By Christopher Wilde
This photo was taken for Vanity Fair by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz. It has created an enormous controversy as the young Cyrus is only fifteen, already claims to regret the photograph, and had her parents on set when they were taken.
It's hard to understand why this picture was taken. No surprise that it's Vanity fair that's what they do, but why would Cyrus, her family, or any of her handlers think this is good idea? She's at the top of her career this isn't the kind of notoriety that's going to benefit her. Nor is she at an age where she want's to transform into a sexy vixen.
What I'm not hearing is the flap that the photographer would suffer if it had been a man. Should there be any less flap given Annie Leibovitz's sexuality? Don't think this argument is about sexuality it's about lecherous equality. The photographer has already been accused of "manipulating" the teenager, but the motivation seems to be profit not a personal desire to get the girl out of her clothes.
Honestly, if the photographer had been a man he'd already been hung out to dry.
UPDATE: Isn't one of the classic ways a pedophile ensnares a child by showing them other pictures of pornography as a means of suggesting to the child that what they are going to do is acceptable?
Annie Leibovitz in defending her actions with Miley says, "Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it."
If you liked this article you might also like: Creepy Dairy Queen
1 comment:
Dear God you are jaded! I feel your attitude is out of line!! The line linking the photographer to pedophiles is like saying that because I don't like matzo wafers I must be a Nazi. Get a life and get off of your pedestal! By your own implied accusation that the photographer could have ulterior motives, one could argue that by reprinting the picture in question that you are propagating child pornography!!
Post a Comment