Semi topless underage pics by Vanity Fair

[Alex_B]

You see a five-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and no-one cares.
You see a twenty-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and you admire her.
You see an eighty-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and you wish she'd put some clothes on.
But if a fourteen-year-old takes her top off then everyone starts worrying that it's a criminal offense.
You humans are strange.

Well said!

 

[LaFoto]

In Europe and Asia this would bother no one.

This is what I was thinking.
I mean: what does she reveal? Nothing at all. Why the craze?
(Yes, I guess all those who say it is yet another promotion trick being pulled by the Disney Corporation are right).

 

[Garbz]

I am personally sick of people crying foul every time someone is seen without a shirt or what not. Some people say it's a fine line. I personally don't think it is at all.

If an image is designed to impose an erotic response in the viewer it is porn. If not it is art. To photography her fully nude in that position is not porn. To photograph her fully nude from the front is not porn if it is done right. But photograph someone with legs spread, or clearly aroused (erect nipples or other appendages) that THAT is porn in my eyes.

The over conservative people are setting art back many years. They should take a walk through an art gallery one day and find out just how many nude women and children are featured in classic portraits.

I vote the original article as the biggest non issue the news has published all year. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to get back to reading about the lost puppies and rescued kittens in my local tabloid.

 

[usayit]

Well said!

Yes well said.... But here is the difference (or perhaps its just me... background, environment, and culture)

Young toddlers running around in bathing suits are not suggesting anything in regards to "sex" sells.... they don't have fans that revere them.

Young adolescents running around in bathing suits are also not suggesting anything. They are not in the spotlight in those bathing suits. They are not in the context of increasing their popularity, fame, and bank account.

This young "superstar" in those pictures is being featured in a magazine. She is in a different context than those running around on the beach.

It is not the amount of skin that does bother me a bit... It is the context of which the pictures are being done. I think it is very easy for a young immature mind to infer that sexuality sells IS the TOOL for getting anywhere in life... why? .. hey it worked for Britney and now Miley. My young niece, who is a big fan of Miley, is going through a tough adjustment period at this time... things like this will just add to the complication. The good news is that she doesn't read Vanity Fair.

Now if these photos appeared in a fine art book, I wouldn't give it a second thought... it is a nice photo. BUT.. you'd be fooling yourself into believing that those photos to be printed in Vanity Fair were done for the sake of photographic Art. They were done for sales and $$$.

 

[usayit]

If an image is designed to impose an erotic response in the viewer it is porn.

Here is where I also don't agree. I don't find an image designed to impose an erotic response in the viewer as porn. A nude woman in a sexy pose doesn't invoke that response in you??? What is the difference of a nude Miley not showing anything (like in that photo) and a young teen being depicted in sexual intercourse with everything covered?? If you put that same photo in a spread on a young teen porn magazine, I bet you all would have a problem with it.

For me.. it is not all about the photo or the amount of skin... it is a combination of various things including the context of which the photo is being published.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I think the image has no sexual overtone. It does not even suggest a willingness to drop the blanket, nor a defensiveness. If anything, it suggests an innocence of young love, the way a boy might see his girlfriend. Of course, if you believe two 15 - 16 year olds should not be having sex, that is a cultural issue. I certainly was not opposed to it when I was having first true love sex at that age. I think it is a beautiful image. I think this situation truly speaks more about the beholder than the subject.


I love the colors, the washed out desaturated light, coupled with her soft face makes me think of Dutch master paintings.

 

[Alex_B]

Young toddlers running around in bathing suits are not suggesting anything in regards to "sex" sells.... they don't have fans that revere them.

I am afraid there are "fans" of that ... but I agree that it is people with mental problems, but they exist. I was rather shocked myself when I first learned so.

photographic Art. They were done for sales and $$$.

i agree here ... in that sense everything that is done for sales is porn anyway in a way. If it is well made in an artsy respect, but done for $$$, then it is prostitution of fine arts ...

 

[Hertz van Rental]

But here is the difference (or perhaps its just me... background, environment, and culture).....This young "superstar" in those pictures is being featured in a magazine. She is in a different context than those running around on the beach.

And what sort of magazine is it?
Tits And Bums Weekly?
No, it's for Vanity Fair - an up-market fashion magazine.
All in all a somewhat better context than the beach, I think. So any sexual connotations can only be in the mind of the viewer

 

[Mystwalker]

I'm assuming there was consent - pretty sure there was if it's for Vanity Fair.

If anyone is to be flogged it should be the parent/s for consenting.

Lastly, what the heck is Vanity Fair thinking? Are they trying to increase teenage boys who subscribe?

 

[Alex_B]

well, models are about her age ...
maybe one up to 4 years older only.

but i won't open that can of worms now

 

[Big Mike]

I am fascinated by the fact that there are people in America who are professional alarmists about this kind of thing. In Europe and Asia this would bother no one.

Amen.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

It's even more intriguing that a Nation that gets all worked up about a teen baring a bit of flesh finds this OK.
Personally, I know which one I find the more unacceptable.

 

[Antarctican]

^^^ So true*.

Given the fact at least one parent was present, the reputation of the photographer, the fact the pose does not reveal any naughty bits and isn't (overtly) exploitive, it's all a tempest in a teapot IMHO.



*I found the sidebar at that site hilarious: "Mail In Beauty Pageant
Win a Guaranteed State Title. Enter now to win this Beautiful Crown and Monogram Banner!"

 

[Heck]

I guess the plan is to strike while the iron is hot. Make her look older and get a few movie roles before shes turns into a has been at the old age of 18 lol. Looking at the photo now It's not so bad but I see no good reason other than selling sex with a 15 year old. There's a million ways to shoot beautiful photos of her and not go for the sexy porn look. I say they all guilty of greed.

 

[usayit]

No, it's for Vanity Fair - an up-market fashion magazine.

and what is so freakin fashionable about nudes? I don't see a blanket a fashionable item unless we are now talking about togas.

This isn't about a celebration of youth, beauty, and innocence, it is about sex sells and a celebration of how well it sells. This is about exploiting (the photo and model) to further a career, sales, marketing, and cover.

Again... I think the photo is wonderful and worthy of being framed on a gallery wall. It is the context and how it is being used.



Put a Camel cigarette's logo on the bottom corner and make posters.....