NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352800,00.html

Ok. Where are the anti kiddie porn people at when real stuff like this happens??? Perhaps they're too busy with witch hunts.


They told it was for one thing and now it turns out it was for something else entirely. She ought to have the right to make them remove the picture.

Have everyone involved (except for the girl) be branded as a Sex Offender, and be released into the general population in Prison.

You think I'm kidding, but I'm not.

she was told that it was for the magazine.

its in the magazine

her parents were there and saw the photos

whats the problem?

I agree. Everyone at the magazine who was involved.

The parents and the girl were both lied to.

I saw the video of it, it's not kiddie porn. It was meant to be an artistic shoot and it had the consent of her and her parents. Perhaps the only possibly questionable pictures were of her in the blanket and her back exposed. Other than that, this is just much ado over nothing. Retarded.

she was told that it was for the magazine.

its in the magazine

her parents were there and saw the photos

whats the problem?

The magazine mislead them. The picture is apparently meant to arouse the magazine's readership.

That's the problem.

Her parents and 'minders' were there. They should be well aware of how easily she could be harmed by bad press...and should have axed anything that might be considered suggestive from the get go...but they didn't. They saw the pictures, and okayed them.

I saw the video of it, it's not kiddie porn. It was meant to be an artistic shoot and it had the consent of her and her parents. Perhaps the only possibly questionable pictures were of her in the blanket and her back exposed. Other than that, this is just much ado over nothing. Retarded.

It's illegal to produce pictures of children in sexually suggestive positions.
The picture, suggesting that she is nude in the photo, falls under that catagory.

She sat for the shoot. She was not forced to do anything, and she could have walked out at any time.

The time to complain is NOT when the issue is distributed.

UNless you're just looking for a pile of free publicity, of course.

The magazine mislead them.

How?

The magazine mislead them. The picture is apparently meant to arouse the magazine's readership.

That's the problem.

what?

thats stupid.

vanity fair is not a girly magazine and annie leibovitz is not a cheesecake photographer.

Have everyone involved (except for the girl) be branded as a Sex Offender, and be released into the general population in Prison.

You think I'm kidding, but I'm not.

You need to remove the word 'Libertarian' from your sig, otherwise, like I said in a recent thread, you're just a poser.

so, did anything even notable happen here?

"I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "

""Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said."

Okay, first off here - the photoshoot was discussed between both Miley and the photographer.

Second, she is not naked, her body is covered in the photos.

Third, at any point her parents, herself, or the magazine could have pulled the plug. They didn't. Only after the issue was published did Disney (and therefore Miley and parents and idiot fans and websites) bitch. If they had such an issue with it, they should have stopped it before it ran.

Miley is a celebrity, she is used to her photograph being taken. She is also old enough to know certain limits. If she had an issue with it, she could have stopped it.


because of these reasons, I believe that anyone creating a hubbub over this issue is stupid on two fronts.

The first is that this is not news by any means. Get over it, move on to actual events.

The second is that this was between her and vanity fair. Stop bitching. She chose to do it.

Vanity Fair defended the story and photo shoot in a statement of its own.

"Miley's parents and/or minders were on the set all day," the magazine said. "Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley."

So, what exactly is the problem here?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352800,00.html

Ok. Where are the anti kiddie porn people at when real stuff like this happens??? Perhaps they're too busy with witch hunts.


They told it was for one thing and now it turns out it was for something else entirely. She ought to have the right to make them remove the picture.
Ah, yes. This is real child porn, not children being forced to have sex and being filmed. This, not a girl being threatened in order to stay, this is child porn, not a girl being abused.

No no no. This is where it ends. When someone consents to an artistic photo shoot and doesn't like it, it's child porn. When parents consent, it's child porn.

I was a tard. I voted yes before I read the article.


Can I change my vote to no?

Billy Ray has been in this biz for some time. He should have known better then to allow it.

After all the MySpace pictures that have come out recently, I'd think a lovely, artistic shot by a world-renowed photographer like Leibovitz would be the least of her concerns.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352800,00.html

Ok. Where are the anti kiddie porn people at when real stuff like this happens??? Perhaps they're too busy with witch hunts.


They told it was for one thing and now it turns out it was for something else entirely. She ought to have the right to make them remove the picture.

The article doesn't actually appear to say that. Also, do you have a real source? maybe some sort of reputable news organization?

Second, she is not naked, her body is covered in the photos

but she's naked under the stuff covering her body!

You need to remove the word 'Libertarian' from your sig, otherwise, like I said in a recent thread, you're just a poser.

Oh SNAP!

... I agree BTW

Billy Ray has been in this biz for some time. He should have known better then to allow it.

He'd probably let her do a spread in Playboy if it kept the cash rolling in. The man is a shameless exploiter.

Lol, this is the same argument against seeing similar things in movies. It's all just a bunch of hogwash by the FCC. Maybe when you look at the photo, you see it sexual, but to me, I don't really see it as all that. As I said, it's questionable, but it was approved by parents and the fact that it was shot by an experienced female photographer goes to attest that this isn't some kind of kiddie porn ring. That's like calling Madonna's pictures porn. It's ridiculous and I'd of thought we as society had already moved on from this 1950's fundamentalist frame-of-mind.

It's illegal to produce pictures of children in sexually suggestive positions.
The picture, suggesting that she is nude in the photo, falls under that catagory.

Second, she is not naked, her body is covered in the photos.

but she's naked under the stuff covering her body!

Which leads inevitably to all pictures of children being illegal because "they're NAKED under their cloths!"

If you look at the full picture at the vanity fair site, it's pretty clear that she is nude with the sheet only covering her front.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley200806

If you look at the full picture at the vanity fair site, it's pretty clear that she is nude with the sheet only covering her front.

So . . . not nude then.

He'd probably let her do a spread in Playboy if it kept the cash rolling in. The man is a shameless exploiter.


I disagree. He seems like a guy with some integrity. When the concert tickets sold out because of scalpers who then sold them for 2k, they made the concerts free.


I dont call that exploiting.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley200806

I'm more disturbed by that shot with her father. They look a little too flirty there . . .

The magazine mislead them. The picture is apparently meant to arouse the magazine's readership.

That's the problem.
"Magazine forces 15 year old girl to pose nude"

Welllll..your thread title is misleading. It is apparently meant to arouse readership of this thread. Shall we all file a complaint to have it taken down???

If you seriously think she was forced to pose nude..you need to get yourself some better reading comprehension.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley200806




Really? That is child porn? Really?


No boobs, no vag, no ass. Just her back.


No. Not child porn.

If you look at the full picture at the vanity fair site, it's pretty clear that she is nude with the sheet only covering her front.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley200806

do you make these statements and post the link with the assumption that no one is going to look?

its pretty clear that she has clothes on and that nothing untoward is being done to her. especially since her dad is right there.

the disney company issued the exploitation statements because they are ultra prudes who dont want to alienate their 6-10 year old audience for hanna montana.

meh. I don't care one way or other. For all I know she wanted to do it and is only complaining now because it messes with her good girl image or whatever. But perhaps I'm bias as I can't stand her, wish she would go away and want to punch her every time I see her, so yeah.

Image in question here

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley200806?currentPage=2
http://www.vanityfair.com/images/culture/2008/06/cuar02_miley0806.jpg

It's illegal to produce pictures of children in sexually suggestive positions.
The picture, suggesting that she is nude in the photo, falls under that catagory.

Where child pornography involves depictions of children engaging in sexual conduct, the production of this material is prohibited legally in UN member countries.
Child pornography refers to pornographic material depicting children.
Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.
1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal
5. having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted

Not meant to be sexual explicit, does not reveal anything sexual in nature, is not child porn, but is stupid that she did it without thinking of the rep damage.
You can be naked in a picture under the age 18, otherwise every parent with pictures of their babies in the bath would be child pornographers. It cannot be sexually explicit, however, which is harder to define than just "naked" but is generally excepted as being older than a baby and showing genitalia or bare breasts.
Miley Cyrus: Sexual connotation? Yes. Sexually explicit? No. Not child porn.
Meant for sexual gratification? No. Meant for shock value? Yes. Masturbate to it? Sick bastard. Recognize it for its (supposed [as I haven't seen it]) beauty and artistic value? Cultured.

