Miley Cyrus' troubling wardrobe problem

  A lot of parents who shelled out money for "Hannah Montana" movie tickets, concert tickets and official girls clothing  feel betrayed today.

   This follows the release of provocative photos of 15-year-old Miley Cyrus, the previously clean-cut superstar who plays the "Hannah Montana" role, published in the latest issue of Vanity Fair magazine.

   It's a blow to parents who held up Cyrus as the wholesome alternative to Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan and other troubled starlets.

   But it's only the latest case where parents have had to worry about the sexualized images that bubble out into the mass media landscape.

   The release of the Cyrus photos … coupled with the release last week of the latest version of the violent video game series "Grand Theft Auto" … has parents and experts talking about how best to protect children from violent and sexual content.

   Children and teens have access to a nearly limitless amount of entertainment, ranging across TV, movies, the Internet and video games.

   While some critics say government, broadcasters, game makers and retailers have a responsibility to do more, most say parents have to make the final stand.

   What do you think? How troubled were you by the Cyrus photos?

   How closely do you monitor what your children and teens watch on TV, on DVD or on the Web?

   And do you really believe that these images can have an effect on the attitudes or behavior of young people?

    -- Stephen Watson

Comments

[hellokitty]

Did all of you run Angela off the board?

[GammaMoral]

Tea was just lovely but we missed you. Hopefully we can have a spot again later. On the matter of my darling Angie...I will have a chat with her to hold her tongue and listen more carefully so that she does not offend with remarks that anger. Commonality has often been viewed as a less desirable word in our circles but I do believe you are indeed on to something. Perhaps moderation in our thoughts about morality is a good thing afterall. It appears that we all do indeed care about our children. Now perhaps we should go forth with our careful mouths and watchful eyes and make sure no one harms our little dumplin darlins. Angie, you are still a good person. Don't forget to use your manners, Dear.

[ElmaGolf]

"Perhaps if we dwelled more on our commonalities than our differences we could actually accomplish something."

Relocated - I'm not a traditionally religious man, but Hallelujah and Amen to that.

Just like "liberal ideals" have been distorted, so too have the "conservative ideals" over the years (Barry Goldwater wouldn't recognize today's "conservatism").

The concept of PC has its roots in the ideals of tolerance and equality, but certainly goes much too far at times (resulting in counterproductive kick-backs).

Hopefully a little "moderation" and finding "common ground" can go a long ways in helping address many of the issues we face.

[The Relocated]

This is not a liberal-conservative issue. It's about right, wrong and standards of morality. Persoanlly I think the idea that liberals and conservatives cannot share standards of morality is ridiculous. Neither of us want sexually exploited for material gains. Damn, look at that we have something in common. Perhaps if we dwelled more on our commonalities than our differences we could actually accomplish something.

As someone who leans left I do not view conservatives as my enemies. They are merely people who I disgaree with. Perhaps, someday I can change thier perspective on the issues I hold dear but ultimately people will stick by thier convictions. I accept this and I'm not going to belittle people for hold thier beliefs.

The word Liberal has become synonmous with the left but I think it's ill used. If our founding fathers were not the liberals of thier day we would probably still be subjects of the British. Yet there is sch a thing as taking it to far. The SDS and other radicals of the day had honorable goals ( ending the Viet Nam war encouraging social justice) but in my opinion they were pinheads. They embraced violence and discontent as agents of change Thier tactics alienated rank and file americans and resulted in the villification of liberal values. The liberal concept of Political Correctness is also an anathema to the idea of free speech, one of our most fundamental freedoms. Things like this spawned the venomous ideology of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. We have been our own worst enemies because our goals are/were admirable but our methods were flawed. This legacy continues to haunt us to this very day and in the eyes of some conservatives it represents what defines us as liberals.

[Jeeves]

Oh wonderful, Angela has returned again and still doesn't realize how she sounds here.

A mid-teen female's bare shouder and partially unclothed back was published on a page in Vanity Fair magazine.

