell you that your opinion is not valid (and I do agree with some of what you say, just not about this specific incident), no matter whether I agree with it or not.  | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
*You may think that picture is a problem(personally, I see nothing arousing in it, but that's just me), but please don't try to make out that those of us who don't are somehow callous, cold-hearted bastards who don't give a damn about the how kids are being brought up.* If you can't appreciate there is a link between the sexualisation of young teenagers and children and abuse then callous and bastard don't seem appropriate - daft and naive are though. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
A few evenings ago, my wife overheard the twelve and thirteen year-old kids who live a few doors up from us discussing giving their friends blow-jobs and "licking them out". Kids these days today are encouraged to be vulgar, and to "act" adult in all the wrong ways. The sexualisation of teenagers makes me feel very uncomfortable (it always has - the Brooke Sheilds thing, too). It's a moral stance, I think, and my stance is not a hundred miles away from Tony's. Moral standards today have become eroded to the point of no return. I'm also often dismayed because I struggle to find a cartoon for my son to watch that doesn't contain violence. Call me a prude if you like: it'll be a first for me. :-) | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
I will add, though, that at 15 this pic is more of a grey area. Would it be ok as long as she was 16? I dunno. All I know is, she's meant to look sexy, and it certainly makes me feel a little uneasy. At the very least, this kind of thing should prompt this very type of discussion. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.34.162 |
Griff, please take note: throughout this thread I've been trying to confine my comments to the original point of discussion (i.e., this particular picture, and whether it's inappropriately titillating). Others have introduced all kinds of other stuff (overhearing youngsters talking about sex, wearing skimpy clothing, inappropriate parenting, the general decline of moral standards, etc.) but personally, I prefer to stick with the original subject, i.e. that bland and frankly unappealing photo. I'll try to make it as clear as possible: 1. I don't see what the big deal is about this picture. It's no different to countless others like it of other young actors and singers. If you do find it arousing and think it's a problem (and clearly some of you do), that's fine. We'll just have to disagree. 2. I haven't even got into the discussion regarding the possibility of a link between the "sexualization of young teenagers and children" and child abuse, as you put it, so please don't make assumptions about me based on my comments on something else, okay? It strikes me that folk who have trouble accepting others' viewpoints are often quick to label them naive. It's a pity, as it really does nothing to further the discussion at hand. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.124.181 |
Children have role models - of course they do and I as I said earlier - if you are selling yourself in the form of songs/dance/ Disney shows and Mylie sleepover pillows to young girls - then stick to that market until you are finished with it. Children need a childhood. Barbara has echoed my own misgivings on the whole thing. "It's the sexualisation of an age group - Miley Cyrus's target fan-base is 8 to 14 year olds - who are closer to sleeping with teddy bears than with guys. Like it or not, Miley Cyrus and Jamie Lyn Spears are role models for these girls, and with the money and adulation and fame comes a certain responsibility. By sexualising themselves, they are telling the millions of girls who admire them 'Hey, it's okay to dress sexy and act provocative, even if you are only 10!' Walk into any clothing store catering to girls, and you'll see thongs being marketed to girls in grade 3; skimpy belly-baring tops with 'Sexy' spelled across them in sequins; clothing that wouldn't look out of place on a hooker on Vancouver's Davie Street routinely being marketed to girls who are barely old enough to start menstruating." | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.34.218 |
You know what really pisses me off? All those music videos and rap songs that tell people it's cool to be a pimp or a ho. I hate that shit - it angers me far more than a picture of a 15-year-old willingly posing as a pale waif.  | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
Yes, come on folks, let's keep this debate just that - the fact that we all have different opinions is what makes something like this forum so essential. Huw - sorry if I strayed too far from the original topic, but I was picking up on Tony's points. In hindsight, I actually agree that there's nothing really that wrong with the above pic but I also think that Tony raises some valid points about the greater picture - although he does it in something of a reactionary way. Let's face it, this is a very emotive subject. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
>>You know what really pisses me off? All those music videos and rap songs that tell people it's cool to be a pimp or a ho. I hate that shit - it angers me far more than a picture of a 15-year-old willingly posing as a pale waif.<, Hear-hear. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.34.218 |
No problem, Zed. It just concerns me when I'm labelled as naive or thought of as not being against the "sexualisation" of kids merely because I don't see what all the fuss is about that particular photo. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.236.86 |
About the aforementioned grey zone: there are youngsters who are 16 or 17 and look, act and think like they're still 13; conversely, there are 13-year olds who look like they just had their 17th birthday. Say a photographer picked a younger-looking 16-year old for a certain type photograph (I leave it to your imaginations), would there be any kind of objection? If so, based on which grounds? | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.236.86 |
"If you can't appreciate there is a link between the sexualisation of young teenagers and children and abuse . . . " Do you have any kind of proof to offer? Or is it just an inkling? | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
@ H (not from Steps) "I prefer to stick with the original subject, i.e. that bland and frankly unappealing photo." There's an overlap bewteen the two. Given the gravity of the issue they can't be separated. Yes there is research into this area, Hubert. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.193.236 |
Of course they can be separated. I was invited to give my opinion on whether Ms. Cyrus had been manipulated into posing for an indecent photo, and I said that I didn't think she had. If people want to go off on all kinds of tangents, fine, but don't say I'm naive and unappreciative of the problems of child abuse when I haven't even entered into the subject. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
We disagree and this is going nowhere constructive or healthy. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
http://www.slate.com/id/2190209/?from=rss The Cyrus picture was just the ringpull on the can, really. Maybe somewhere along the line that should have either been inferred or pointed out. The pic in the link about is more shocking. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=4121 95&in_page_id=17 | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> The Cyrus picture was just the ringpull on the can. The Cyrus picture isn't even near the can. Now here's something to get worried about: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.124.181 |
Actually it is near the can and perhaps that new topic could have a thread all to itself Chris. Don't get me started on the price of petrol. What was it - 30 billion profit by one supplier in the first 3 months of this year and they say that they reinvest most of it into green initiatives. New thread Chris :>) | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
There's a civilization to lose? | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
That's glib, Tony. I'm not talking about gas prices, I'm talking about the world running out of petroleum. The consequences are extensive: ". . . the consequences would be unimaginable. Permanent fuel shortages would tip the world into a generations-long economic depression. Millions would lose their jobs as industry implodes. Farm tractors would be idled for lack of fuel, triggering massive famines. Energy wars would flare. And carless suburbanites would trudge to their nearest big box stores, not to buy Chinese made clothing transported cheaply across the globe, but to scavenge glass and copper wire from abandoned buildings." This future appears to be real, and damn few people are discussing or doing anything about it. If the future of you and your family involves digging through old Kentucy Fried Chicken garbage bins for food, it makes any discussion of Hannah Montana photos painfully irrelevant, to say the least. Simon's right: This celebrity nonsense just distracts people from the real issues. Ally: If you'd like to start a new thread, be my guest. I'm trying to make a point about importance, not about the peak oil problem itself | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
A simple question for you, Chris. The photo of the 15 year old not included: Is the sexualisation of children and young teenagers something we should be concerned about? | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Sure. You can contemplate it on the way to the KFC garbage bin. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Sorry, that too was glib. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.124.181 |
"it makes any discussion of Hannah Montana photos painfully irrelevant, to say the least." Not when her Disney merchandise is aimed at my 9 year old daughter it isn't. Don't trivialise the subject. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
I guess I fail to see how a non-sexual photo of a pointless actress in a magazine not aimed for children amounts to "sexualization of children and young teenagers." I see the photo and I think: wow, looks like she just got out of the shower. If anyone sees anything else, I guess I think they must be bringing a lot to it on their own. Which part of the photo exactly is offensive? Is it her bare back? Lots or American teenagers appear at beaches every day in swimsuits that reveal their backs. Is it her tousled and apparently wet hair? Ditto that for American beaches. Is it the blanket? Not sure how a blanket is itself a sexual prop. I just don't see how this adds up to anything but a honest photo of a 15 year old girl. And exactly in what way is this particular photo supposed to affect the average 8-year-old fan, who probably wouldn't have even seen it if it weren't for all the fuss? Are her fans supposed to get adults to take backless photos of them and post them to their MySpace pages? Honestly, how does this harm people? And, again, I think we have more important things to worry about. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>>Not when her Disney merchandise is aimed at my 9 year old daughter it isn't. Don't trivialise the subject. Sorry, Ally. But if peak oil happens, you won't be able to afford Hannah Montana merchandise. I'm not trivializing anything. I'm just offering perspective. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