You're wrong. /Thread.

I'm more disturbed by that shot with her father. They look a little too flirty there . . .

yeah, I found that pic to be kinda creepy too...

If you look at the full picture at the vanity fair site, it's pretty clear that she is nude with the sheet only covering her front.


http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-01/35020163.jpg

omfg, she's totally naked underneath just a little bit of fabric!!!!!1!!!! child prons!

yeah, I found that pic to be kinda creepy too...

As did I, but I kept my mouth shut.



He is a country singer after all.

I was about to get really worried about this, but as soon as I saw the URL I knew there had to be something else to it. And there is.

FOX might be trying to make currency out of this to reduce the show's ratings, seeing as it's such a hit for the Disney Channel that I suppose it counts as one of the Disney/ABC television empire's most profitable and hence important shows.

Rap artists are worse on this matter than country artists. Remember R Kelly, Ice T?????

wow she looks totally different to how every other 15 year old dresses when on a night out:rolleyes:

One photo in particular is causing the biggest stir: the teen idol is wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed.

this is the bigger issue: who are these people and how do they have sex? call me a sex crazed European but if anything it is quite an anti-sexy photo

SNIP

you so need to get some it needs to be punishable by law.

Rap artists are worse on this matter than country artists. Remember R Kelly, Ice T?????

no :confused:

If you look at the full picture at the vanity fair site, it's pretty clear that she is nude with the sheet only covering her front.


And here is the behind the scenes (http://vanityfairmag.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/28/cusl14_miley0806.jpg) photo of that.

She clearly is wearing clothes underneath that bedsheet.

this is the bigger issue: who are these people and how do they have sex? call me a sex crazed European but if anything it is quite an anti-sexy photo


Thats an excellent point actually. The outrage over her back being exposed and calling it sexually provocative is bording on a puritian/fundimentalist Muslim mentality. Jesus Christ, almost every girl I know looks skankier in the summer.


If this is considered sexually explicet, I weep for these people, because they must be having awful sex, if any.

Child porn? Not at all.

Forced to pose? Hell no.

Mislead by the Magazine? Heh, no, doesn't look that way, not with her parents there and them giving the OK to all of the pictures printed beforehand.

Feeling sorry for her? I see absolutely no reason to do so.

The OP? Sensationalistic, ill-informed, wrong and filled with histrionics.

Done? Done.

If you look at the full picture at the vanity fair site, it's pretty clear that she is nude with the sheet only covering her front.

But she has sheets on her.

According to the article, it sounds like morning-after regret.

This is not child p0rn. Since when is the back skin of a girl considered sexually arousing? She is showing nothing other than her back, and suddenly it's p0rn?

So . . . not nude then.

That's what I thought.

And here is the behind the scenes (http://vanityfairmag.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/28/cusl14_miley0806.jpg) photo of that.

She clearly is wearing clothes underneath that bedsheet.

So she's naked under those clothes under that sheet?

So . . . not nude then.

I'm wearing clothes right now.

But underneath them...


I'M NAKED!

the disney company issued the exploitation statements because they are ultra prudes who dont want to alienate their 6-10 year old audience for hanna montana.

Two things I've noticed in this thread:

1) Considering Disney let Vanessa Hudgens slide with complete full frontal nudity I find this position to be hypocritical.

2) USoA is once again whoring for attention, going from defending certified statutory rapists and child molesters on religious grounds to calling an artistic Leibovizt photo "child pornography." What a flip-flopper.

Two things I've noticed in this thread:

1) Considering Disney let Vanessa Hudgens slide with complete full frontal nudity I find this position to be hypocritical.

2) USoA is once again whoring for attention, going from defending certified statutory rapists and child molesters on religious grounds to calling an artistic Leibovizt photo "child pornography." What a flip-flopper.

what show was/is vanessa hudgens on?

The photograph in the news story is quite nice, really, but that's beside the point.

I think all models should have to be over 16 to do catwalk modelling or photoshoots for magazines that are not intended for a child audience. Models should certainly be at least over 16 to pose nude.

However, Miley Cyrus is not a model. She is already famous in her own right. I fail to see how she was "forced" to model nude. Her - or her parents, or her manager - would have made the active decision for her to pose for this magazine to further her publicity. While at 15 I highly doubt I would have had issues with posing nude for a well-known photographer, it should be against some sort of law, and even if it's not, her parents (who are clearly involved) should have stopped it. Miley and her parents should have been able to view the photograph chosen for the magazine, and if they were uncomfortable with it they could have chosen another shot. However, it would have been a much better idea for the 15 year old to be wearing clothes in the first place. I don't know if they should sue, because, like I said, it's not even as though modelling is Miley's job. She could have been just as succesful without doing the shoot.

I'm wearing clothes right now.

But underneath them...


I'M NAKED!

OHMYGOD thats nasty!

you should be arrested or something. what if a child was walking by your house and could see through your walls and under your clothing?

WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

The photograph in the news story is quite nice, really, but that's beside the point.

I think all models should have to be over 16 to do catwalk modelling or photoshoots for magazines that are not intended for a child audience. Models should certainly be at least over 16 to pose nude.

However, Miley Cyrus is not a model. She is already famous in her own right. I fail to see how she was "forced" to model nude. Her - or her parents, or her manager - would have made the active decision for her to pose for this magazine to further her publicity. While at 15 I highly doubt I would have had issues with posing nude for a well-known photographer, it should be against some sort of law, and even if it's not, her parents (who are clearly involved) should have stopped it. Miley and her parents should have been able to view the photograph chosen for the magazine, and if they were uncomfortable with it they could have chosen another shot. However, it would have been a much better idea for the 15 year old to be wearing clothes in the first place. I don't know if they should sue, because, like I said, it's not even as though modelling is Miley's job. She could have been just as succesful without doing the shoot.

which is why..

she wasnt naked

she had her parents there

and they saw the pics as they were being taken. they didnt have a problem with them.

OHMYGOD thats nasty!

you should be arrested or something. what if a child was walking by your house and could see through your walls and under your clothing?

WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

That's not the worst of it - I go out like this too.

I'm shameless.

I think all models should have to be over 16 to do catwalk modelling or photoshoots for magazines that are not intended for a child audience.

I see a sudden crash in children's clothing companies if you have your way

The whole "art" pictures bit, the whole Jon-Bennet sorta dress-your-kid-up-as-a-supermodel-and-take-pix scene... disgusts me. Of course there's a sexual connotation involved. And to me it borders on child porn. I have similar problems with grade-school cheerleaders and, of course, with actual child porn and pedophilia etc.

Still, this seems to me like a typical "scandalous" promotional effort. A big scam. Sell the culture, sell the tee-hee-its-not-child-pr0n-it's-just-children-taking-sexy-pictures meme. Seems to work quite well.

what show was/is vanessa hudgens on?

She's in the High School Musical films.

It's illegal to produce pictures of children in sexually suggestive positions.
The picture, suggesting that she is nude in the photo, falls under that catagory.
No it doesn't. There's nothing inherently suggestive about nudity.

She's not engaged in sexual behaviour, nor is she in a sexual setting. The picture is a portrait, nothing more. Because she's nude does not make it suggestive.

This does not satisfy the standard to qualify as kiddie porn.

which is why..

she wasnt naked

she had her parents there

and they saw the pics as they were being taken. they didnt have a problem with them.

Then they shouldn't sue, should they Ashmoria?

She's in the High School Musical films.

she posed nude and the kept her on??

Then they shouldn't sue, should they Ashmoria?

no probably not.

i dont think they would have had a case even if the parents werent there and she had been nekkid underneath that sheet.

its not porn.

I see a sudden crash in children's clothing companies if you have your way

Children under 16 shouldn't be allowed to model clothing that is intended for older teenagers or adults.

Children under 16 should only be allowed to model clothing intended for children under 16.

I didn't say under 16s shouldn't model at all.

no probably not.

i dont think they would have had a case even if the parents werent there and she had been nekkid underneath that sheet.

its not porn.