Horrors!

How can responsible working parents possibly be expected to raise normal children in such an immoral media atmosphere?

One need not have possbily attended Yale to realize this sleazy shameful immorality of a bare shoulder and partially unclothed female back published on a page in the middle of Vanity Fair magazine is truly unprecedented!!!

Call out the Virtue Police SWAT Team! This is an emergency!

[ElmaGolf]

Gamma - I do hope you enjoyed your tea. I must say, your humor has quite the disarming quality (e.g. the "vapors").

I had absolutely no problem with Angie being "passively offended" by the Miley Cyrus / Pioneer phone pics. As you say, everyone is entitled to their opinions and own reactions.

I took exception to her then "actively" making derogatory comments about people simply because they didn't share her reaction (see examples given).

What I find most ironic in all of this is the following. TV / Media gets blamed for influencing negative sexual behaviors and its effect on kids.

At the same time, some people who so vocally decry the impact of the media on kids have been unwittingly infected by other negative TV influences.

Shows such as Crossfire and other deeply partisan shows (on both the Right & Left) have taught people that all issues must be viewed as extremes, and that people with differing opinions must either be "GODLESS LIBERALS" or "RIGHT WING NAZI NUTJOBS." Rational discourse is replaced by uber-competitive battles of oversimplified bumper sticker slogans and insults.

And that is really the source of my reaction to Angie's writing. Somewhere there is a vain hope she may read a few words and consider "maybe there's a better way of discussing this other than the "finally, someone with some brains who agrees with me!" approach."

Enjoy the tea!

[GammaMoral]

Glad to hear you are not baking in the sun too much. Gamma assures you that my darling Angie and I are two different people yet joined by the DNA strand triggering hyper-ventilation from morality lapsing. Years ago we called it the "vapors". Having lived longer than Angie, I tend to listen more before I spout off, but like you, I do enjoy listening to all sorts of points of view. It would be a dull world if we all thought the same. Try to remember that when people are "offended" that it is an emotion and not necessarily a perfect point of view. Feelings are just that. If Angie's feelings of being offended by certain behaviors is just that, a feeling, then so too are yours and you too are equally entitled. We're having tea now. Care to join?

[ElmaGolf]

Troy - I guess you're probably right - it makes much more sense that way. No one can be that legitimately over-the-top.

Instead of Tony Clifton / Andy Kaufman, this was probably much closer to Jeff Dunham / Walter. Let the "dummy" take the blame for saying all the offensive things going around in your head.

[Troy Cumbo]

I thought that Gamma's exhortation to forgive Angie her dittoheaded moralizing was a veiled admission that Angie is in fact Gamma's sock puppet. I mean, she's close enough to parody as it is.

[ElmaGolf]

Gamma - I feel just fine with the amount of sun I have. I'm getting a properly "moderate" amount. I like moderation - it seems to keep things more reasonable.

Yes, I certainly understand the limits of typed words and chance for misinterpretation of tone. Look - I'm not a "PC-Nazi" who demands perfection in choice of words.

My use of the "animal" as a bodily reference was not meant to offend - only to demonstrate that attention is not inherently good. Perhaps I should have used inoffensive terms such as "muffin top" or "tramp stamp."

As for Angie's "sarcasm," there's quite a fine line between being sarcastic to effectively make a point and just being sarcastic to be rude. I'm not offended by Sarcasm - I'm offended by rudeness as demonstrated by the general comment "you obviously must be (insert stereotypical comment here)..." such as

- "have never been anywhere but a MALL"

- "must be in high school. Boces?.."

- "a LIBERAL crazy who thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy"

At a certain point, your true character & attitude is revealed and you can't hide behind the "I was just being sarcastic" defense.

(Besides, for all I know, you & Angie could be the same and playing up some concocted Andy Kaufman / Tony Clifton skit (Gamma the rational and Angie the Bombastic)).