Humans have fucked the world up, they really have. It got along nicely without us and we've had a nice time, but maybe that time is over. Maybe the amish are doing it right by not relying on all the shit we claim we need. Maybe they'll survive us. Maybe we can learn a few things about them, adopt a few approaches to life. Maybe we could learn to tell ghosts stories around the candlelight or a retell in detail the movie of the Innocents or Star Wars or whatever, or hold drama nights at the community centre that perform Salems lLot in an edited way that means kids can watch. The folk in the middle ages survived with less no-how than us; we start thinking now and we could do their stuff along with what we know. It'd be hard, but not impossible. And seriously, what is the point of the world surviving it it sucks? The Cyrus pics have long fallen to the wayside when it comes to the issues raised on this site, but it did raise them. It's part of the shit that's going on, however slight as some might think it. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
2276876%2C00.html,http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/photography/story/0,,2276876,00 .html I'm becoming sick of the sound of my own voice. I'm even starting to doubt it myself, or understand what it is I'm saying exactly. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.189.3 |
My advice, Tony: watch a couple of great old films (maybe a Val Lewton or an old Universal?), have a couple of drinks or a puff from your favourite pipe (or a couple of Valiums if you don't drink or smoke) and let this stuff slide off you, at least for the time being. That's what I'm doing. Thinking too much about the state of the world can drive us all a little crazy sometimes, and coming at 'heavy' issues from different directions can make conversation between friends feel strained and uncomfortable. ;-) | ||
| Tom_alaerts (Tom_alaerts) Username: Tom_alaerts Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.242.9.71 |
I just saw the photo, I think it's rather well done, I don't consider the photo too offensive. But then I also think that Annie Leibovitz is one of the better modern portrait photographers! She made several good series for Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
You're right, Huw. The walk through Wales still on? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
The image of the naked girl. Come on guys. It's a sex picture. What else is it? They use sex pictures like this to sell sun beds and showers. It is sex. It implies nudity. Why would you look at someone naked and NOT think of sex. Offensive? No. I think about naked 15 year old girls all the time. So it doesn't offend me...as a 35 year old single man (what would offend MY imagination?) How about 14? Anyone want to go lower? come on. Out bid me. Of course it doesn't offend YOUR IMAGINATION. You've been Ted Bundy in your imagination since you were fifteen. How about offending what society sees as acceptable? That's different. Maybe you think 15 year old should be legal. Why not? Let's not insult each other about this pic. It's sex. Sex with a 15 year old girl. But let's carefully measure which part of you really doesn't find it offensive. Is it your higher mind or your cock? Or both. I think that just about puts that as it is. No bullshit there, I hope.  Bullshit has its place. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
" guess I fail to see how a non-sexual photo of a pointless actress in a magazine not aimed for children amounts to "sexualization of children and young teenagers." I see the photo and I think: wow, looks like she just got out of the shower. If anyone sees anything else, I guess I think they must be bringing a lot to it on their own." Come on, Chris. When did you last look at a 15 year old girl coming out of a shower and not quickly scamper away for a sly wrist attack? It implies nudity. If you didn't infer sex you would have to be a robot. The photographer may well be a woman and art may be her aim. I used to wank off over statues of Diana the Huntress when I was a kid. In fact... | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
Nope. I lost them! No joy for wristy tonight. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Guess I'm a robot. Along with Ramsey, Huw, and several other posters. Your admissions make you sound like a pedophile, Albie. You may want to seek help. Still, if you have those inclinations, I fail to see how that picture could make you want to strangle your manhood any more than more "acceptable" photos of Miley in a swimsuit or a miniskirt. Ever seen a picture of a naked baby, Albie? That had nudity, too. Did wristy get any joy then? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.197 |
I hope I'm not watching a car crash in slow motion... I'm not directing this comment to anyone in particular, but can I ask everyone to stick to the debate in a level-headed way? Thanks. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
Indeed. Returning to the original image, then, I'm not sure to what extent Vanity Fair is likely to be read by the actress's Disney audience. To establish the context, here is the magazine's web site. http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.80 |
Apparently some subjects cannot be discussed in a level-headed way. A pity, really. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
"Your admissions make you sound like a pedophile, Albie. You may want to seek help." "Ever seen a picture of a naked baby, Albie? That had nudity, too. Did wristy get any joy then?" The only person coming across as slightly unpleasant and hysterical here is you, Chris. The vehemence and spite suggests you're the one in need of help. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
I hope we're all chums here and can get along calmly and in a civilised manner. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.23.225.121 |
I am with Albie on this, of course. I think sexuality has fewer boundaries than we think it has. It's mechanistic; the thing to do is watch it go on in our heads and realise it's like breathing, sweating or whatever. It's if you choose to follow it up it's wrong. And people have different levels, too, and we should accept that. and again; it's not just about this picture per se, it's about what the picture is part of in this world. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.59.138 |
On my daughter's birthday list is a subscription to National Geographic,(for kids) as well as a Hannah Montana sleepover pillow. How have we gone from this, (notice the site Heroes for Kids) http://www.heroesforkids.co.uk/erol.html#12571X0 to this http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2008/04/miley_cyrus.html | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.59.138 |
As a perfomer targeted at 7-14 years of age children you either keep your clothes on and play to the kids or take them off and enter a whole new arena. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.80 |
I have a gay friend who as a youngster used to be head over heels in love with Robin from the Batman comic strip. Very much because he liked the look of the Boy Wonder's naked legs. Perhaps Bob Kane was a closet paedophile sexualizing young boys? | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
Why is a picture of a nude person automatically sexualising the person? It's not, it's all in the mind of the person looking. Underneath our clothes, we're all nekkid. It's the natural state of existance for us. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
If we're going to talk about this, and it's not something I suggest we continue to do, I suggest we decide whether we want to discuss THIS picture, and whether or not it's offensive in comparison to all the other noise out there in the world, or whether we want to discuss whether the noise of the world is a problem. The issue we're having is one of relativity, and if we aren't arguing from the same starting point all we're going to do is further aggravate each other with our respective bone-headedness. I still think the sexualization of our culture is not the biggest issue we're facing in the world, but I recognize it is a problem to some degree. I think it's debatable how much, and whether it requires this much energy at the expense of other more immediate concerns. That said, I recently read a book that suggests the doom-and-gloom of the Western life is vastly overstated, and that in fact there is more peace now on the planet as a whole than there's been in fifty years. It's all relative, as I say, and everybody has there own answers based on where they're standing. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.156.110.243 |
Hubert, people have debated the possible sexual undertones of the Batman-Robin partnership for decades. It's neither abnormal nor unhealthy for teenagers to find other teenagers sexy. Nor should the sexuality of teenagers itself be a taboo area, I think – the problem is the commodification of young bodies as objects of desire. When Shakespeare wrote 'Romeo and Juliet' (in which Juliet loses her virginity at thirteen), there was no Internet porn and no commercial or technological means of separating images of the body from lived experience. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
Sexualization is the objectification of the person, an over-appreciation of the outer shell. If we all become obsessed with the outward then I think there are dangers to the world. We become shells not people, and that will affect the way we view and treat the world. I hate this argument and it's not going to go away at all. We should just realise we have views that shock one another and try and move on, if possible. But btw Robin didn't have tousled hair and rumpled clothes, was not in some state of undress. There are conotations to states of undress or clothing, implications, subtle things. It blows my mind that some people here claim to appreciate subtlety and delicate signs in their literature and art and then ignore the implications of this stuff. And like I said, there ARE other problems in the world but should we ignore some over others? If something bugs you do you just sweep it aside? I see little kids round where I live all dressed up in 'sexy' clothes and make-up an piercings and then I see their family members boozing, trashing the place, riding their bicylcles in front of cars and then getting irked at the drivers of said cars when they almost get hit, I see them picking their noses over balconies in the malls letting their snots fall on people walking below. This stuff is that dusty old forgotten thing of morals being dashed and left on the shitheap. Without those what the fuck are we? It's a disturbing thing, I feel, and you (we) people write about disturbing things all the time, but do you all just write about global destruction? Is that your big theme, your only theme? Of course not. The pictures like the Cyrus one (but NOT that picture alone, I hasten to add) says to a society that has built a moral and stable wall around base urges that it's ok to let that wall crumble. And when that wall crumbles other shit happens, also. It's like the parent who doesn't see a punishment through; you send it a message that what wrong thing it has done is ok. This is tried and tested stuff, real stuff. But you know what? I can see that our views will never mesh, that what we each feel important is different for each of us. There's no end to this; in the words of a movie computer, maybe it's best not to play. Who knows where the things we worry about go, how big they get? We all feel different, but no-one can possibly know what can come of it. Maybe one day society will feel a little pang of self-loathing and the wind will turn, who knows. It just does feel like it's escalating. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