I didn't say it was porn.

she posed nude and the kept her on??

Didn't you just say she wasn't nude, sweetheart?

I didn't say it was porn.

oh i didnt mean to imply you did. the only grounds i could think of to sue was if it had been porn--or at least nude.

Didn't you just say she wasn't nude, sweetheart?

wrong discussion. there was a different disney girl who did not get in trouble for a much racier pic.

she posed nude and the kept her on??

She had nude pictures that leaked out onto the internet.

She had nude pictures that leaked out onto the internet.

ohhhhh that might be different eh? were they professional?

wrong discussion. there was a different disney girl who did not get in trouble for a much racier pic.

Of course, that picture wasn't intended for view by the general public. It was something she took to e-mail to her boyfriend and it got leaked.

Of course, that picture wasn't intended for view by the general public. It was something she took to e-mail to her boyfriend and it got leaked.

ooohhhhh i bet she got reamed out by the disney powers-that-be for that one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352800,00.html

Ok. Where are the anti kiddie porn people at when real stuff like this happens??? Perhaps they're too busy with witch hunts.


They told it was for one thing and now it turns out it was for something else entirely. She ought to have the right to make them remove the picture.

pictures or it didn't happen!

wrong discussion. there was a different disney girl who did not get in trouble for a much racier pic.

Aah.



Disney let Britney's sister go because she got pregnant, too, didn't they?

Didn't you just say she wasn't nude, sweetheart?

"sweetheart?" Seriously? Are you THAT airheaded AND arrogant? I can't speak for everyone here, but I for one would be sincerely grateful if you'd drop the faux superiority and maybe ask someone to clarify their position before you post annoying dreck like that.

There are TWO Disney brats being discussed here. Vanessa Hudgins was full-frontal'd by phone-cam and Disney didn't boot her from her High School Musical gig.

Miley Cyrus wanted the cachet of sitting for Annie Liebowitz, and she got what Annie does best. Stunning and beautiful shots of people in a silver-toned format. Miley's actually been made to look far better than she does when she's mugging for Disney. Personally, I think she's homely, can't sing, and her speaking voice is grating enough to make shredded cheese out of aged gouda. But she has enough talent to telegraph punchlines for the Disney tween audience and wholesome enough (presumably from Daddy's influence) to survive the trip.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley_slideshow200806?slide=15#globalNav

NOT NUDE.

NOT PORN.

END OF STORY.

The magazine mislead them. The picture is apparently meant to arouse the magazine's readership.

That's the problem.

Her parents, minders, managers, etc. were all there. They had plenty of time to pull her off the shoot. Do you think the magazine was like, "we're going to give you one of the most amazing photographers to do this shoot, but most of it will just be playing around? We won't put it in the magazine, wink!" Your comments shows very little understanding of how business is done. If she were taken away where no one could see what was happening it may be different. This is just more of the puritanical bullshit Americans are fed from the 1500's to today. There's no nudity involved, and she is not all dolled up with a seductive smile. She's shot from an angle that doesn't show off her breasts and she has very little make up on. It was meant to be an artistic shot, and it was a good photo. Everyone knows about Vanity Fair so the "oh but I'm just a naive tee hee" act needs to stop from USofA.

You need to remove the word 'Libertarian' from your sig, otherwise, like I said in a recent thread, you're just a poser.

Agreed. Libertarian's support freedom of body, mind, and conscience.

Her parents, minders, managers, etc. were all there. They had plenty of time to pull her off the shoot. Do you think the magazine was like, "we're going to give you one of the most amazing photographers to do this shoot, but most of it will just be playing around? We won't put it in the magazine, wink!" Your comments shows very little understanding of how business is done. If she were taken away where no one could see what was happening it may be different. This is just more of the puritanical bullshit Americans are fed from the 1500's to today. There's no nudity involved, and she is not all dolled up with a seductive smile. She's shot from an angle that doesn't show off her breasts and she has very little make up on. It was meant to be an artistic shot, and it was a good photo. Everyone knows about Vanity Fair so the "oh but I'm just a naive tee hee" act needs to stop from USofA.

You do realize you're trying to debate with UnitedStatesofAmerica- right? He's just having sour grapes from his "The Jeffs cult's statutory rapes and child molestations are protected by Freedom of Religion" trollfest threadlocked and now he's trying to attention whore in a complete 180 shift, calling the rather tasteful and discreet Leibowitz photo shoot "child pornography".

"Nude"?

You should see the things Sophie Marceau got up to at that age. Ultimately, if things are done above board, with the consent from everyone involved (and even her legal guardians, it seems), I don't see how this was in any way wrong. If the photos weren't used the way they told her, that's a legitimate issue (and one that the contract she presumably signed should hold the answer to), but her age is irrelevant to that - if she was 30 and the same thing happened it wouldn't make a difference.

"Nude"?

You should see the things Sophie Marceau got up to at that age. Ultimately, if things are done above board, with the consent from everyone involved (and even her legal guardians, it seems), I don't see how this was in any way wrong. If the photos weren't used the way they told her, that's a legitimate issue (and one that the contract she presumably signed should hold the answer to), but her age is irrelevant to that - if she was 30 and the same thing happened it wouldn't make a difference.

Like I said, this is a UnitedStatesofAmerica- thread. Hyperbole and distortions for trollery are par for the course.

If anyone is offended by this, they should take a walk through any Southern California High School near the coast. They would $#!% their pants. Get over it. We see worse things walking down the street, and from younger girls. And poeple will forget this, just like they forgot about those leaked nude pictures from that Vanessa Hudgens.

You do realize you're trying to debate with UnitedStatesofAmerica- right? He's just having sour grapes from his "The Jeffs cult's statutory rapes and child molestations are protected by Freedom of Religion" trollfest threadlocked and now he's trying to attention whore in a complete 180 shift, calling the rather tasteful and discreet Leibowitz photo shoot "child pornography".

30 pages of mental masturbation, that thread.

Aah.



Disney let Britney's sister go because she got pregnant, too, didn't they?

im not sure but i think they had to. they cant have her be pregnant in her show.

or maybe the writers strike took care of it (do they hire professional writers to write that crap?)

she was told that it was for the magazine.

its in the magazine

her parents were there and saw the photos

whats the problem?

The problem is that Miley Cirus is a crack head who keeps doing things that present her in front of the media as a crazy teenaged a-hole.

Example: the Paris Hiltonesque search for Miley´s lost dog. That was the fakest thing I´ve ever seen.

The problem is that Miley Cirus is a crack head who keeps doing things that present her in front of the media as a crazy teenaged a-hole.

Example: the Paris Hiltonesque search for Miley´s lost dog. That was the fakest thing I´ve ever seen.

you know far too much abut miley. i never heard that story.

you know far too much abut miley. i never heard that story.

It was on the news something like a week or so ago. It was so lame.

30 pages of mental masturbation, that thread.

I'm not sure it was all mental on his part.

She needs a wholesome way to transition to adult roles, since we all saw how well the prolonged claims to vestal virgin status worked out for a former Disney Channel star. Based on what I've seen so far, mission accomplished.

I'm not sure it was all mental on his part.

Was on mine.

It's illegal to produce pictures of children in sexually suggestive positions.
The picture, suggesting that she is nude in the photo, falls under that catagory.so... "I know porn when I see it!"

hmmm... who else said that? :rolleyes:

"I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "

""Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said."

and let's look at the rest of the article.

In a caption released by Vanity Fair with the photo, Cyrus expressed her comfort with how the apparently topless picture turned out.

"I think it's really artsy," she told the magazine at the time. "It wasn't in a skanky way. Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought that was really cool. That's what she wanted me to do, and you can't say no to Annie."

A handful of borderline racy snapshots of a girl who appeared to be Cyrus have appeared on the Internet in recent months, including images of a girl posing in her underwear and bikini last week. In one shot, she's draped over a young man.

So who took those pics.

and the pose is one done by other actresses, don't hear about them complaining "OMG, I was manipulated!"

but she's naked under the stuff covering her body!

so am I, so are you. we're all naked under the stuff that covers out bodies! why are you so ashamed of your body!


and yes, she is wearing clothes UNDER the bedsheet.

so, to answer the OP, can she sue? yes.

will she win? doubtful.

