Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair Picture: Should 15 Year Olds Be Posing for Nude Magazine Photos?

April 28th, 2008 by Cowboy

A media frenzy has erupted over the forthcoming Miley Cyrus Picture in Vanity Fair that portrays her nude. So the big question is this: should 15 year old girls even be portraying themselves nude in magazines.

Before you react, and call this an innocuous event because she’s “not really nude” - think about how the US Government reacted to steroid use in the Major Leagues. They cracked down on it. Why? Because baseball players are role models for the country’s youth and the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

So, what do we make of the number 1 role model for teens and adolescent girls in the United States setting a precedent by posing topless? Good, bad, indifferent? Let us know in the comments.

What's Hot at PopCrunch?

49 Comments, add yours

49 Responses to “Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair Picture: Should 15 Year Olds Be Posing for Nude Magazine Photos?”

On April 28th 2008, jack wrote:

what the #&*@! Under 18 girls posing nude used to be illegal, even if they didn’t reveal themselves. Hugh Hefner knows that from the 1960s. And who said Miley Cyrus wasn’t going to be the next screwed up young female performer, going down a path that Disney girls all seem to go?
On April 28th 2008, Violent Acres wrote:

I’d hit it!
On April 28th 2008, faith wrote:

UGH. She’s just so… UGH.
I think that she shouldn’t be the role model… but then again… who’s left? I’ll tell ya. Good girls like Amanda Bynes and America Ferrara (sp?) who DESERVE the title.

They didn’t know what Hollywood was like at 4 and 5… like Miley.

She’s just living through her fathers dreams. It’s that simple.

As far as Disney’s comment to the whole thing. Disney is unprofessional and they must be distroyed. They come to the aid of EVERY star of their’s and make what they did seem holy.

Posing nude—is not holy. That goes to Vanessa Hudgens and Miley.

Oh, and one more thing— what Miley said about being embarassed, to me, if considered an insult to Annie Lebovitz- the photographer.
You don’t do something and then apologize for it—just to save your own ass. That’s not what Jesus would do, now is it?
On April 28th 2008, Nigel H wrote:

You are a clown. I suggest you consult your nearest grownup for explanations of the words topless, nude and overstatement.
On April 28th 2008, RSHuck wrote:

Professional photographer or her own cell phone pictures, she’s getting naked and showing her ass to world one way or the other. She’s a whroed-out teenager, just like every other teenage girl in America these days. I feel very lucky that I don’t have kids.
On April 28th 2008, user at Michigan wrote:

This is the exact sort of thing that lands many in prison. I can’t believe a publisher thinks this is a good idea.
On April 28th 2008, anon wrote:

as long as she isn’t forced into anything i done’t see the problem. i think she looks pretty
On April 28th 2008, Quetzalcoatl wrote:

Wow, what a non-issue to devote space to.
On April 28th 2008, Chad wrote:

The U.S. is constantly sending mixed messages to its youth and adult populations. If a man had this photo stored on his computer hard drive, the police would arrest him, throw him in jail for many years, and label him as a sex offender for life. But if it’s on the cover of a reputable magazine then it is innocent.

The U.S. is becoming polarized in the extreme and its citizens are getting caught in the middle.
On April 28th 2008, TheElectricMonk wrote:

the only objection i have is that she isnt actually nude
brb, FBI
On April 28th 2008, iul wrote:

who cares, seriously. What’s the big fuss about it?
On April 28th 2008, Jack wrote:

Only if they’re hot.
On April 28th 2008, frank wrote:

She’s a harlot jezabel!@ May the spirit of jesus christ save this poor girl’s soul from the fires of hell!
On April 28th 2008, lols wrote:

I saw your comments on role models and laughed, because there was something about “Beauty” below it involving a woman with large fake breasts. Very well done, sirs.
On April 28th 2008, Castina wrote:

This would be a very beautiful shot if Miley were 18 or older, but she’s a 15 year old kid, which makes this photograph eye candy for pedos. I’m sure R. Kelly is just loving this.