If we saw the same image as a painting, would it raise the same comments? There certainly are comparable images in painting over the centuries. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
We're not talking Leonardo here, Ramsey. We can't pretend this is all about fine art, it's wank fodder to sell stuff. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
It just feels like this pic is a big shot over the boughs, a big statement, high-profile. Paintings seem, on the whole, to be the sort of thing you encounter at a personal level, initimately, a dialogue between you and artist. It's quite possible that the aims of the picture have been corrupted by the texture of the rest of society and the media. In fact, this makes sense the more I think of it. I've probably blown up the importance/significance of this pic, actually, and maybe for me it's time to sidestep it. It stirred stuff up for me and I'm probably talking more about those other things than the picture itself. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
That's it; it's positioning. Put a close-up of Michelangelo's David's willy on a cornflake packet and it's a different kettle of fish altogether. Sort of. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
"We're not talking Leonardo here, Ramsey." No, we're talking about Annie Liebovitz, whose body of work is by no means contemptible. "We can't pretend this is all about fine art, it's wank fodder to sell stuff." Well, so you say, if that's the level of the discussion. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.59.138 |
She's a children's celebrity,( I know we hate the word) and role model - marketed to children. If it was a painting of a young woman I wouldn't feel so strongly about it but that isn't what we are talking about. It's Hannah, I'm really disliking the name now, Montana - a character created for girls. I know it is such an emotive subject and believe me I'm the last person to want censorship but she is marketed as Hannah. Quite honestly it is up to her and her parents who her eventual market will be but they clearly want the Disney franchise. They can't have it all and unfortunately it sends out the wrong message. I've talked to my daughter about this over tea and she has quite clearly said that I would never sell myself in that way. The language of the magazine people says everything. First - it is a blanket and then it is a silk sheet and now its a champagne coloured sort of special thing....she'd tousled, she is wearing red lipstick - my daughter and her friends want every hair in place..... | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
Liebovitz takes quite sexy pics, quite kinky pics, to be honest. They're good. But it is also true that people will take it at face value, not be aware of her background and just see it as a titillating pic, a la something off Loaded or Nuts or even the cover of Playboy. It's not hugely sleazy but it does have it's feet on that threshold. I for one see those mags a rack above the Beanos; women squeezing their tits against their chests, women pressing their nipples against one another's, and cover them up with an auto trader or something. I don't think it's right having them there. To me the Cyrus pic occupies some middle ground between the two, paves the way for the sleazey market as being the next step up. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
'I for one see those mags a rack above the Beanos' - um, I meant literally btw, at our local co-op! | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.59.138 |
My daughter asked the same question tonight - when in the co-op.. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.180.184 |
I've looked at the picture again, and I still see a tasteful, if bland, picture of a 15-year-old actress showing her back. If anyone sees that as "wank fodder", then really, that's their issue. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
Let's face it, this picture was taken simply to provoke controversy, and if the microcosm of this forum is anything to go by, it's succeeded hands-down. I bet that issue of Vanity fair sold by the shedload. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.80 |
Joel, don't think I find anything intrinsically wrong with that kind of 'special friendship' I hope everyone here realizes the quip about Kane was just that. I expect people who are so virulently opposed to a photograph of a teenager's bare back shall want to comment on other instances in art where the female (or, for that matter, male) young body is 'glorified'. How about Nabokov's LOLITA, friends and neighbours? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
Personally speaking, I'd wait until her sixteenth birthday before slipping her one. The longer this thread goes on the more I find myself agreeing with Simon's post miles above. This is in fact a manufactured issue, meant to distract us - just like the rest of the celebrity nonsense that has saturated our society. I mean, we live in a society where 12 year-olds are becoming mothers (often by their own family members) and we're appalled by a picture of an almost-legal teenage girl showing her back. I feel conned...I fell for it. Well done, Vanity fair: you made an ass of me. :-/ | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
I say again; it's not just about this pic anymore. The pic is only really part of the thing I've been focussing on for a while. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.108.241 |
>> Personally speaking, I'd wait until her sixteenth birthday before slipping her one. For what it's worth, the legal age of consent in America is 18. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.35.89 |
As far as I'm aware Nabokov isn't on the current reading list at the primary school. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.190.139 |
But Vanity Fair isn't a children's magazine, Ally. Let's not forget that the picture that people are getting so bent out of shape about appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair, not on a Disney magazine or television show. The original point of discussion was not whether it has a negative effect on society, but whether the actress in question was manipulated by the photographer (and it's clear from reading about it that she wasn't). I don't understand where this hysteria is coming from. And to link this - as some have done - with a real problem like child abuse is very wrong, and trivialises that issue, in my opinion. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.35.89 |
Obviously Vanity Fair isn't a children's magazine. The point is.... "It's Hannah, I'm really disliking the name now, Montana - a character created for girls. I know it is such an emotive subject and believe me I'm the last person to want censorship but she is marketed as Hannah. Quite honestly it is up to her and her parents who her eventual market will be but they clearly want the Disney franchise. They can't have it all and unfortunately it sends out the wrong message." Joel was close to the mark.."I think – the problem is the commodification of young bodies as objects of desire." and Barbara, "It's the sexualisation of an age group - Miley Cyrus's target fan-base is 8 to 14 year olds - who are closer to sleeping with teddy bears than with guys. Like it or not, Miley Cyrus and Jamie Lyn Spears are role models for these girls, and with the money and adulation and fame comes a certain responsibility. By sexualising themselves, they are telling the millions of girls who admire them 'Hey, it's okay to dress sexy and act provocative, even if you are only 10!' Walk into any clothing store catering to girls, and you'll see thongs being marketed to girls in grade 3; skimpy belly-baring tops with 'Sexy' spelled across them in sequins; clothing that wouldn't look out of place on a hooker on Vancouver's Davie Street routinely being marketed to girls who are barely old enough to start menstruating." | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.35.89 |
It's the transformation of a children's icon to a sex symbol and yet she is still selling to both markets. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.80 |
Little girls do grow up eventually, Ally. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
Not that fast, though. A problem now is that this process is so rushed. And how many teen actors are now almost herded into being starkers in plays and movies and the like? Even little Dakota Fanning got butt-f*cked in her last film. It's like there's a pleasure taken in this loss of childhood, this little moment of transformation. It feels ... icky. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.35.89 |
I'm very much aware of the transition from child to young woman but as I've said, "she is still selling to both markets," 7 - 14 year old girls and to adults - that's the point. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.156.110.243 |
There actually isn't a reason for anyone to get upset about the events that triggered this thread. A youngster had some photos taken in a mainstream media context and retrospectively decided some of them were not appropriate for that context – fair enough. Nobody's talking about child porn here. People make decisions like that all the time. Retaining control of your own image is precisely the way to find your own path through a diverse and contradictory media culture. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
Like I said - again - this particular pic hasn't been the big issue here for me for a few posts. It just highlighted other things. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
"Guess I'm a robot. Along with Ramsey, Huw, and several other posters. Your admissions make you sound like a pedophile, Albie. You may want to seek help. Still, if you have those inclinations, I fail to see how that picture could make you want to strangle your manhood any more than more "acceptable" photos of Miley in a swimsuit or a miniskirt. Ever seen a picture of a naked baby, Albie? That had nudity, too. Did wristy get any joy then?" Only if I just killed it with a wire brush. So you've never seen a girl in her late teens and lusted after her? (I smell bullshit) I don't think you should be including Ramsey in your robotic group. But you didn't even tackle what I said, that maybe you are not offended because you have no problem with a 15 year old girl, naked in a bed, being photographed for adults to look at. A girl who works in kid's TV and has many little girls looking up to her. Who may see this and decide how to act. You claim it is because you are not turned on by the image. But that's not the point. I'm not turned on by it. The point is far subtler than that. But a knee jerk liberal reaction is what you expect these days. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