[GammaMoral]

Sounds like someone has been in the sun too long. You really need to wear a hat. I am so sorry you see my little Angie as less than perfect. I know she is not but I feel she is. She is still learning as we all do through life and she must learn to tone down her sarcasm as it seems to offend. I keep telling her that most people do not understand sarcasm these days especially in these blogs but of course she doesn't listen. Today day people are more concerned with what one says rather than what one does. The English language is so versatile though that it seems so many interpretations can be had from just a few words. I am so glad that she is not so graphic with body parts though as to describe them as part of the animal shelter.

[ElmaGolf]

GammaMoral -
"She loves the drama to get her point across."

Really? You think her over the top antics "gets her point across"? Actually, it drowns out her point and invalidates her credibility. Point is, if you look at what I wrote regarding "Relocated's" comments, I may even have some level of agreement with her about concerns over the pervasive sexuality in the culture. But her point was clearly drowned out by her snobbery & name-calling. For all her talk of hating LIBERALS, her discourse is ironically similar to overbearing charicatures like James Carville (and of course, Ann Coulter).

*****************
"It certainly catches lots of attention and opens lots of dialogue"

Well, on the former point, that is true. Britney Spears' pvssy tends to capture attention too, but I wouldn't want it articulating rational points. So yes, I'm sure she gathers plenty of attention (which may be her only goal - and if so, fine - I'll just discount her ramblings as a cry for attention).

As for the latter assertion ("it opens dialogue"), I would respectfully disagree. Angie's obviously not interested in having a dialogue with her knee-jerk "You don't completely agree? You are a LIBERAL and I just don't deal with you crazies!" Maybe she's better trained in monologues from Theatre. If she were open to "dialogue," she may have had a comment on Relocated's posting, rather than having another "dramatic tantrum" aimed at me.

[GammaMoral]

While eveyone was out golfing, my sweetie Angie was practicing for the Theatre. She does quite well, thank you for attending on occassion. She loves the drama to get her point across. I just love that about her. It certainly catches lots of attention and opens lots of dialogue especially to folks like you whose opinion we love to hear.

[Troy Cumbo]

Steve - I don't think half of these whining harpies even saw the photos.

They really weren't that big of a deal.

[ElmaGolf]

BTW - GammaMoral, is Angela's self-admitted snobbery & irrational discourse one of those "values" you are proud of her demonstrating?

[ElmaGolf]

Angela - Is your highly developed, rational, intelligent discourse a product of Yale Education?

I never commented on your conservative or liberal views. I commented on the fact that you are an oversimplifying person that apparently can only view the world in over-the-top charicatures. There are oversimplifying morons on both the Right and the Left, but I guess you demonstrated the myopic vision that unites them all.

I commented that you felt your education somehow excused your vitriol and snobbery.

I commented that you apparently lack the ability to rationally discuss topics and must resort to name-calling insults and presumptions (e.g. horny high-school teenager). This was followed up by your briliant presumption that I must be Jeeves' "alter" (because anyone not agreeing with the Almighty Angela can be lumped into a single dismissable charicature) or that I must really be "GoofyBall" (is your creativity a Yale by-product as well?).

I wrote "you still feel the need to view and debate issues with the oversimplification of a child." To your credit, you didn't IGNORE my logical point (as your accuse "LIBERALS" of doing). Rather, you opened your Yale educated mouth and COMPLETELY PROVED all my points.

Thank you for playing & God Bless.

[Angela]