This is precisely why America needs a member of the FLDS to be president. To impose proper morals on everyone.
That way the government can make women properly cover themselves from head to toe. O wait....that's islam not FLDS. Sorry.


I think Vanessa was fired by Disney as was Britney's sister

This is precisely why America needs a member of the FLDS to be president. To impose proper morals on everyone.
That way the government can make women properly cover themselves from head to toe. O wait....that's islam not FLDS. Sorry.

Wait...what? Are you arguing two different sides of the same argument here? Um...

I'm going to go ahead and call it:
With my powers as the God of Spam, I declare this thread to be unworthy of further intelligent thought. Henceforth, anyone who responds seriously to USofA- will be laughed at by me and pointed at for effect.

This is precisely why America needs a member of the FLDS to be president. To impose proper morals on everyone.
That way the government can make women properly cover themselves from head to toe. O wait....that's islam not FLDS. Sorry.


the flds would enforce the american burkha--long sleeved sacklike long dresses, hair pulled back with teased up bangs.

If you look at the full picture at the vanity fair site, it's pretty clear that she is nude with the sheet only covering her front.

So you're saying you have x-ray vision? Perv.

Wait...what? Are you arguing two different sides of the same argument here? Um...

I'm going to go ahead and call it:
With my powers as the God of Spam, I declare this thread to be unworthy of further intelligent thought. Henceforth, anyone who responds seriously to USofA- will be laughed at by me and pointed at for effect.

MINE DOESNT COUNT! you hadnt posted this when i clicked on the quote button.

MINE DOESNT COUNT! you hadnt posted this when i clicked on the quote button.

I'll give you a pass <_<

HAAAHAA! *point*

She needs a wholesome way to transition to adult roles, since we all saw how well the prolonged claims to vestal virgin status worked out for a former Disney Channel star. Based on what I've seen so far, mission accomplished.

Make a holocaust movie (http://www.clipstr.com/videos/RobotChickenAnneFrank/).

the flds would enforce the american burkha--long sleeved sacklike long dresses, hair pulled back with teased up bangs.

But their women like wearing those dresses. Afterall they make them themselves.

Actually the hair pulled back thing, makes older women looker more attractive. Especially women in their 30s/early 40s.

What the Miley case teaches us boys and girls is that everyone under 18 should be banned from the internet.

Omg, there are nude pictures everywhere on the internet...

Well, under all those clothes, but by gum, those are just bits of cloth, there's nothing under 'em!

"*snip, because I don't want to argue with someone who made the same mistake I did and didn't read properly* ...maybe ask someone to clarify their position before you post annoying dreck like that.

There are TWO Disney brats being discussed here. Vanessa Hudgins was full-frontal'd by phone-cam and Disney didn't boot her from her High School Musical gig.

If you read, Ashmoria corrected me. I thought she was speaking about Miley, and she had just told previously me that Miley wasn't nude (in a rather...abrupt, but not particularly offensive manner) and then I saw her saying someone about her being nude. I misread, and she corrected me.

Miley Cyrus wanted the cachet of sitting for Annie Liebowitz, and she got what Annie does best. Stunning and beautiful shots of people in a silver-toned format. Miley's actually been made to look far better than she does when she's mugging for Disney. Personally, I think she's homely, can't sing, and her speaking voice is grating enough to make shredded cheese out of aged gouda. But she has enough talent to telegraph punchlines for the Disney tween audience and wholesome enough (presumably from Daddy's influence) to survive the trip.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley_slideshow200806?slide=15#globalNav

NOT NUDE.

NOT PORN.

END OF STORY.

Uh, I didn't say it was porn. I didn't say it was nude - I assumed it was nude and was told that it wasn't. I think the photograph is well taken and tasteful and I never implied that I thought otherwise. I also don't think she should sue. Perhaps in future you can avoid being arrogant by turning off your beloved caps lock key.

This is precisely why America needs a member of the FLDS to be president. To impose proper morals on everyone.
That way the government can make women properly cover themselves from head to toe. O wait....that's islam not FLDS. Sorry.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A on UnitedStatesofAmerica-'s disingenous tripe. He spent 30 pages of mental masturbation defending a cult's practice of statutory rape and child molestation by claiming religious persecution by the Texas State government. Yet here he goes around casually making an Ebil Moslem comment.

Remember, treating females as chattel and oppressing them is perfectly acceptable as long as it's done by a Christian-rooted group according to USoA-. If they're Muslims then it's just eeeeeeeebil.

but she's naked under the stuff covering her body!

I'm naked under my clothes.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A on UnitedStatesofAmerica-'s disingenous tripe. He spent 30 pages of mental masturbation defending a cult's practice of statutory rape and child molestation by claiming religious persecution by the Texas State government. Yet here he goes around casually making an Ebil Moslem comment.

Remember, treating females as chattel and oppressing them is perfectly acceptable as long as it's done by a Christian-rooted group according to USoA-. If they're Muslims then it's just eeeeeeeebil.

Oy! Mental masturbation is my phrase that I stole from this guy I know!

I'm naked under my clothes.

Bowchickabowow.

I'm naked under my clothes.

PICS! :p

PICS! :p

I concur.

Aah.



Disney let Britney's sister go because she got pregnant, too, didn't they?

No. Nickelodeon (a Viacom company, not Disney) put her show on hiatus, finished airing the season, and will be releasing a movie iirc.

As for Vanessa Hudgens, she was 18 and gave her boyfriend naked pictures, which were leaked, and Disney stood beside her...it was her mistake.

Miley had photos taken of her and has been getting flack for look-alikes posting photos. Disney took on the agressor role against VF to protect their asset.

and all of this remains somewhat annoying. Cyrus's pictures were not pornographic in the least.

none of the pictures are what I would consider an artistic nude. (which is legal provided parents are present and no sexual situation is present or implied. )


My guess is her making a big deal about this serves two purposes.
1. makes everyone want to read that issue of vanity fair.
2. makes sure her contract with Disney is secure (Disney are a bunch of fascist)

I'm definitely not the WASP-y, traditional moral values type, but I am disgusted by this Vanity Fair photograph. A 15 year-old girl has no business being even partially naked in any publication. The publishers should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the sexuality of a pubescent for sales.

I'm definitely not the WASP-y, traditional moral values type, but I am disgusted by this Vanity Fair photograph. A 15 year-old girl has no business being even partially naked in any publication. The publishers should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the sexuality of a pubescent for sales.

what the fuck is "partially naked"? Her breasts weren't exposed, her genitalia weren't exposed...what about this was "partially naked"?

I'm definitely not the WASP-y, traditional moral values type, but I am disgusted by this Vanity Fair photograph. A 15 year-old girl has no business being even partially naked in any publication. The publishers should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the sexuality of a pubescent for sales.

too right. In one photo, her ankles are clearly exposed.
Oh God, seeing them is causing the bestial urges more befitting the animals in the field to rise up within me. I must purge them. Quick! A hansom cab to take me to Whitechappel where I might clean the streets of womenfilth!

Make a holocaust movie (http://www.clipstr.com/videos/RobotChickenAnneFrank/).

I think you just check and mated the thread. I salute you.

So, what exactly is the problem here?

the links from foxnews ,what more can you say

Look, she must commit Suicide, or we wont have a Good Harvest...

IT MUST BE DONE!!!

what the fuck is "partially naked"? Her breasts weren't exposed, her genitalia weren't exposed...what about this was "partially naked"?

It's the lack of a burka (which I probably spelled wrong, Firefox doesn't know what the hell I just said anyway).

Look she knew what she was doing, Her Parents knew what she was doing, Her Dad WAS IN ONE OF THE PICTURES!!!

Honestly, the only thing that she fucked up was failing to realize what Demographic watched the Disney Channel, the same one that watches Fox News, the one that shoves its head in the ground, because a girl's back makes them want to go Poopie...

Besides, Hanna Montana is driving me Crazy, my family watches and sings along and it can beheard throughout the house, lol...and its on more than the Daily Show with Jon Stewert, and thats saying something...