"For what it's worth, the legal age of consent in America is 18." Well, it's no wonder you have to reign in your cock for 15 year olds. They are still babies in your eyes. No doubt you lust after 17 year olds. That 15 year old is no more sexual than a baby for you. Hence you have to pretend more, not to find them attractive. I'm glad we found your level.  | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
"The only person coming across as slightly unpleasant and hysterical here is you, Chris. The vehemence and spite suggests you're the one in need of help." Indeed. The jab about the KFC garbage bin says a lot about Chris. Clearly this is a big issue for him. But he is American. He's not allowed to lust after 15 year olds. That's like us lusting after a 12 year old. In American terms. His 16 being 18. So therefore Americans have to be more repressed to feel normal. Hence he CAN'T see this picture as sexual. Although, I don't think we are saying we find it sexual. Just that in context it could be construed as such. The photographer clearly is contrasting the subject's Disney persona with a mildy sexual tone. She IS in bed, and seemingly naked. I think it's a cheap trick, to be honest. Boring. Obvious. And exploitative of the subject. Not to a degree that she should be arrested. Just enough that we should comment on it, without people immediately attacking us by implying we are white trash who eat at KFC. That's boring too. Obvious etc etc. It's lacking in thought. And it's an emotive reaction that says a lot. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Yup. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.182.122 |
Ally, I don't think that because she acts in a Disney show she should be held accountable to kids and their parents for every action taken in other aspects of her life. If some parents found the picture inappropriate, surely it's easily taken care of by sitting down and having a chat with one's kids (as you did, rightly, I think). In the end it comes down to good parenting and common sense. It's hardly a new phenomenon. I'm not disagreeing with all the points being made here, by the way - far from it. You and Tony and Barbara have all raised good points about bigger issues beyond the photograph that was the original point of discussion. I do, however, think that blaming this photo for bigger problems such as sexual abuse is not that different from blaming murders and muggings on horror mags. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
We are not blaming this picture. We are discussing this picture as a sign of bigger things. But the instant knee jerk reaction (the one you think we are having) is being countered by yours. We are not torch weilding villagers. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.9.1 |
"As a perfomer targeted at 7-14 years of age children you either keep your clothes on and play to the kids or take them off and enter a whole new arena." She has a responsibility to the young girls who look up to her. She is sending the message out to them that it is okay to do this. It isn't appropriate for a role model/children's icon girl to be photograped clutching a silk sheet to her. Girls do pick up their mother's mags on a coffee table, at the the dentist or spot the cover at the co-op and ask what is it all about? Can you imagine the controversy if a Blue Peter children's presenter was photographed like that? They are role models too. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.182.122 |
So you think she should be accountable to kids and their parents for all her actions, even those outside of her Disney persona? I think that's extremely unrealistic, and unfair. I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree. Steady with that torch, Albie! ;-) | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
If this same child had been photographed with a machine gun, the same people who find the nude pic ok might well have a different opinion about it influencing other kids. Maybe they might say " Well, NOW it's going to have an influence. Now that it's something I'M uncomfortable with." Perhaps? | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
"As far as I'm aware Nabokov isn't on the current reading list at the primary school." Neither is VANITY FAIR. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
Oh, your Thackeray gets everywhere!  | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
I think talking solely about this picture and this magazine is a diversion. This is just an example of what is going on in the world. Urgh! MiniPops anyone? Blurgh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minipops | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
Let's clarify. A child should not be a sexual image. A POSE can be. A PROP can be. NO MATTER WHO YOU GIVE THESE THINGS TO. If you pose a pig in a bikini it is sexualization. Now, get back into the gas chamber! | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
Look at this BLATANT sexualization!!! http://cinematreasures.org/images/uploads/arbuckle.jpg | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
We all know what happened to that poor creature. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
"If this same child had been photographed with a machine gun, the same people who find the nude pic ok might well have a different opinion about it influencing other kids. " Number one: I'd have no problem with the gun, and I don't believe in owning a firearm. Number two: I don't believe a 15 year-old is quite a "child" Number three: she was not nude. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
"The longer this thread goes on the more I find myself agreeing with Simon's post miles above." You're right, I'm a genius. (and remember, the above is out of context, so Zed hasn't been convinced yet he's wrong. Yet.) | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.9.1 |
She was made to appear nude with a satin cover over her on the photograph. If they weren't deliberately trying to convey a certain message and nudity, she wouldn't have been asked to take the pink top off, that she had on underneath. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.9.1 |
Actually a 15 - year old is a child and it all reminds me of children acting as adults which they are not. American girl pageant queens come to mind and that is truly a horrible image. 6 year olds wearing high heels, red lipstick, pouting at the camera and strutting about the stage in a provocative manner. | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 80.177.104.153 |
I agree with Simon, even though I love Ally much more... | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.159.156.247 |
I agree with Simon, even though I love Ally much more... Hmm, I dunno, Mark - Simon turns a very shapely ankle... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.24.122.40 |
Yes, he does: when I stayed in his flat in Canada, I saw his lathe. Toronto is full of hobbling people. | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 80.177.104.153 |
Nice ankles? Damn, I'm so easily swayed. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
It might be just me but I was still playing - actively playing - with action figures as a child. In public. Kids grow up at different stages. I used to look around me at the kids my age (and yes, at fourteen they were talking openly about blow jobs), the ones who seemed older, and feel totally out of it. If I'd seen my peers in this pose it might have shocked me, told me I should be hurrying on up. I couldn't. I'm not saying people should stay as children here, but they should grow up other ways rather than just sexually, and we must acknowledge that they don't always want to be the same as everyone else, no matter what they say or how they act. Adulthood isn't clothes, or being sexy. It's dull stuff like consideration for others, tolerance, sympathy. A preoccupation with looks and sexiness makes people's values unbalanced, builds their futures on unstable foundations. When in society is the cerebral stuff encouraged, or the kid with the specs hailed for something he or she has done? Why couldn't Cyrus have been photographed clothed? Thinking about that makes me wonder all the more at the aim of the picture. Oh, fuck it. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.9.1 |
Hey - Mr Marky Mark. Big kisses to you and Adriana.... "nice ankles and swayed already." Hang on a minute.....I take those kisses back. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> Just enough that we should comment on it, without people immediately attacking us by implying we are white trash who eat at KFC. I shouldn't be responding to this, but for the record, I made no such attack or implication. I was talking about the peak oil problem and its ramifications. In my view celebrity talk like this distracts us from real problems like peak oil, and if we all end up eating out of KFC garbage bins, we may well regret the time wasted on topics like Miley's bare back. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.9.1 |
Well said Tony. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
>strangulated sound< I don't think we're reading one another's posts properly. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
Ak! You got in before me! My message now sounds odd. And I meant to say 'playing with action figures AS A FIFTEEN YEAR OLD!' Damn. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
"We are not blaming this picture. We are discussing this picture as a sign of bigger things. But the instant knee jerk reaction (the one you think we are having) is being countered by yours. We are not torch weilding villagers." I agree. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.189.116 |
For what it's worth, when I was 14-15 years old, we spent a lot of time discussing sex. Teenagers do this, believe it or not, and it was the same back in the seventies and eighties. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
One of the most popular jokes in the schoolyard when I was 13 was "How do you know if your sister's on her period? Your dad's cock tastes funny". I wouldn't dream of telling that joke these days because it's so far beyond the acceptable (oh hang on...). Kids that age tend to be interested in sex. I was watching Little House on the Prairie a while back and the 14 year old daughter marries her teacher. In the episode when they got engaged we find out that Michael Landon's character married his wife when she was that age and he was in his 20s. Society's mores change. At the moment it's totally unacceptable to look at a 15 year old and think "She's nice" in a sexual way. The next day, when she's 16 it's fine apparently (according to the statute books of our fine country). This is a subject with more grey areas than an elephant's arse. Personally i see no problem with that picture. She's not in a sexual situation. It's not sexualising her. It wasn't intended for a children's publication. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
Um, I have acknowledged that. But at least it came from us. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
"For what it's worth, when I was 14-15 years old, we spent a lot of time discussing sex. Teenagers do this, believe it or not, and it was the same back in the seventies and eighties." And your point is? | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.9.1 |