Hey "ElmaGolf???" WTF?
Is "Jeeves" your alter? Because as I see in the blogs I don't remember "speaking" about you, high school and Yale... I was speaking about Jeeves "your alter" and his activities...and yes this is the REAL me...SARCASTIC b!tc# from NYC...
I will go NO further...as I wrote before, you LIBERAL babblers talking again...Ann Coulter...blah...yap..yap.. give me migraines...I had to deal with you people practically all of my life...Oh and GoofyBall? "Jeeves alter" Yale won't take my $$$ back..Statute of limitations...Sorry :p
~~~Ang

[ElmaGolf]

Relocated - Excellent post!

I'm not sure if people like Angela will know what to make of people like you. After all, from all the Ann Coulter books Angela read, anyone that leans "liberal" must be some charicature distributing porn and sex toys to their kids.

"I think we really need to educate our kids and not just on the biology of it but on the issues of maturity, intimacy, trust, love and respect. "

I think that sentence best sums up the difference between the "true liberal" belief and the "distortion" of liberals. The key is EDUCATION on those issues, rather than the way many people our age were raised (e.g. either the "head in the sand" approach or "Shame, Shame" approach).

The problem with the Information Age isn't that the "Bad Media" is flooding our kids with negative images. Rather, there is so much information available, that EVERYTHING is out there, both positive & negative. Trying to stop access to information is simply an exercise in futility.

Unfortunately, what frustrates many people in the older generation is that the widespread information precludes the "head in the sand" approach. It puts much more onus on parents to educate their kids to deal with their inevitable access to such imagery / information.

[Steve in Wheatfield]

Some quick thoughts:

1) It was her BACK folks. She shows more skin on TV and in concert. If you don't believe me, watch sometime.

2) I agree with ElmaGolf. Angela, you should have asked for your money back.

3) You people sound like our parents did and their parents did and their parents did. If no one pushed the boundaries, we would all still be wearing hoop skirts and surfing the internet by candlelight.

4) This will not hurt her career in the least. In two years she would have been totally irrelevant (see Spears, Britney). Now she has "exposed" herself to a whole new legion of fans.

5) Finally, I really don't think she's cute. She looks like more of a butter face to me, but my 7 year old and 5 year olds think she's the coolest.

[The Relocated]

And we wonder why teenage girls think it's appropriate to send naked pictures of themselves to thier boyfriends?

Point of fact, I lean liberal but I'm not stupid. In a world where we fear pedephiles and other miscreants, why the hell do we tolerate the media sexualizing our children?

The standards have changed in my lifetime. When I was a teenager we slow danced. I went out to a club in my 30's and found myself an orgy of simulated sex acts. Many young people appear to learn the in's and out's of sex (pardon the pun) from porn. I think we really need to educate our kids and not just on the biology of it but on the issues of maturity, intimacy, trust, love and respect.

[GammaMoral]

I am with the first writer on the blog here and am grateful we have Ms. Angela, who though not a member of my generation, still has the values we tried to instill in her. Your Grandma loves you, sweetheart.

[ElmaGolf]

"And...he's just some h0rney high school kid (and jealous obviously because I went to Yale:))who JUST can't wait until it hits 65 degrees to hit the local suburban mall so his female classmates can strut around with their bare backs and bare a$$e$, tramp stamps hanging out...blah...blah..."

Angela, are you TRYING to be a charicature, or is it just happening naturally for you?

I generally don't like oversimplified stereotypes such as the "snobbish Ivy-League Manhattanite", but "WOW!", you're certainly lending it some credence.

You read the "POST" - well I guess that means anyone with a differing opinion must "bow" to you on spec, right?

You "went to Yale" - Congratulations! And that means what other than you were able to do well in high school on standardized tests? And before you start with your predictable "I must be jealous" thing, I was a high school Salutatorian and graduated Summa Cvm Laude from a nationally known Private University.

Not that any of that matters - how you score on tests has very little to do with how reasonable and intelligent you can be when commenting on issues such as these.

You use ridiculous "false dichotomies" and slippery slope statements that boil down to "if you don't agree with me completely, you must be a LIBERAL, which means you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, and you're probably also a pornographer."

