I did not know this. Ive heard of HAnna Montana and thought that she was on A2K (our girl from the wilds of NEw Brunswick).
Im suitably up to speed and still have reached the conclusion that its mere hype. My wife gets Vogue magazine and Vogue knitting. Besides playing with all the scratch and sniff perfume ads, I visit the ads to see what level of undress that the models are in.
That picture of Smiley Cyrus could better be called "Hanna Montana dana" she sorta looks like shes sporting a Gilda Radner do -up.
Art done by a committee. Imagine if Michelangelo Buonarati had to deal with an art director instead of just a Pope.
"Mikee, we no lika da way you gotta da God widda his finger out lika dat... EEsa too much lika you maka da joke, you know, "pulla my feenger"
There is an interesting article in this week's Newsweek about the death of print pornography. Apparently the big Christian dating site is owned by the publisher of Penthouse; porn is diversifying!
I don't think this photo is pornography. I don't think Playboy is pornography either. Seriously I could imagine a photo like (not this one) this appearing in some Playboy college thing where the girls don't want to be naked but they do want to be in Playboy.
I'm wondering that by moving porn to the internet almost exclusively if there isn't just a little more wiggle room in what is being considered acceptable in editorial and advertising photography.
What do you think?
I don't think it's pornography.
If she were 21, I wouldn't blink. Standard sexpot pose.
If this photo somehow surfaced as something she'd had taken privately and sent to her also-15-year-old boyfriend, I also wouldn't blink. (This is what happened with Vanessa Hudgens I think.)
The combination of 15-year old, sexpot, and marketing makes me blink a bit though.
eoe wrote:Linkat wrote:Ragman wrote:I know society has swings with values and so I keep waiting for the morality pendulum to swing back. Guess what.... I will be in the ground before that happens. I hate to sound like a doomsayer..and negative. I'm no prude...but fergawdsake, if you want to make money and cash in, why not a clean cut picture with her being hugged by her Daddy?
I'm just not cut out as a consumer of this crap. I resent the Vanity Fair for pushing it too. Whatever does she have to do with their readership and demographics? Editorially, to me, this is pretty suspect.
I agree 100% - a 15 year old is not the target audience for this magazine.
I cancelled my subscription and stopped reading Vanity Fair a few years back when the covers seemed to be all Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and those Olsen twins. Obviously, I was no longer their audience.
To be honest, I've only read these sorts of magazines when at that hair salon or similar - I read books not magazines - perhaps I really don't know the target audience, however, I thought it was for adult women.
I finally saw the photo in the mag when I visited the hamburgers a couple of weeks ago. The photo looks different to me in the mag than it did online - she looks colder, more goosebumpy. Definitely less of a Lolita vibe - just a cold little girl in a big blanket.