It might not have been intended for a children's publication but she is a children's icon and aimed at 7-14 years of age. Vanity Fair is accessible where girls can see it - in the supermarket, in waiting rooms. They see the cover, recognize their idol and think that it must be acceptable to take your clothes off in public - it sends out the wrong message. Girls of 7 upwards. Even younger children copy her behavior. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.9.1 |
That would be behaviour - apologises for the typo. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> They see the cover, recognize their idol and think that it must be acceptable to take your clothes off in public. Miley isn't on the cover. Bobby Kennedy is. http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/toc/2008/toc200806 | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
I knew that. Thing is, it almost didn't NEED to be on the cover for all the fuss it's kicked up. Big, deep breath; this thread hasn't just been about that picture. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.98 |
But what is so dangerous or unhealthy about sex that one should steer clear from it until one is 16 (over here), 18 (in the Americas, apparently), or 14 (Chile, Columbia, Croatia . . .)? Good sex is healthy. The way some people here discuss it, it sounds more pernicious than cocaine. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.98 |
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley_slideshow200806?slide=3 #globalNav | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.9.1 |
I don't think 14 year olds are really emotionally or mentally prepared for sex. There is a good reason that the legal age is 16. Do you suggest next that is okay for 12 year olds? Where do you draw the line? | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.21.235.187 |
Just for the sake of argument, what kind of preparation do you think a 16-year old has had that a 14-year old is lacking? I don't believe for an instant that, say, Croation girls (who are allowed to have sex at 14) are bound to become mentally unhinged en masse because of their early sex experience. On the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of genuine maniacs committing foul deeds were substantially lower in such countries. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.187.83 |
"And your point is?" Griff, that should be readily apparent, but here goes: it's that being interested in and discussing sex is normal for teenagers. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
I'm outta here. This sort of proves my belief that folk believe what they want and it's set in stone, that's the end of it. Even if that does include me. My opinions - along with everyone's here - haven't wobbled a bit, and it looks like they never will. What a sad revelation. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.182.110 |
It does seem more pointless the longer the thread drags on, doesn't it? Frankly, it's a lot more fun discussing films and books... Speaking of which, right now (well, in between RCMB visits at any rate) I'm watching The Golden Compass, which I'm enjoying more than I expected to. I just got back from the emergency room after my leg swelled up and turned an angry, blotchy red (apparently it's a nasty case of cellulitis) so I've got my leg propped up on a pillow and a bellyful of antibiotics and pain killers. Looks like I'm going to be spending the next few days watching movies and reading... ;-) | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
Of course sex or discussing sex is normal for teenagers but from what age do you think? | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.136 |
Sorry to hear that, Huw. Take care! | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.93.30.31 |
Huw hope you get better quick- otherwise call me if you need help with the amputation!- though watching movies and reading books does not sound bad at all. :-) | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.163.48.60 |
Sorry to hear about the leg, Huw. I watched the first half of THE GOLDEN COMPASS last week and gave up on it. It felt really soulless and uninteresting. Perhaps I should try the drugs you've been prescribed and try it again! | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.147.50.90 |
I was expecting it to be terrible and thought it was better than that. Slim, not amazing, but not terrible, either. It had a nice moment where Nicole Kidman slapped her monkey then felt bad about it. I really liked that bit. Ally; you don't wanna know about my first decade of life. More rampant than after, anyway!  | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
Well, at least it was her own monkey she slapped.  My first childhood memory is seeing out through the bars of my cot before I broke out of it. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.136 |
My first memory is of being stunned by the look of a mountainous formation of clouds. "What's beyond them?" I instinctively wondered. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
>>"If this same child had been photographed with a machine gun, the same people who find the nude pic ok might well have a different opinion about it influencing other kids. " >>Number one: I'd have no problem with the gun, and I don't believe in owning a firearm. And suppose the image was related to iraq? and recruitment? As writers and readers we guys should know all about the implied. I award this thread a Tony.  | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
"As writers and readers we guys should know all about the implied." Exactly. Most often in text what I find interesting is what is left out. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.136 |
roflmao!!!!! | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.136 |
"Most often in text what I find interesting is what is left out." Indeed. One can fill in the gaps at one's leisure. But beware of haphazard interpretation! | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
"I don't believe for an instant that, say, Croation girls (who are allowed to have sex at 14) are bound to become mentally unhinged en masse because of their early sex experience. On the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of genuine maniacs committing foul deeds were substantially lower in such countries." Now I'm lost - you'll really need to explain the logic in that last part to me Hubert. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
Controlling copulation is at the core of most of the animal world. I think in ours too. We need to feel that only responsible people are at it, sex-wise. That's why I glued mine shut years ago. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.136 |
I firmly believe that an unhealthy societal attitude towards sex creates problematical behaviour in certain individuals. We need a second sexual revolution, because whatever benefits are left from the first one (if any) are fading fast. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
By that revolution you mean the sixties free for all? A cringe always follows a grope...in my world. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
"I firmly believe that an unhealthy societal attitude towards sex creates problematical behaviour in certain individuals." Nope - still not getting it. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
The term "unhealthy" is so subjective. Frowning on Leibovitch would be seen as such. Not frowning on Leibovitch would also sponsor a similar opinion. Let's just all eat trifle in a dark room, listening to bird song on tape. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.136 |
"Frowning on Leibovitch would be seen as such. Not frowning on Leibovitch would also sponsor a similar opinion." Yes, after a fashion the words do get in the way. Ally, I'm just trying to get across that imho it's the present restrictive views on sexuality that are causing a number of problems, not any so-called 'free morality' which in reality isn't there (anymore). Let me add this quote from a Lovecraft letter which you may find enlightening (or, indeed, not, if you miss the analogy): "The whole structure of [the Puritans'] theology taught them to be on the watch for manifestations of the devil; whilst the epidemic of morbid crime and perversion in their midst was to them unmistakable evidence of a Satanic siege." | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
I rarely miss analogy Hubert. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
"I don't believe for an instant that, say, Croation girls (who are allowed to have sex at 14) are bound to become mentally unhinged en masse because of their early sex experience. On the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of genuine maniacs committing foul deeds were substantially lower in such countries." You mean this Croatia? http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=3304 | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
This Croatia? "The Center for Education, Counseling and Research survey of Croatian high school students reported that 25 percent of young men and 12 percent of young women do not think forcing a person to have sexual intercourse is violent behavior. The survey also found that 26 percent of young men and 13 percent of young women don't think slapping your girlfriend or boyfriend is abusive behavior." | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
That link doesn't seem to work at the moment. If you google "Bojana Stoparic dating violence" the article is easily accessible. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.98 |
I fail to see any connection. Even if what the article says is true (and I've no reason to doubt it), it doesn't follow that this has anything to do with their age of consent. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
You were saying that you wouldn't be surprised if in the countries that had established the age of consent,( age 14) "that foul deeds were substanially lower" you made the connection and I've given you an article that says they aren't. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.98 |
Fair enough, albeit by foul deeds I really meant phenomena like serial killing, violent incest, child rape and murder etc. Which doesn't mean I condone woman beating or forced sex. I still don't see the connection with their age of consent being 14, however. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
You were saying that you wouldn't be surprised if in the countries that had established the age of consent,( age 14) "that foul deeds were substanially lower" you made the connection and I've given you an article that says they aren't. Okay another link http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Croatia.htm | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.98 |
From your link: "CAUTION: The following links have been culled from the web to illuminate the situation in Croatia. Some of these links may lead to websites that present allegations that are unsubstantiated or even false. No attempt has been made to verify their authenticity or to validate their content." Admittedly it doesn't look like a very nice place to be . . . But even if these allegations are true (I don't really know anything about Croatia), it doesn't follow etc. (ut supra) *sigh* | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4397497.stm | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