Get over yourself! If you truly did attend Yale, I would ask for your money back (or maybe your rich parents' money back). Because after $100k of education, you still feel the need to view and debate issues with the oversimplification of a child.

And even if you're correct that Jeeves is just a high-schooler, he shows quite a bit more potential to increase his intelligence. Unfortunately, it seems like you peaked already.

[Angela]

At last!!!!

Somebody with some brains who responded to someone else with some brains!!! Thank you Christian for bringing some sense to this blog. Do you ever notice how when you CATCH these Liberals in their own talking in tongue twister babble...they have nothing to say about the subject that your talking about and THEN ignore your comments? Happens with all of them...just watch them on television...they just spew ther venom and put thier fingers in their ears and don't want to hear what the REST of the world has to say because it's scary out there for them.
Like this kid on here Jeeves...poor thing...his parents give him a butler's name to begin with...that's got to be a hard life to start with... And...he's just some h0rney high school kid (and jealous obviously because I went to Yale:))who JUST can't wait until it hits 65 degrees to hit the local suburban mall so his female classmates can strut around with their bare backs and bare a$$e$, tramp stamps hanging out...blah...blah...
Wonder what he does when he goes home all alone after the trip to the mall in the 'burbs??
I agree with you TOTALLY Chris...this stuff has gotten-out-of-hand and I am not even a parent! But...I have nieces and nephews whom I adore and don't want them exposed to this crap and my family tries their damnest NOT to make that happen. Just the other day I heard that some "little" boy who had a cell phone had these images just pop up out of nowhere on this phone and they were images of MALE genitals...so it works BOTH ways...NOT just woman are on these phones... men are too.
And young little ones are looking at this $h!t. And like I pointed out before which I may add I NEVER got a commment back from Jeeves because I am right (that's what happens with Liberals...when you're right...they have nothing to say...it's like you never even said it) about Brooke Shields her life was just that... $crewed up @ a young age...what you mentioned in your comment but in a diffrent way.

BRAVO Christian!
~Angie

[mfc]

This Jeeves vs. Angela dialogue is hilarious. Keep going guys. I want more.

[Jeeves]

Troy is absolutely right. It's reassuring to see that Taliban-style idiocy is not prevalent on this blog.

Christian, if a portion of the female back is considered "sexualized" and "semi-nude" to you, I suggest you hide indoors between May and September. Even in Buffalo many mid-teen females (and males) walk around with much of their back uncovered, not to mention most of their legs. And never mind places like Florida, California, or Hawaii when temperatures climb into the high 90s. You DON'T want to know what the clothing styles become on days like that.

This reality doesn't mean every adult who sees them has creepy thoughts. Nor does it mean sick adults won't have such thoughts when seeing fully clothed teens. But if you have such thoughts when seeing an ordinary human back... then your house will be the best place for you. Be ready to crank up the a/c, and start the countdown to October.

Angela will be rooting for your efforts from a distance using the very dignified enthusiasm she learned at Yale mixers with the Skull and Bones Society.

[Troy Cumbo]

I finally saw the photos.

And I have to say, you people flipping out about them either haven't seen the photos, or you're fundamentalists.

They're completely innocuous.

[Christian N. Proudofit]

By distancing I mean: Don't view the situation as: You/I/the General Public considering the 'appropriateness' of provocative photos depicting (a Thing we call) "a celebrity".

The 'Thing' we are considering is a young girl, albeit she is a teen she is a young teen. She can't vote for Obama, buy beer, order a glass of wine, or drive a car without an adult to accompany her. And, until her most recent birthday last year, she would not have been permitted in our own Galleria Mall without her mom or dad.

From that angle, it is a no-brainer that she should not be striking a semi-nude pose. Let alone in a national magazine. There are some people, believe it or not, who view having sex with little kids as: "okay". That doesn't mean it really is, or really should be. In our culture.

[Christian N. Proudofit]