Look, she must commit Suicide, or we wont have a Good Harvest...

IT MUST BE DONE!!!

Sacrifice in march, corn full of starch...

Cyrus's pictures were not pornographic in the least.

I agree with you there.

what the fuck is "partially naked"? Her breasts weren't exposed, her genitalia weren't exposed...what about this was "partially naked"?

I think he means it's wrong to sexualise a child, but perhaps he worded it badly.

From the looks of the photograph in the first story, she just looks like she's wearing a strapless top anyway.

I'm definitely not the WASP-y, traditional moral values type, but I am disgusted by this Vanity Fair photograph. A 15 year-old girl has no business being even partially naked in any publication. The publishers should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the sexuality of a pubescent for sales.

how is she sexualized she is covered up more then I would see if i caught her at the beach in her bikini.

The contrast between USoA's position here and his position in his last trollfest is really quite striking.

Not that it matters, but I'll ask anyway: USoA, how do you reconcile your contempt for age of consent laws with your righteous indignation at an ambiguously sexualized portrait of a 15-year-old?

I'm going to go ahead and call it:
With my powers as the God of Spam, I declare this thread to be unworthy of further intelligent thought. Henceforth, anyone who responds seriously to USofA- will be laughed at by me and pointed at for effect.

The contrast between USoA's position here and his position in his last trollfest is really quite striking.

Not that it matters, but I'll ask anyway: USoA, how do you reconcile your contempt for age of consent laws with your righteous indignation at an ambiguously sexualized portrait of a 15-year-old?

Been waiting for someone to do it...

HAAAHAAAHAAAHAHAAAHA!
*point*
HAAHAAHAAHAHAHA!
*point*
HAHAHAAHAAAHAAHAAA!
*point*
HAHAAAHAAAAHA!
*point*
HAHAHA!*
*point*
HAAAAHAHAAAHAHAA!
*point*

Carry on.

Thread summary:

OP: Magazine forces Molly Cyrus to pose nude

Everyone Else: Um, no one forced her, and she's not nude.

Me: But that pic with her dad looks creepy and incestuous.

A Few Others: Yeah, kinda creepy.

OP: Bad arguments in favor of position, complete 180 from his last thread.

RhynoD: Recognizes attention seeking trollishness. Points and laughs at OP and anyone taking OP seriously.

That about cover it?

If you read, Ashmoria corrected me. I thought she was speaking about Miley, and she had just told previously me that Miley wasn't nude (in a rather...abrupt, but not particularly offensive manner) and then I saw her saying someone about her being nude. I misread, and she corrected me.

The fact that you had to use an ellipse to qualify "abrupt" so as to not link it to the far more accurate "rude" is telling. You continue the parade thinking I didn't understand what had happened. I know you had confused the two young women, and it was hilarious because all you had to do was read the thread to see that Ashmoria was referring to Hudgins.

Uh, I didn't say it was porn. I didn't say it was nude - I assumed it was nude and was told that it wasn't. I think the photograph is well taken and tasteful and I never implied that I thought otherwise. I also don't think she should sue.

See, there's these things called breaks that separate paragraphs. I addressed you, and then there was a paragraph break, and then I addressed the OP/thread topic itself. Hold on, I'm gonna change topics. Ready?

As for the photos, I agree with you completely. Annie Liebowitz has been taking photos of celebrities in artistic poses that showcase anything but the star's manufactured image for decades. She's easily one of the most name-recognizable photographers out there.

Perhaps in future you can avoid being arrogant by turning off your beloved caps lock key.

Couldn't resist, could you? The caps were for -- again -- the OP/topic.

Thread summary:

OP: Magazine forces Molly Cyrus to pose nude

Everyone Else: Um, no one forced her, and she's not nude.

Me: But that pic with her dad looks creepy and incestuous.

A Few Others: Yeah, kinda creepy.

OP: Bad arguments in favor of position, complete 180 from his last thread.

RhynoD: Recognizes attention seeking trollishness. Points and laughs at OP and anyone taking OP seriously.

That about cover it?

With a satin sheet. ;)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A on UnitedStatesofAmerica-'s disingenous tripe. He spent 30 pages of mental masturbation defending a cult's practice of statutory rape and child molestation by claiming religious persecution by the Texas State government. Yet here he goes around casually making an Ebil Moslem comment.

Remember, treating females as chattel and oppressing them is perfectly acceptable as long as it's done by a Christian-rooted group according to USoA-. If they're Muslims then it's just eeeeeeeebil.

And just where exactly did I say muslims were evil?

The contrast between USoA's position here and his position in his last trollfest is really quite striking.

Not that it matters, but I'll ask anyway: USoA, how do you reconcile your contempt for age of consent laws with your righteous indignation at an ambiguously sexualized portrait of a 15-year-old?

She did not give informed consent. At least the 31 pregnant teens in the FLDS group, most of whome were 16 when they got pregnant, were aware of what they were doing.

Speaking of which: they finally reported on the ratios:
Out all 463 children: 67 were actually teenage girls.
Also: 220 girls 213 boys.
Thats close to being gender even.
But when you have 31 out of 67 teens pregnant, it can make the numbers seem high.

I'll wager that once the 213 boys reach the teen years, they'll be excommunicated for one reason or another.

Thread summary:

OP: Magazine forces Molly Cyrus to pose nude

Everyone Else: Um, no one forced her, and she's not nude.

Me: But that pic with her dad looks creepy and incestuous.

A Few Others: Yeah, kinda creepy.

OP: Bad arguments in favor of position, complete 180 from his last thread.

RhynoD: Recognizes attention seeking trollishness. Points and laughs at OP and anyone taking OP seriously.

That about cover it?

You forgot Amor misunderstanding something and everyone pitching a fit about it and her pitching a fit back.

Backlash is hell:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?bl&ex=1209614400&en=336577f1089edce7&ei=5087%0A

Hannah Montana has been dealt a deadly blow by Vanity Fair.

"the star of the wholesome Disney Channel blockbuster “Hannah Montana,” had posed topless, albeit with her chest covered,"

How exactly is that not considered partial nudity or even suggestive???

Is it bad for a 15 year old girl to get married but perfectly ok for her to pose topless in a suggestive pose with only a sheet to cover up her parts????


"The article, written by Bruce Handy, seems to support that claim, quoting Ms. Cyrus as saying, “Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought it was really cool. That’s what she wanted me to do, and you can’t say no to Annie.”

I'm sure her agreement to pose topless was 100% voluntary on her part.

In the correction, The New York Times, says "a Vanity Fair photograph showing the actress Miley Cyrus in a suggestive pose"

Then it goes on to say it is not sexual because she was holding a sheet to cover up.

Why is it ok for teens (16 and older) to appear in sexually suggestive rap videos, but it's not ok for them to have children???

And just where exactly did I say muslims were evil?

In Algiers, four years ago.

You and I were at a white slavery auction, and you were bidding on the red haired sweety with the shy eyes and a freckled bosom, and every time you upped your bid, that dude from Dubai would outbid you by $5 dollars and he ran us over budget and we had to go home with some skanky bottle blonde lifted from the alley behind an East End youth hostel, and as we were putting her in the van, you said "Muslims are evil."

You might not remember it, the hash was pretty potent.

topless, albeit with her chest covered

This made me laugh.

She sat for the shoot. She was not forced to do anything, and she could have walked out at any time.

The time to complain is NOT when the issue is distributed.

UNless you're just looking for a pile of free publicity, of course.

In one. Or if you want to get that kind of photo out there, but want to dodge the bad PR of being accussed of exploiting your child in such a manner.

"The article, written by Bruce Handy, seems to support that claim, quoting Ms. Cyrus as saying, “Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought it was really cool. That’s what she wanted me to do, and you can’t say no to Annie.”


You can. So can your management and parents, when you're a minor.

I'm going to go ahead and call it:
With my powers as the God of Spam, I declare this thread to be unworthy of further intelligent thought. Henceforth, anyone who responds seriously to USofA- will be laughed at by me and pointed at for effect.

You can. So can your management and parents, when you're a minor.