Quite a foul deed and a comment about it. "The problem of human trafficking in South - East Europe has gone underground." Deborah McWinney. UNICEF. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
When you think how real the thing about kids sold as sex slaves is it makes the 'fun' Cyrus pic seem yet more icky. Sex shouldn't be wallpaper, on the front of everything. It's a private, consensual thing, not one of the persuaders in life. People - especially those young enough not to know better - aren't logos. Damn! I said I wouldn't join in! This thread really is a tiger eating it's own tail. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
As an anecdote, an aside, it used to scare me that dads read porn mags and hid them away. The hiding it away felt as much part of it as the thing itself, and said something. I sound like a real prude, don't I? | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
At Heathrow Tony. Eastern European girls are sold sex into slavery here it seems. There was an impromptu slave market outside the coffee shop in Heathrow. Money had changed hands then the police had broken it up, and they had taken the young girl away into protective custody. It seemed that the going rate was £4000 per girl and the girls fell into it because of threats to their families. The passports were taken off some girls and given to others from non EU countries like the Ukraine and Moldova. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.121.34 |
No - Tony, you aren't a prude and friends who know me really well know that I'm not one either:>) | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
Once (as a kid) I found a porn mag in the bushes near where I lived. It felt like something from a horror film. To me it felt like something from Blue Velvet, that the world was suddenly made up of Franks. I actually felt on shakey ground, as if a mask had slipped. I don't feel like a puritan, a torch waver. I don't believe in censorship but I do believe in things being rated, controlled more carefully than they are. The media needs to set some sort of example, not fuel our shifty sides. Seeing a sex scene in a drama is ok, perhaps, depending on how it's done, seeing nudity in context, but not in such a throwaway way, not cheapening. Life has to be seen as being of some value, I think. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
BTW I see Gordon Ramsay is upset that his son has turned all sweary. But that's enough of him! I thought he was ok in the end, folks, if you remember. | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 86.145.227.100 |
I'm beginning to wonder if the greater danger of this image is its being used on a wider basis for a campaign of moral panic and scaremongering. Legitimate and justified concern for the safety and well-being of minors is one thing (and a noble one), but the underlying assertion here that those who disagree with the view that this image is degenerate are guilty of ignoring some wider moral societal decay is becoming laboured, imho. Mark S. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.190.33 |
Well put, Mark. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.53.130 |
I'm well aware that I've made my point but the suggestion that less terrible things happen in countries, (like Croatia) where the age of consent is lower - was just too much. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.98 |
"I'm beginning to wonder if the greater danger of this image is its being used on a wider basis for a campaign of moral panic and scaremongering." Exactly. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.53.130 |
"I'm beginning to wonder if the greater danger of this image is its being used on a wider basis for a campaign of moral panic and scaremongering." Not at all. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
“I'm beginning to wonder if the greater danger of this image is its being used on a wider basis for a campaign of moral panic and scaremongering.” Don’t be so melodramatic, Mark! As other commentators have noted it’s symptomatic of a wider problem within our society. As Zed has said, we should be worried if it wasn’t debated. Tony has dealt with the use of this image within the debate on the sexualisation of young teenagers for commercial gain already. Read his comments. As for claims of scaremongering over the sexualisation of kids for commercial gain and their abuse, I’m probably the only person on the board who has been involved with child protection. This was in the course of my work with a local authority. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the scale of the abuse of children has been underreported and brushed aside as late as the 1990s. Therefore it’s not scaremongering to draw attention to the issue or to question the factors that lead to it. “Legitimate and justified concern for the safety and well-being of minors is one thing (and a noble one)” If it is then we should be able to openly question the factors that lead to their harm. “… but the underlying assertion here that those who disagree with the view that this image is degenerate are guilty of ignoring some wider moral societal decay is becoming laboured, imho.” Mark, no-ones called the picture “degenerate” merely inappropriate for the reasons outlined above. You can question the increased sexualisation of children to sell goods *and* worry about other problems in society it’s not an either or sort situation. Many of those taking a contrary view seem increasingly shrill in their arguments. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
We have a mother with a daughter here, and a guy who works in child protection. These are the horses mouths, and we must take what they say seriously. If not, who do we listen to? 'it’s not an either or sort situation' As you can see from my posts I agree with this. It's frankly puzzling that we can't see the interconnectedness of things here, on a board made up of generally smart people. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.98 |
"If it is then we should be able to openly question the factors that lead to their harm." That's what I'm worried about. What exactly ARE the factors that lead to their harm? Being exposed to a naked back? Another thing. Take another look at this picture: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley_slideshow200806?slide=3 #globalNav Call that a CHILD?! | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
Um... as I've said - it's not just about that picture anymore. It's just the tip of the iceberg. It's PART of a problem with society, and a part is a part is a part etc. The texture of life becomes more sordid all the time. I seriously feel that a mum and kid who think this sort of stuff is fine will the next minute make the step up towards watching, say, Big Brother or so together, which as we know is mainstream television striving to be come porn just after the watershed. And again - it's not just a naked back, honestly. Maybe if the world weren't so sleazy it might seem ok, might actually be 'artsy', and not just part of the sea of shit which is what it's become. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.53.130 |
"That's" = objectification of a person. Mylie is a she not a that and yes, she is a CHILD. If a 12 year old dressed like that - are you saying that they are not children too? That's the old debate, she is wearing a short skirt..etc.. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.98 |
I give up. Albie, I should have listened to you. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
""I'm beginning to wonder if the greater danger of this image is its being used on a wider basis for a campaign of moral panic and scaremongering." " The original complaints of the pic, by Americans, might be. But WE are just talking about it. Some here have seen that as being enough to label US as scaremongerers or slack jaws. Remember, this is an American girl. The age of consent is 18. To be framed in a sexual light at the age of 15, TO AMERICANS, is wrong. But WE see it as a sign of something bigger. To portray us as idiots shooting guns at this picture and to say that WE are causing sexual problems by TALKING about the picture is completely unwarranted. All societies have a degree of control. If you swap the word "control" for "repression" you are being manipulative. I don't like being Whickermanned. Erm, I mean, Strawmanned. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
I certainly don't like being burned alive while mad yokels chant and sway. I won't have it! Especially that fat kid with the long hair and flares. Why is that in debate we immediately take direct and opposite sides? Like defending our opinions is all that matters? I suppose, given we know next to nothing, that opinions are all we can offer. Anyone saying "Images like these lead to child abuse and sexualization of kids." is right to a degree. Anyone saying it doesn't is also right to a degree Anyone who says they know which side the actual statistics falls on is a liar. To have an opinion on this subject is to lie. But, it is surely better to err on the side of caution. And that means frowning on people. Come on, let's all frown a bit. There. Now. Lime jelly anyone? | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 86.135.182.100 |
The original complaints of the pic, by Americans, might be. But WE are just talking about it. Some here have seen that as being enough to label US as scaremongerers or slack jaws. But WE see it as a sign of something bigger. To portray us as idiots shooting guns at this picture and to say that WE are causing sexual problems by TALKING about the picture is completely unwarranted. No, I think what's unwarranted is a debate in which someone attributes derogatory phrases like "slackjaws" and "idiots shooting guns" to me. You've gone ahead and made this up. You talk of WE and US (in the absolute, mind) but it seems to me that a good number of RCMBers, perhaps not as vocal as others, are doubtful that an arty Vanity Fair photo of some 15 year Disney starlet showing nothing more than her bare back can be cited as a profound symbol of wider moral decay. That's the bottom (oooer) line. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
Don't think anyone said 'profound symbol', just another patch in the quilt. | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 86.135.182.100 |
I take back "profound". But "symbol" holds, doesn't it? | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
It isn't just a bare back to my daughter either. Having talked to my daughter about her views on the subject. She believes it sends out the wrong signals in an increasingly complicated world. I didn't say anything before she saw the photo. She was really surprised that her hero would take her clothes off and be photograped like that. Why on earth would a children's role model be photographed holding a silk sheet to herself and looking like she had just been fucked? The argument, or rather mine, has been that if she is a role model for girls 7-14, (a Disney franchise for God's sake)then she should stick to that market. It sends out the wrong signals to young girls. Girls as young as 5 know her songs and slightly older girls look up to her. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