The sexualization of a young girl IS cause for concern for all sane persons who believe a child should and has a right to be precisely that. This particular child being a celebrity places upon her another burden altogether. Her parents are guilty, the photographer is guilty, the segment of the public that enjoys lusting after little girls is guilty, and she herself is partially to blame. Although she is little more than a slave when the other factors are working (so much) in concert. I think if we distance ourselves from this a bit, imagine our own 15 year old daughter posing for such a picture for say, a male acquaintance (of hers or ours), it would place this thing in its proper perspective. She is too young. Period.

[Angela]

Oh God Jeeves...
I can see that you didn't get to that neurologist for all that YAWNING AGAIN...(You are too boring...who put this roecord on again?)This has to be the reason why all these Rosie O' Donnell answers keep popping out on this blog from you....
Reality in a far-left's Liberal world like yours is the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory that the planes were blown up by remote controls, The Rosie O'Donnell yappers, The Cindy Sheehans zombies and I can go on for days with all these crazies that you Micheal Moores stand for except I don't have time for you loons....I cannot waste my precious breath OR time...

Oh..."intelligent?" Uh...excuse me...but... I went to Yale...Yes EONS ago...but if I wasn't "intelligent" I couldn't even get to step on their grass...Are you still in high school? Boces? Or 13th grade @ ECC?

Like I told Karen over @ the other blog...I was born & raised in Manhattan and have family over there in your failing town and just check in from time to time at The Buffalo News and happen to catch these 2 blogs and laughed my a$$ off when I read them...yours is by far the best though...I must say I didn't even go out and buy the POST today because you were too entertaining :D
Oh and Jeeves IF you do write back to me...I won't respond back to you because frankly you Liberals zzzzzz put zzzzzz zzzzzzz me to sleeepppzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jeeves]

Yawn. Of course you don't have to change your way of thinking. I'm just pointing out that if you do change it to acknowledge reality, you'll sound much more intelligent. Did you notice how Scott's comment sounds much smarter than yours?

And no, you guessed wrong. I'm not liberal by your definiton. Try libertarian with a small 'l'. Back in your day, imagine what Sen. Goldwater would say to whining adults who try to busybody the behavior of other people's children in order to supposedly make their own job of parenting more successful. He'd want to kick their you-know-what, just as he famously said should be done to Jerry Falwell.

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_think_every_good_christian_ought_to_kick/255458.html

Figuratively speaking, that is.

[Angela]

Jeeves....Daahhlliinnnggg!!!

We know LOUD & CLEAR what your point and others are BUT that does NOT mean that they or I have to AGREE with you...THAT my dear is what YOU don't understand! This is America and we have a right to express whether we want to live like June Allyson or Marilyn Manson...parents have a right to raise their kids the way they want to raise them... NOT they way Vanity Fair, People Magazine or Oprah tells them to.
Obviously your a "very young" liberal and that's fine and that's how you see life... that parents should just take your advice and "relax" about this whole thing, take a pill and lie on the couch...and how my dear would you know IF any ruin came to any of these kids lives that saw any crap that over or under 30 years ago? Did you do a survey? Do you ACTUALLY know the autobiography of Brooke Shields and how her Mommy Dearest pushed her into the "limelight" and into the media @ a younger age (than Hanna Montana) for her OWN selfish reasons and that only recently those two started talking? We don't know the personal termoil these people go through and how many shrinks they see a week...

Like Brooke with her mother and Drew Barrymore and her $c*ew*d-up mother...just being a Barrymore would get you into a loonie bin let alone having this UNKNOWN woman as your mother being married to a Barrymore for no more than two minutes...

I bet you Jeeves if you ask your girl Brooke if she would have any of her kids DO what she DID at her age...she would probably want to slap your face (because of all the stuff she went through) walk away from you in a heart beat... Why? That girl's a Manhattan"ite" like me :p
~Angie

[Angela]

Uh...Scott...you can agree with whoever you want on whatever you want...but what the #e!! does a trailer park have to do in all this? Does Hanna Montana live in one? Do you? I do not see the connection? FOCUS....

[scott]

I don't live in a mansion either but I know what one is.

I have to agree with Jeeves on this one. It's nothing new. The media just realizes they can make money by blowing it out of proportion.

[Jeeves]