HAAAHAAHAAHA!
*point*
HAAHAAHA!
*point*
HAHAHAAAHAHA!
*point*

And that's all you get because your post was short and not really argumenty.

Carry on.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352800,00.html
Ok. Where are the anti kiddie porn people at when real stuff like this happens??? Perhaps they're too busy with witch hunts.


ehm. the article the OP links to reports:

The Cyrus pictures accompany an interview with the 15-year-old pop star and her father, singer Billy Ray Cyrus. One photo in particular is causing the biggest stir: the teen idol is wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed.

Wrapped in a satin bedsheet with back exposed =/= nude, though the thread title goes "nude child OMG".

Also, if the back ("back" they say, not "bottom") is exposed and she's looking over her shoulder, her breasts and her genitalia clearly aren't facing the camera, unless she's the ultimate contorsionist. So, this isn't porno.

She wasn't forced, either.

This is just another example of the "I'll sue you" attitude. Typical in the US showbiz.

I'm going to go ahead and call it:
With my powers as the God of Spam, I declare this thread to be unworthy of further intelligent thought. Henceforth, anyone who responds seriously to USofA- will be laughed at by me and pointed at for effect.

ehm. the article the OP links to reports:


Wrapped in a satin bedsheet with back exposed =/= nude, though the thread title goes "nude child OMG".

Also, if the back ("back" they say, not "bottom") is exposed and she's looking over her shoulder, her breasts and her genitalia clearly aren't facing the camera, unless she's the ultimate contorsionist. So, this isn't porno.

She wasn't forced, either.

This is just another example of the "I'll sue you" attitude. Typical in the US showbiz.

HAAAHAHAAAHAHAHA!
*point*
HAHAHAAAHAHAHA!
*point*
HAAAAAAHAHAAAHAAAHAA!
*point*
HAHAAAHAAAHAHAA!
*point*
HAHAAHA!
*point*
HAAHAHAAAHAHAAHA!
*point*

Continue.

had posed topless, albeit with her chest covered

Ouch. My brain.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352800,00.html

Ok. Where are the anti kiddie porn people at when real stuff like this happens??? Perhaps they're too busy with witch hunts.


They told it was for one thing and now it turns out it was for something else entirely. She ought to have the right to make them remove the picture.Um... This is child porn how exactly? She's not even naked in any of them.

Have everyone involved (except for the girl) be branded as a Sex Offender, and be released into the general population in Prison.

You think I'm kidding, but I'm not.That's a pity, because there isn't really any sexual offenses committed here.

"the star of the wholesome Disney Channel blockbuster “Hannah Montana,” had posed topless, albeit with her chest covered,"

How exactly is that not considered partial nudity or even suggestive???
It's not partial nudity, because her chest is covered. It is suggestive. What it definitely isn't is full nudity or child porn.

You forgot Amor misunderstanding something and everyone pitching a fit about it and her pitching a fit back.

lol.

I made this a long time ago, back when we were dealing with Red Baptism and another fundie troll... but I think this applies to USofA as well.

http://www.weaselhut.net/nsg-debate.PNG

I made this a long time ago, back when we were dealing with Red Baptism and another fundie troll... but I think this applies to USofA as well.

http://www.weaselhut.net/nsg-debate.PNG


You're a funny woman. I was wondering where you dissappeared to....

You're a funny woman. I was wondering where you dissappeared to....

Back under the rock from whence I came. :D Actually, I was just playing a lot of COV/COH and lost track of time.

Back under the rock from whence I came. :D Actually, I was just playing a lot of COV/COH and lost track of time.

Well don't become one of the piss-in-the-bottle brigade entirely. Enliven us with your wit the odd time.

Backlash is hell:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?bl&ex=1209614400&en=336577f1089edce7&ei=5087%0A

Hannah Montana has been dealt a deadly blow by Vanity Fair.

"the star of the wholesome Disney Channel blockbuster “Hannah Montana,” had posed topless, albeit with her chest covered,"

How exactly is that not considered partial nudity or even suggestive???

Is it bad for a 15 year old girl to get married but perfectly ok for her to pose topless in a suggestive pose with only a sheet to cover up her parts????


"The article, written by Bruce Handy, seems to support that claim, quoting Ms. Cyrus as saying, “Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought it was really cool. That’s what she wanted me to do, and you can’t say no to Annie.”

I'm sure her agreement to pose topless was 100% voluntary on her part.

In the correction, The New York Times, says "a Vanity Fair photograph showing the actress Miley Cyrus in a suggestive pose"

Then it goes on to say it is not sexual because she was holding a sheet to cover up.

Why is it ok for teens (16 and older) to appear in sexually suggestive rap videos, but it's not ok for them to have children???

Ladies and Gentlemen, here's a quick primer in Basic Literacy and Cherry-Picking in NSG:

Here's what USoA- claims:

Hannah Montana has been dealt a deadly blow by Vanity Fair.

"the star of the wholesome Disney Channel blockbuster “Hannah Montana,” had posed topless, albeit with her chest covered,"

And now here's what the article actually said:

Did Miley Cyrus, with the help of a controversy-courting magazine, just deliver a blow to the Walt Disney Company’s billion-dollar “Hannah Montana” franchise?

And USoA- conveniently omits this passage from his rant:

It is doubtful that one photograph — especially one that is tame in the context of an Internet awash in nude photographs of other starlets — could dent the Hannah Montana machine, said several Wall Street analysts. Retail sales for the franchise are expected to total about $1 billion in 2008. A motion picture is in the works for 2009 and Ms. Cyrus signed a seven-figure book deal with the Disney Book Group last week.

And this one:

Last week, the public relations problem du jour was a green bra; photos online showing Ms. Cyrus pulling away her tank top to flash her underwear.

Of course USoA- will probably say that Vanity Fair and Annie Lebovitz baited Wholesome Miss Cyrus into flashing then too.

And now the truth is finally revealed:

Is it bad for a 15 year old girl to get married but perfectly ok for her to pose topless in a suggestive pose with only a sheet to cover up her parts????

UnitedStatesofAmerica- misses his mental masturbation and wishes he was part of the Jeffs Cult.

:D

It's illegal to produce pictures of children in sexually suggestive positions.

Correct.

The picture, suggesting that she is nude in the photo, falls under that category.

Only if you believe nudity = sex. I do not. If the girl were pointing at her crotch, then the pictures would be "suggestive".

UnitedStatesofAmerica- misses his mental masturbation and wishes he was part of the Jeffs Cult.

:D

Then he should have hijacked that other ongoing polygamy thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=555455), right? Strange, he didn't though.

Correct.



Only if you believe nudity = sex. I do not. If the girl were pointing at her crotch, then the pictures would be "suggestive".

Pre-empting RhynoD here.

*Points*

AHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!!!!

Then he should have hijacked that other ongoing polygamy thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=555455), right? Strange, he didn't though.

Not strange at all when you consider that thread is an honest discussion on the advantages and drawbacks of polygamy. Nothing at all about the Talibanistic oppression of women, statutory rape or child molestation like the Jeffs Cult practices that USoA- can mentally masturbate to by "defending".

Oh, come on. She was fine with it until her Disney handlers told her not to be. :rolleyes:

Oh, come on. She was fine with it until her Disney handlers told her not to be. :rolleyes:

Which exposes (pun intended) Disney's hypocrisy.

Vanessa Hudgens Topless = It's Okay, We Understand.

Miley Cyrus barebacked in a tasteful Leibovitz photo = OMG IN-D-CEN-C!! DMG CNTRL!! DMG CNTRL!!

Not strange at all when you consider that thread is an honest discussion on the advantages and drawbacks of polygamy. Nothing at all about the Talibanistic oppression of women, statutory rape or child molestation like the Jeffs Cult practices that USoA- can mentally masturbate to by "defending".

Oh sure he could if he hijacked it. You didn't notice that little key word? :D

The magazine mislead them. The picture is apparently meant to arouse the magazine’s readership.

That’s the problem.
Thank God that Fox broke the news of this terrible sex scandal, determined as they are never to show a young girl in a provocative light.... oh:

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8247/mileycyrusmq2.jpg

I'm going to go ahead and call it:
With my powers as the God of Spam, I declare this thread to be unworthy of further intelligent thought. Henceforth, anyone who responds seriously to USofA- will be laughed at by me and pointed at for effect.