As for the discussion then changing to one of the age of consent,(14 in one instance,)and Hubert showing us the photo of Mylie and saying, "call that a CHILD." Would that have been said about a 12 year old looking like that and some girls do, (just look at the American child beauty queens? ) If that is said about the second photo of Mylie then it could be argued that the first photo of Mylie in a silk sheet is sending out a similar message -and that taken in a wider perspective - could be looked at as a symbol of a wider moral decay, and certainly the part that a magazine like Vanity Fair plays in that.. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
And an equally "good number of RCMBers" have been on the board to express their concern. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.197.132 |
I think it's interesting that different people are arriving at different conclusions based on what they see in the photo. Those who have a problem with it are the same people who are describing it as 'arousing' or looking like a girl who'd 'just been fucked'. I look at it and I still see a fairly ordinary, yet tasteful portrait of a fifteen year-old exposing part of her back and arm. I also think that it's doubtful anyone else is going to change their mind about it, and personally that's fine by me - I don't feel the need to try to persuade anyone one way or another. We all see what we see and believe what we believe. Not a big deal, as long as people can respect others' opinions. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
Perhaps Mylie should have the last word. "Cyrus, the daughter of singer Billy Ray Cyrus, has also moved to distance herself from the images. "I took part in a photoshoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.3 |
She's young and impressionable  | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
Exactly. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.193.66 |
"Perhaps Mylie should have the last word" Ah, but which ones? She was gushing with enthusiasm over the photoshoot at first; it's only later that she made the about-face (prompted by complaints, I expect). | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
True and there were many, many complaints. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.3 |
Poor thing. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.230.3 |
Let's hope she'll not end up being traumatized by it all. By the reactions by the God squad I mean. Off the beach now. Lots of naked backs to be sampled! | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
You're coming across as snide and childish, Hubert. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
Something most other commentators on the thread don't. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.231.194 |
No offense, Griff, but I've been involved in similar discussions (if they can be called that), and you know what? By sheer coincidence the purveyors of decency and morality ALWAYS happened to be Born Again Christians or whatever. Are you at all religious? | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
I'm not a Born Again Christian and I've never been to church, synagogue or mosque. "Are you at all religious?" Unless you're an atheist I think we are all religous in one way or another. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
I'm an atheist hoping to be an agnostic one day. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.231.194 |
I believe you. Thanks for enlightening me. | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 86.144.97.194 |
It isn't just a bare back to my daughter either. Having talked to my daughter about her views on the subject. She believes it sends out the wrong signals in an increasingly complicated world. I didn't say anything before she saw the photo. She was really surprised that her hero would take her clothes off and be photograped like that. Why on earth would a children's role model be photographed holding a silk sheet to herself and looking like she had just been fucked? I respect your opinion Ally, but I don't think this is point is entirely relevant. I don't feel that the view of a teenager (I assume your daughter's in her early teens) should form the basis for a definitive moral stance in this matter. I really didn't look at this photo and think "crikey, she looks like she's just been fucked. Cor.". I looked at it and yawned, to be honest. My feelings were "look at that silly young girl". That's how I saw it. I'm willing to bet that most adults thought the same thing. And that's all there is to it, in the minds of those who feel this issue has been overblown, imho. Oh, and I'm a Catholic, just to confound matters  | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 86.144.97.194 |
this is point is Where's the edit feature!?? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
Do I get the feeling people pro-Cyrus-pic think the anti-Cyrus-pic brigade are Christian/puritan/prude/Whitehousians? As I said before (yet again), once you start wondering why they didn't have Cyrus clothed, or rather more covered-up, in the pic you do start to wonder what effect they were aiming for. It's been hammered so often enough here, but really, the semiotics/subtle messages are pretty strong here you know. It feels like folk are almost deliberately ignoring them, ignoring the very approaches they admire in their fiction, but despise so much in the media they so often seem to question. And also it seems sad (as well as insulting) that if you care about issues such as this you're immediately branded as being some sort of nutcase. And ogling bare backs on a beach (which I've been doing this weekend - as well as the legs, tits and arses) isn't the same as using them to make money, sell things, build up an image; the people on the beach are doing it with no ulterior motive other than to have fun, and do it in front of one another and see the other person do the same. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
'an increasingly puritanical society' Mentioned way up - why is it increasingly so? In't it because the things that are hurting - yes, hurting - us are increasing? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
'I'm willing to bet that most adults thought the same thing' You know, out of the percentage of people I've spoken to, this is actually wrong. And not just parents, either. | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 86.144.97.194 |
You know, out of the percentage of people I've spoken to, this is actually wrong. And not just parents, either. Well, I haven't gone around speaking about this to anyone, let alone a representative sample. So what do I know? | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
It was used to illustrate the impression the photo is having on her not to form the basis of "a definitive moral stance." | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
>sigh< | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 86.144.97.194 |
It was used to illustrate the impression the photo is having on her not to form the basis of "a definitive moral stance." But aren't you using your daughter's individual perspective to make a point in support of a pre-existing moral stance on this issue? That's what I was getting at. Perhaps I've misunderstood you. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
I'm illustrating the effect it has on Mylie's fan base. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
>>I respect your opinion Ally, but I don't think this is point is entirely relevant. I don't feel that the view of a teenager (I assume your daughter's in her early teens) should form the basis for a definitive moral stance in this matter. Not old enough to influence a moral stance but old enough for mild arty porn? >>I really didn't look at this photo and think "crikey, she looks like she's just been fucked. Cor.". I looked at it and yawned, to be honest. My feelings were "look at that silly young girl". That's how I saw it. I'm willing to bet that most adults thought the same thing. And then you realised that you don't live in a totally surface world and that there are depths to everything and that you were only ignoring that obvious fact to keep up your end of a debate. Phew. We agree then.  Joking aside. No picture is just a picture. Anymore than a man with white hands is just a man with white hands. As a writer you should be aware of subtext? Yes? That the photographer, having the daughter of mullet head Billy Ray Bob who happens to have a cheesy Disney image in the media, would make a good subject to sex up? Don't you think she would have love to have pressed her further? This feigned innocence and ignorance that your side of the debate is displaying just doesn't look that sophisticated to me. It doesn't really work....for me. It's...oh, God, I'm going to say it...reductionistic. Sorry. It's like saying "Bullets don't kill people, people kill people." True TO A POINT. But to stay at that point and not see the bigger picture JUST TO KEEP YOUR END OF A DEBATE GOING is not worthy of us.  Of course, you could equally say " claiming this picture has a bad effect on society is reductionistic." But that would be ignoring the fact that this picture is just a symbol of what we are really talking about. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
>>Griff, that should be readily apparent, but here goes: it's that being interested in and discussing sex is normal for teenagers. Sigh. We aren't saying it isn't. We are saying that adults shouldn't frame children in a sexual subtext in images. Especially a living child. Lets see your kids in some pics please. On the beach, just got out of bed. Come on. In all innocence. Let's have a gander. It's normal. Not so easy now. Come on, Ramsey. I would love to see your kid's in bed with their back showing. Especially the female one. Why? Because to show a naked back with a female says "she has no bra on." That's the whole crux of it. The picture is saying "this girl has no bra on, folks. how daring am I a photographer?" A naked back is suggestive. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
I was trying to make that not sound too jabby? Was that too jabby? | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 80.177.104.153 |
But to stay at that point and not see the bigger picture JUST TO KEEP YOUR END OF A DEBATE GOING is not worthy of us You see, here's a problem. You try to argue by assuming bad faith on the part of all those who disagree with you. Therefore they can never be right in your eyes because their views are always contaminated at source. There's no possibility of a reasoned debate. A naked back is suggestive. Well, certainly it is for you. Personally it takes something more than that to get me going. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
Well, you've done nothing to disuade me about your bad faith. Feel free. And you have no notion of innuendo? A back is just a back? Christy. How have you managed to forge a career in words? No notion of subtext? at all? So if I stuff a sock down my pants that's just a sock down my pants? Come on. This viewpoint in indefensible. It's ridiculous. THIS is why I think you have bad faith. Because to say that bare back does not imply bare breasts (oh,you think maybe her bra is one of those strapless affairs?) is either naive or a lie. I hope it IS bad faith. Rather than just a lie to win a debate. Oops, now MY hands have gone white! | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
That means I just spunked on them. Don't worry. We'll teach you all about it. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