That's the point! This shouldn't be a shocking new trend as many people are claiming.

Magazine showing of 15 year old girls (and younger in the example of Brooke Shields in the 70s) has been going on for many decades.

Life went on just fine after, as compared to Miley Cirus, Ms. Shields was shown in that much more sensual and unclothed way in the 1970s on the COVER of People (not the inside of Vanity Fair).

Teens and tweens did not ahve their lives ruined.

Parents should relax, look at that link I posted in my earlier comment (for them, not you), and the Buffalo News should find something less tiresome to write about.

[Angela]

Uh Scott...
How would you know about trailer parks unless you live in one?
~Angie

[scott]

Hey Angela, Since when do people in trailer parks have butlers?

[Angela]

Oh Jeeves...Thank you for that martini...it was quite good. Oh...and may I suggest a neurologist for all that yawning that you're doing...it's obvious that you're brain is lacking sssooo much oxygen...So as far as comparing this Hanna Montana person uh...and Brooke Shields? You REALLY didn't have to send that "People" magazine link because I didn't click on it anyway...it happened more than 30 years ago and you were PROBABLY just a though in your parents minds...not even born yet BUT... I WAS around then and because you sound like you don't know well enough about this subject...
This media bu!!$h!t goes wwwaaayyy back even before film and television...(Probably Bibical)Stanford White being one of the most notorious scandals here in the East.
So..."Jeeves" you don't "SHOCK" me with your Brooke Shields' your Cher's or your "I Dream of Jeannie's"
Get up... grow up... and get me another martini...this time a vodka with extra olives...REMEMBER...stirred NOT shaken ;)
~Angie

[Jeeves]

Angela, Yes as a matter of fact my butler services might be available in the right situation.

Regarding this so called controversy - double yawn. This has been going on since the very existence of mass media. Media outlets such as the Buffalo News pretend to be outraged at Vanity Fair for showing a 15 year old girl's back, while tremendously increasing the number of teens and post-teens who see the very pictures about which the Buffalo News is supposedly outraged.

I suggest that you study this matter before continuing to beat this very boring drum. Look at these pictures of Brooke Shields on the cover of People magazine when she was 12 and 15 (30 years ago!):

http://www.people.com/people/brooke_shields

And do be in touch about your butler needs.

[scott]

How dare this young girl be in public without her burqa! She should be stoned.

Seriously people, if you find those photographs that sexual maybe you need to look at yourself. It's a 15 year old girls back!

She's not going to be Hannah Montana for much longer. She's going to be a normal girl and have boyfriends, drink, and... gasp... have sex. The TV is not your babysitter or a role model, get off your butts and get over it.

[Angela]

Hey Jeeves...
Whether or not kids read Vanity Fair the media is going to put it all over the place... THAT'S the whole idea?...duh..and that's what certain parents DON'T want...AND I wouldn't blame them one bit!
Uh...Jeeves? That was my last butlers name :) And while you're at it? Bring me a pomegranate martini...mine...stirred...NOTshaken.

[Jeeves]

Yawn. The photos were published in Vanity Fair magazine. How many teens or tweens read Vanity Fair? It's the Buffalo News and similar publications who spread the photos around and then are spending the next few weeks complaining about it.

As for the photos themselves, many teens/tweens show much more skin than that quite often just walking around in public.

This has gotten way too much attention already. Now that I've put it in perspective there's really nothing else to say.

Just move on now before it bores me further.

Next topic?

[Kerri buffalo]

waiting for a break...this is not going hurt her. In fact this will problem help her unfortunately. Look at the Olsen Twins. Guys young and old across america were doing the countdown til they were 18. Vanity Fair is going to make a killing off this issue and everyone who has never seen a Hanna Montana episode is gonna turn on the tv to see what the fuss is about.

[Matt]

I could care less about the Miley Cyrus photos, but then again I am not a parent. And no one should blame Miley. Blame (if you must play the silly blame game) her handlers and especially photographer Leibovitz, who is one of those fools who seems to think "shock" is the same as "art."