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

Pre-empting RhynoD here.

*Points*

AHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!!!!

Good job. You forgot to point and laugh at yourself, though.

Also, there are a lot of other people. So here goes.

HAAAHAHAAHAHAA!
*point* *point* *point*
HAAAHAAHAHAAAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAA!
*point* *point*
HAAHAHAAHAHAHAAA!
*point* *point* *piont* *point*
HAAHAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAAHA!
*point* *point*
HAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!
*point* *point* *point*
HAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!
*point* *point*
HAHAHAAAHAAHAHAAHAHA!
*point* *point* *point* *point*

UnitedStatesofAmerica- misses his mental masturbation and wishes he was part of the Jeffs Cult.

:D

Stop stealing the phrase I stole.

*feels laughed at* :(...

I think you just check and mated the thread. I salute you.

Thank you

*bows*

*feels laughed at* :(...

You weren't one of the ones I laughed at.

You weren't one of the ones I laughed at.

*feels left out* :(

*feels left out* :(

So respond seriously to USofA-.

So respond seriously to USofA-.

No, im a Non-Conformist, :p:rolleyes:

No, im a Non-Conformist, :p:rolleyes:

That's worthy of a good point and laugh...

That's worthy of a good point and laugh...

KAHN!!!! IVE BEEN FORCED TO CONFORM TO THE LAUGHING!!!..NOOOOO!!!! lol

Good job. You forgot to point and laugh at yourself, though.

Also, there are a lot of other people. So here goes.

HAAAHAHAAHAHAA!
*point* *point* *point*
HAAAHAAHAHAAAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAA!
*point* *point*
HAAHAHAAHAHAHAAA!
*point* *point* *piont* *point*
HAAHAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAAHA!
*point* *point*
HAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!
*point* *point* *point*
HAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!
*point* *point*
HAHAHAAAHAAHAHAAHAHA!
*point* *point* *point* *point*



Stop stealing the phrase I stole.

We get it. We must ask you permission before you'll allow us to point out USoA's shortcomings, otherwise you'll act just as trollish as he does.

C'mon, if you don't enjoy jousting with trolly windmills, don't join in. Acting just as obnoxious doesn't really solve anything. I suppose it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, though, and who am I to deny you that? Point and laugh away.

We get it. We must ask you permission before you'll allow us to point out USoA's shortcomings, otherwise you'll act just as trollish as he does.

C'mon, if you don't enjoy jousting with trolly windmills, don't join in. Acting just as obnoxious doesn't really solve anything. I suppose it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, though, and who am I to deny you that? Point and laugh away.

*Points and Laughs*

We get it. We must ask you permission before you'll allow us to point out USoA's shortcomings, otherwise you'll act just as trollish as he does.

C'mon, if you don't enjoy jousting with trolly windmills, don't join in. Acting just as obnoxious doesn't really solve anything. I suppose it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, though, and who am I to deny you that? Point and laugh away.

So you're allowed to point out USoA-'s shortcomings, but I'm not allowed to point out yours? Besides, you don't need my permission: I'm not stopping you. Go for it.

Just expect me to laugh at you for it.

so... "I know porn when I see it!"

hmmm... who else said that? :rolleyes:
Justice Potter Stewart

Thank God that Fox broke the news of this terrible sex scandal, determined as they are never to show a young girl in a provocative light.... oh:

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8247/mileycyrusmq2.jpg


No. I mean the idea.....If they didn't take such a stand, the next thing somebody will do the same with underage twins.....

So you're allowed to point out USoA-'s shortcomings, but I'm not allowed to point out yours? Besides, you don't need my permission: I'm not stopping you. Go for it.

Just expect me to laugh at you for it.

In other words, you have nothing constructive to add.

EDIT - nice typo. ;) Fixed it for you.

But... she's not nude...

Been waiting for someone to do it...

HAAAHAAAHAAAHAHAAAHA!
*point*
HAAHAAHAAHAHAHA!
*point*
HAHAHAAHAAAHAAHAAA!
*point*
HAHAAAHAAAAHA!
*point*
HAHAHA!*
*point*
HAAAAHAHAAAHAHAA!
*point*

Carry on.

:p

It's not a serious response if I do it only for the sake of laughing at his eventual reply.

But... she's not nude...

but she IS... under the bed sheet, and her clothes, she's totally NEKKID!!! :eek:

In other words, you have nothing constructive to add.
I choose not to.

EDIT - nice typo. ;) Fixed it for you.

Indeed. Quite. Missed that. Thank you.

:p

It's not a serious response if I do it only for the sake of laughing at his eventual reply.

Dunno if his reply is worth seeing, though.

So you're allowed to point out USoA-'s shortcomings, but I'm not allowed to point out yours? Besides, you don't need my permission: I'm not stopping you. Go for it.

Just expect me to laugh at you for it.

I didn't say that you're not allow-- fuck it. Not even remotely worth the effort.

psh, everyone knows that celebrities aren't real people. They're robots.

But... she's not nude...


..but it makes her nude in your head!!!!!!!

Umm, yeah and after looking at the photos, they're really weak in terms of "nude" and "kiddie-porn". If she had a problem, during the shoot would have been a good time to say something.

Anybody who gets aroused by that must have some serious problems with their swimming trunks when they visit the beach.

Sure child pornography is an issue, but seriously, where does personal responsibility take over for childhood innocence? Her parents and representatives were there, she knew what was up, and now she is playing the "I'm just a scared little kid" routine now that Disney and her fans are pissed. Its not like she was forced by anybody to remove her clothing for the shoot, if she were that would be different. If she felt violated in any way, enough people were present for her to reasonably be able to put an end to the whole thing, but instead of that, she took off her clothes hoping to increase her bottom line.

So USofA baited everyone into disagreeing with him on this, then tried to use that as a link back to his 'Marrying kids is ok' thing?


Hmmm, didn't see that coming.

So USofA baited everyone into disagreeing with him on this, then tried to use that as a link back to his 'Marrying kids is ok' thing?


Hmmm, didn't see that coming.

No. You missed my point entirely. Which is that in the US it is ok to photograph children in sexually suggestive poses and expose them to rampant violence and sex in the movies. It's ok to encourage them to behave irresponsibly and immorally.
But it's a horrible crime for them to get married by their own free will. It's a horrible crime for them to accept responsibility for their own actions. It's a felonous crime for them to want to keep their kids and be responsible for them.
In general, it's ok to expose children to porn, rape, and mass violence but it's evil to encourage them to be moral or responsible. That is how America raises its children. To be irresponsible and selfish and violent. Those who do not conform, we punish them.

No. You missed my point entirely. Which is that in the US it is ok to photograph children in sexually suggestive poses and expose them to rampant violence and sex in the movies. It's ok to encourage them to behave irresponsibly and immorally.
But it's a horrible crime for them to get married by their own free will. It's a horrible crime for them to accept responsibility for their own actions. It's a felonous crime for them to want to keep their kids and be responsible for them.
In general, it's ok to expose children to porn, rape, and mass violence but it's evil to encourage them to be moral or responsible. That is how America raises its children. To be irresponsible and selfish and violent. Those who do not conform, we punish them.

...and you don't see that marriage - with all that it entails - has more serious consequences for a child than taking pictures?

I think you're missing your own point.

...and you don't see that marriage - with all that it entails - has more serious consequences for a child than taking pictures?

I think you're missing your own point.

Especially pictures which are not explicit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352800,00.html

Ok. Where are the anti kiddie porn people at when real stuff like this happens??? Perhaps they're too busy with witch hunts.


They told it was for one thing and now it turns out it was for something else entirely. She ought to have the right to make them remove the picture.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/video/2008/miley_video200806

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley200806?currentPage=2

Her father was there with her. Neither seemed concerned. My guess: Disney made a call and said that the gravy train would end if they didn't disavow their willing involvement with the photo shoot.

And it's not child porn -- she's completely covered and there is nothing suggestive going on!