Oh, I forgot.You are a Roman Catholic. So you have to see a bare back as just a bare back. Or you go to hell. True? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
I wouldn't want to stop you sitting on God's right hand. Ooer. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
You're a smart chap, Albie. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
That comment wasn't relating to a jab at anyone's religious faith. Just to clarify. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
Just jabby. Jabby The Hurt. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
I'm going to find you. | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 80.177.104.153 |
THIS is why I think you have bad faith. Because to say that bare back does not imply bare breasts (oh,you think maybe her bra is one of those strapless affairs?) is either naive or a lie. No, what I've said is that a bare back on its own isn't sexually suggestive to me and to quite a few other people. It's neither naive nor a lie. A bare back, imo, is no more intrinsically erotic than a bare arm or leg, unless one goes on to make a sexual fetish of it. Again, you argue on the basis that anyone who disagrees with your favoured interpretation is either naive or lying when they state their own view. What you're doing here is proving my point. You're saying that I cannot possibly maturely and truthfully hold a different view. And that's nonsense. People do honestly disagree, often on an informed basis. As for the other RC and White Hands remarks you've made here, if they're an example of trying to rile me via subtext; try again. I'm not biting. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.231.194 |
Really, can't we all just be friends? Let's not forget we're here to honour the work of an author we all admire. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.39.175 |
It would be nice if we could have a mature debate without resorting to baiting and a reductionist attitude of "us versus them" where there is a refusal to even entertain the possibility of other people having a valid viewpoint. As I've said several times already, I'm just giving my opinion and don't expect everyone else to agree with me. I wish others would show the same courtesy. We haven't had this kind of thing happen for a long while now, and I think it'd be a shame if it were to rear its ugly head again every time we try to have a meaningful discussion. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
There's really nothing more to say on the issue. I've pointed things out that continue to be ignored, and I'm sure others feel the same way ("others" meaning everyone, not just those I agree with). We ought to lock this thread and move on to more interesting topics. Like me. We should all talk about me. Now that's an interesting topic! | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
'I've pointed things out that continue to be ignored' Join the club. This thread is absolutely pointless now. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
Oh, yeah, you said what I did there, about others feeling the same way. Sorry. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.189.45 |
Absolutely pointless this thread may be at this point, but I was alerted this morning to the fact that someone is standing outside the door listening through the keyhole, as it were, then scuttling off to publish some of the comments in another forum. So someone out there is still getting something out of the thread. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
Locking a thread amounts to censorship - someone else might want to add something or something new to the controversial subject. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
I think he meant it in a good way, though I'd certainly disagree with it. It would be interesting to see what others might say in future, after a calming period - or when they see sense! Oh Lord. Barbara - is it who we think it is? ('You're so vain, you prob'ly think this song is about you' - is that he?) | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.189.45 |
No, Tony, it's not Warren Beatty, if that's what you're asking. Oh, it's not? Okay, then, go with the name you instinctively thought of first, and I daresay you'll have holed it in one. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
Barbara - you have an email. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
Sigh... Go home, Citizen's Band, go home! Things are bad enough! | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
Well, to be pedantic, it's not censorship. The government is not stepping in to tell anyone what they are or aren't allowed to say. You'd be completely free to say what you want and even start a new thread on this topic. All I'm saying is: let's be done with this and move on. A locked thread just means people aren't tempted to continue the insanity. Or don't lock it. I don't frankly care one way or the other. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
Actually - typically censorship is undertaken by governments but not necessarily just them. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
The problem with this topic is that it's like an elephants arse. One big gray area filled with a load of shit that no one really wants to stick their head into. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
Actually, you're wrong. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.85.161 |
:>) | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
>>No, what I've said is that a bare back on its own isn't sexually suggestive to me and to quite a few other people. You're just doing the same thing. This isn't just a bare back floating in a void. But for you to see it that way is the only course you have. The bare back implies the girl is bare breasted. It also implies that the photographer said at some point "Take your top off." to a girl. If you refuse to see this implication, and you ARE refusing to, then you have not entered this debate. But if you don't have an argument other than " what tit? she has no tits." than that's the end of your input for me. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
For context...let's look at some other pictures that appear in Vanity Fair. http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=vanity%20fair&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w i | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
>>Again, you argue on the basis that anyone who disagrees with your favoured interpretation is either naive or lying when they state their own view. What you're doing here is proving my point. You're saying that I cannot possibly maturely and truthfully hold a different view. And that's nonsense. People do honestly disagree, often on an informed basis. I'm saying your argument is weak (evinced by the repition of your flawed point without any form of elucidation) and based on a closed mind attitude. You are now shifting the point along to avoid that fact. >>>As for the other RC and White Hands remarks you've made here, if they're an example of trying to rile me via subtext; try again. I'm not biting. Just my sense of humor. Although, I don't see how you could possible see anything in what I said as that would involve an understanding of implication, inference, suggestion, subtext, innuendo, extrapolation, imagination. Which your argument has deleted from you. So you couldn't possibly take offence. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
I do think I have made my point clearly enough, Mark. For you to argue that I simply cannot accept someone else having an opinion is just an out right lie. I've demonstrated WHY I think your argument is weak. Yet you won't debate me on that particular point. Why? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
>>It would be nice if we could have a mature debate without resorting to baiting and a reductionist attitude of "us versus them" where there is a refusal to even entertain the possibility of other people having a valid viewpoint. It would be nice if people had a view point that is clearly defended and logical. But I suppose that fact always seems to slip by the censors. There should be an etiquette to debate. Simply repeating your bizarre viewpoint without any elucidations or validation should be as much cause for concern as me possibly teasing someone.(actually, it should cause much more concern) I find a bad argument far more insulting than anything I could say. It's a shame nobody ever listens to me when I say that. I suppose as a Christian it's inevitable that faith and bad faith come hand in hand. (As does a weak argument.) That is the origin of the term, is it not? Hail Mithras. | ||
| marksamuels (Marksamuels) Username: Marksamuels Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 80.177.104.153 |
Look, Albie, why don't you email me off-line if you genuinely want to continue the debate on its own merits? I'm more than happy to go over these points with you. mark@<nospam>marksamuels.net (remove the no spam) | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
If there's some good reason why you can't debate them on here, in public, then I'll drop just drop it. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.189.128 |
If anyone wishes to continue this discussion in a level-headed, mature, tolerant fashion, I'll be happy to do so; otherwise, I'm done with this. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
And I suppose a seemingly illogical argument is ok?  | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
Do YOU see just a back, Huw? Or do you see the implication of bare breastedness? And what religion are you? Just so I know what God to insult.  | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
For the record, Albie, I know exactly what you are saying and I agree. If there was nothing sexualised about the image, why has she got her kit off? It's more the smudged make-up, the sweaty hair (and how does one's hair get sweaty in bed)and the crumpled silk sheet (why is it a sheet and not a towel or a shirt? Because it's meant to suggest that she's in bed. With sweaty hair.) than the bare back, per se. The image is clearly sexualised; it is suggestive of mainstream erotisicm, and whether or not someone doesn't find it so is purely a question of taste. The image is obviously meant to titillate. On the other hand, I don't really give a shit. But if it was my daughter, I'd scalp the photographer. :-) Btw, is it me or is her back a bit weird? Bony. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.24.122.40 |
May I suggest, in the interests of the general bonhomie in this group, that this thread is left alone now? It doesn't seem to be going anywhere at this stage. Thanking you all kindly. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
I disagree. ;-) | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.24.122.40 |
It's different with you and me, mate. We can meet and I can kick the shit out of you as a way of resolving the subtle complexities of our debates. But these other guys have oceans between them. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
:-) | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.20.239 |
You know, what's sweet, is that we are still getting along really well away from this thread. Once upon a time the anger would have spilt across the threads like pus. I know I think I've changed. Well, a bit, anyway. >sigh<; the good old days ... might be these ones. |