Oh, and I totally disagree with Sandra's comment. What she suggests would gut the First Amendment, not to mention our free-market ways. Again, I am not a parent -- but even if I were I doubt I would support her ideas. Seems to me that all these parents who complain about the content on the Internet and TV should band together and lobby media, advertisers, etc. to change their ways. I have heard of such groups in the past but they don't seem to have much pull. Maybe they need to be louder, and gain a larger membership. And maybe people like Sandra SHOULD shut down the Internet and the TV. Reading a book, playing outside, or socializing with (certain) friends and family is much healthier anyway.

And anyone who wants to trash me, as I half-expect, for opinionating on this stuff when I am not a parent, I thumb my nose at you. An analogy would be if only people who have been to Iraq were allowed to debate the war.

[Jayne]

Quoting Overindulgence: "We are overindulging them with technology and "wants" rather than "needs.""
Amen, brutha! I'm an educated adult w/a lot of living expenses. Nothing galls me more than a kid with a more tricked out cell phone than I've got! I work and I'm on the 0.18 cents/min. plan w/a crappy camera phone because I save $ Meanwhile kids are shooting video on their phone--how do they afford it? Ans: mom and dad. If they learned to say "no" a little more often, they might not have as many problems i.e. cell photos of nude children being distributed. Our surveillance friendly society doesn't phase anyone-- everybody is giving in to the loss of privacy in public places so they broadcast intimacies w/o caring. Newsflash teens--your 15 yr old goodies will still be online in 20 years. Do you want your kid viewing them?

[waitin4abreak_08]

She never should have done it....it will hurt her career definitely

[Overindulgence]

As the father of two young daughters, I am, of course, worried every day by what I read in the newspaper or online, about girls being exploited, abused and sexualized in ways that are completely inappopriate.

Part of the problem is the feeling of entitlement that these kids have been raised with by their parents. We are overindulging them with technology and "wants" rather than "needs."

What causes this? Maybe there are too many working parents who feel that they are missing out on time with their children, so they give them material items to make up for it, and they are blind to what it is doing to their children while they hustle to make it to and from work on time, make dinner and do it all over again.

Yes, there is an enormous mountain of "crap" on TV, on the large screen and on the radio. But there are ways to shield your children from these things without turning them into social outcasts because they don't have a pager, cell phone or own every rap CD by the age of 11.

We need to do a better job of raising our kids and not shirking those responsibilities because it is easier to let TV occupy them, or because we really believe it "takes a village to raise a child."

It doesn't take a village. It takes mature, attentive parents. The village is an excuse for lazy parents who need others to instill values in their children, or God forbid, correct them when they act up or out.

My job is to raise my 2 girls to be respectful, polite, secure, ambitious, carefree kids. Not let TV do it, or some stranger who doesn't have the values we share.

And if stories of kids hazing teammates, or sending naked pics via cell phones, or drug abuse aren't enough to wake you up as parents, then God bless your children, because they're doomed.

[Sandra Tresino]

It may be that parents have a final say in what their children ultimately watch but there is such a limited amount of quality television to choose from what choice do we really have except to throw out our televisions and computers.

When even the commercials are not appropriate what is a parent to do? I swear there are more commercials on TV for viagra then for cereal on TV today. Should I not allow my girls to watch football?

The problem came when we allowed advertisers to dictate what was shown on television and then repeated our mistake when we allowed them to monopolize the internet.

Pop-up advertising should be illegal and porn should be only available at sleazy bookstores in out of the way areas.

Advertisments should be limited to five or ten minutes before or after a program and not allowed at all on the internet. (On line stores that people access using their URL is not advertising as these people have requested to get to these store's websites.)

The media is creating a serious divide between parents and their children because it increases sales.

I think that if the over 70 crowd of "ladies" start dressing like the youngins with our muffin tops showing, stretch marks and all, showing off the tops of our granny panties wearing shorty shorts, abundance of makeup, half tops exposing lower mid-drift, speaking the language of our youngins we could solve this problem in a week or two. Problem is the elderly gentlemen would be having some heart attacks.