It's illegal to produce pictures of children in sexually suggestive positions.
The picture, suggesting that she is nude in the photo, falls under that catagory.

Right, because being covered = nudity. And obviously, sitting up, facing away from the camera, clearly shows that she's having sex with an invisible partner.

If you look at the full picture at the vanity fair site, it's pretty clear that she is nude with the sheet only covering her front.

Right. and her legs are obviously black and made of cloth.
Good lord, no wonder the rest of the world thinks all Americans are puritanical prudes.

I suppose that a picture of a naked baby on a bearskin rug all by him or herself is child porn in your book, too?

Ohh the little trollop knew what she was getting into, she's just upset that it backfired now that the parents of her teenage fans have screamed blue murder!

Edit:

Sorry: trollop is slang in Yorkshire (England) for a woman who is a bit of a player, and loves the attention

Ohh the little trollop knew what she was getting into, she's just upset that it backfired now that the parents of her teenage fans have screamed blue murder!

:confused:

Edited above post for ya :)

Edited above post for ya :)

OK, makes more sense now, trollop is slang for slut around here.

PICS! :p

http://photo.net/shared/portrait-bits.tcl?user_id=537657

what the fuck is "partially naked"? Her breasts weren't exposed, her genitalia weren't exposed...what about this was "partially naked"?

Her BACK is exposed -- can you imagine? Her BACK!!!!

This Thread's still going...as in...People still give a shit...

Slow News day? Not enough Celebrities to oggle at?

How bout we just get this over with, and i send this guy after her :sniper:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/image.php?u=91868&dateline=1156310239
Fixed ;)
Her BACK is exposed -- can you imagine? Her BACK!!!!
The horror!!!

HAAAHAHAAAHAHAHA!
*point*
HAHAHAAAHAHAHA!
*point*
HAAAAAAHAHAAAHAAAHAA!
*point*
HAHAAAHAAAHAHAA!
*point*
HAHAAHA!
*point*
HAAHAHAAAHAHAAHA!
*point*

Continue.

RhynoD, quit spamming.

No. You missed my point entirely. Which is that in the US it is ok to photograph children in sexually suggestive poses and expose them to rampant violence and sex in the movies. It's ok to encourage them to behave irresponsibly and immorally.
But it's a horrible crime for them to get married by their own free will. It's a horrible crime for them to accept responsibility for their own actions. It's a felonous crime for them to want to keep their kids and be responsible for them.
In general, it's ok to expose children to porn, rape, and mass violence but it's evil to encourage them to be moral or responsible. That is how America raises its children. To be irresponsible and selfish and violent. Those who do not conform, we punish them.
er... you realize that there are people trying to crack down on the amount of sex and violence that children can be exposed to. rating systems on games, movies and television and such. but the first and best defense is the parents. if they don't care, then there's very little the Government can do.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/video/2008/miley_video200806

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley200806?currentPage=2

Her father was there with her. Neither seemed concerned. My guess: Disney made a call and said that the gravy train would end if they didn't disavow their willing involvement with the photo shoot. I heard a news report that the father left before that particular picture was taken. If that's true, then it changes things drastically.

snipped pic
Yep... I agree with you kat. Completely and totally.

RhynoD, quit spamming.

I was not spamming. I was making a valid point about the continued uselessness of this thread, as everyone agrees on the same point, except for USofA- who cannot come up with a valid argument to save his life.

And I did it in a humorous, if slightly obnoxious, way.

Since I'm getting yelled at, I won't "spam" any more, but anyone who has seriously responded to USofA-, consider yourselves laughed at and pointed at for effect by me.

I didn't say that you're not allow-- fuck it. Not even remotely worth the effort.

Yeah, I'm usually not.

Ohh the little trollop knew what she was getting into, she's just upset that it backfired now that the parents of her teenage fans have screamed blue murder!

Edit:

Sorry: trollop is slang in Yorkshire (England) for a woman who is a bit of a player, and loves the attention

Around these parts it usually means "whore".

I was not spamming. I was making a valid point about the continued uselessness of this thread, as everyone agrees on the same point, except for USofA- who cannot come up with a valid argument to save his life.

And I did it in a humorous, if slightly obnoxious, way.

Since I'm getting yelled at, I won't "spam" any more, but anyone who has seriously responded to USofA-, consider yourselves laughed at and pointed at for effect by me.

It contributed nothing.
It was pretty much cut and pasted.
It was meant to hijack and stop the discussion.
It's pretty much textbook spamming.

It would be if for once not everything that could sell a story was reported on.

It contributed nothing.

I disagree.

It was pretty much cut and pasted.

I actually typed the whole thing out.

It was meant to hijack and stop the discussion.

Hijack, no. Stop the discussion, yes, as discussion on this subject is no longer necessary. USofA- is the only person who actually disagrees and USofA-'s arguments are obviously crap. There's no discussion going on. It's just everyone agreeing with one another and pointing out really obvious flaws in USofA-'s arguments that don't need to be pointed out because they're really obvious.

It's pretty much textbook spamming.
Bah. I know spam. This is not spam.






THIS is spam.
Spam.

THIS is spam.
Spam.

Oh REGINALD...I DISAGREE!!!...

THIS is Spam :http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Spam_with_cans.jpeg

Yeah, I'm usually not.

Thou sayest.

They did not put a gun to her head and tell her to pose for the photos.

The only people who are exploiting Miley Cyrus are the media who have been worthlessly covering this whole "controversy".

When I was in high school, nearly every girl dressed like that. I swear to God if I saw those photos of her without the story attached I would not have thought a thing, not taken a second look.

It's not like her Disney Channel fans read this magazine she was in anyway. This whole scandal is bullshit.

Oh REGINALD...I DISAGREE!!!...

THIS is Spam :

*snip, HOOOOOGE PIC*



Was that really necessary?

Thou sayest.

I do.

Was that really necessary?

Yes it was actually, i fully intended to Spam this forum...thereby giving a prime example, of what this 'spamming' thing really is...

Pics or it didn't happen.

Though I suppose the only reason it happened was due to pics..

What counts as 'nude' these days then?

I disagree.



I actually typed the whole thing out.



Hijack, no. Stop the discussion, yes, as discussion on this subject is no longer necessary. USofA- is the only person who actually disagrees and USofA-'s arguments are obviously crap. There's no discussion going on. It's just everyone agreeing with one another and pointing out really obvious flaws in USofA-'s arguments that don't need to be pointed out because they're really obvious.


Bah. I know spam. This is not spam.






THIS is spam.
Spam.
You can disagree all you like. However, posting repeated nonsense over and over in an attempt to derail the thread is spamming and hijacking.
You can decide when the discussion is over on your own forum. Till then, knock it off.

You need to remove the word 'Libertarian' from your sig, otherwise, like I said in a recent thread, you're just a poser.the juxtaposition of the post and the sig caught my attention too...

Anyone else find it odd that the only person who finds the images to be sexually suggestive is the OP? Now, I'm not implying anything, but it'd really explain some stuff.

Anyone else find it odd that the only person who finds the images to be sexually suggestive is the OP? Now, I'm not implying anything, but it'd really explain some stuff.

It's the same OP who was defending the right of a cult to child wedding and statutory rape as Freedom of Religion. Is there anything that needs to be implied? Other than he's an attention-whoring troll.

It's the same OP who was defending the right of a cult to child wedding and statutory rape as Freedom of Religion. Is there anything that needs to be implied? Other than he's an attention-whoring troll.

Yeah, I don't really have to imply anything.

The OP is making it seem more dramatic than it actually was. She wanted to be a little slut, she wasn't forced.

The OP is making it seem more dramatic than it actually was. She wanted to be a little slut, she wasn't forced.

WTF? Do you know the lady in question? Were you there at the photo shoot (during which she was, contrary to the OP, actually wearing clothes)? Unless and until you can show real knowledge of Ms Cyrus' character, maybe you should STFU about her being a slut.

Around these parts it usually means "whore".

I think your definition works as well :P

The OP is making it seem more dramatic than it actually was. She wanted to be a little slut, she wasn't forced.

Agreed ;)

Her father is trying to make her the new Britney too soon. Even Britney waited to whore up.