There are perverts lurking around every corner….this was a bad move. Will it hurt her professionally? I don’t know, but it’ll very likely tarnish her image-an image that’s a big part of her career. Hopefully this will be a lesson to us all about discouraging our children from latching on to strangers as “role models.”

I say Billy Ray and Tish Cyrus, Vanity Fair, and Miley herself need to take a look at their values system for this to have been deemed “okay” in the first place. I also don’t get why Disney keeps on defending her. She’s a kid, but she’s old enough to make wiser decisions than the ones we’ve seen lately. The company needs to start holding her accountable for her actions.
On April 28th 2008, TerrorInt wrote:

Fap fap fap.
On April 28th 2008, bill shatner wrote:

Kids should not pose nude. Arrests should be made. Fines should be paid. Then, lets stop focusing on sex issues and drug issues, and start focusing on issues that can save lives.. like ending wars…
On April 28th 2008, Erik wrote:

I think that this is ridiculous I mean for one reason she is only 15! Other than that she is setting a bad example for all the kids that walk by and see her in the store. I would not want my daughter wishing she could be Hannah Montanna and then seeing that in the store! Doesn’t she claim to be a Christian? Way to represent that!
On April 28th 2008, kaokie wrote:

NO! Where are her parents and what are they thinking? Laws were passed to prevent the abuse of children in the workplace, this is exploitation of children and should not be allowed, could it not be interpreted as child pornography, because that is what it is, with or without permission of the child or the child’s guardians. Please don’t try to pass it off as ‘art’ - it isn’t, it is just another blatant display of disrespect for females, this just happens to be an underage female allowing herself to be displayed for monetary purposes. If she hasn’t any better judgement than this, she needs a legal guardian. Anyone and everyone responsible for this disgrace should be be held legally accountable and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for promoting child pornography.
On April 28th 2008, Cody wrote:

She’s still only 15? Huh, I thought she was older. At any rate, I don’t really see that much wrong with it. She could do a lot more harm with clothes on, to be honest. This is artful, at least.
On April 28th 2008, wow wrote:

this is stupid. there are so many more important things to worry about. we should be ashamed as a country and as a society that this is “important” when things like war, economic collapse and food shortages are around.
On April 28th 2008, L wrote:

Kids are going to be whacking off to this picture for years. “OH HANNAH MONTANA!!!!”
On April 28th 2008, Prude Mom wrote:

This is about nothing. She has her bare back exposed. Big deal. How does this compare to innocent teens possibly channel surfing on TV past the obscenities of the 24-hour news?
On April 28th 2008, Chris wrote:

No, girls this young shouldn’t be posing nude for magazines, but neither should our Congress intervene like it did with baseball - it shouldn’t had done anything there either.
On April 28th 2008, Ben wrote:

“the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens.” Thats what the soviets said. look how well that turned out for them. The only legitimate purpose the government has is protecting the rights of its citizens. This is an incredibly important linguistic distinction that few people make.

I see nothing wrong with her posing “nude.” She wants to (and since shes a minor her parents are ok with it) go right ahead. maybe if there was actual nudity you may have a case against it.
On April 28th 2008, HairSplitter wrote:

If we use legality as the standard for which we judge things, we might very well say it’s innocuous: another reason the US govt cares is using steroids is illegal. What she’s doing here isn’t illegal. The US govt’s job is to care about illegal stuff. If you’re upset, write congress.
On April 28th 2008, Dose wrote:

Umm, how about embrace it as a concept of freedom, as a gateway to teach children that shame is an evil force, that they should love their bodies and get over this puritanical petty garbage that overwhelms the US..
On April 28th 2008, jenna-b wrote:

put yo top back on you animal
On April 28th 2008, Bill wrote:

Way to destroy the image you created that made you nearly a billion dollars. Way to go dad for allowing her to do it. Way to promote teen nudity. Some over zealous prosecutor will probably look at that for child porn charges.

And worst of all, it’s a terribly unattractive picture. “Art” or not, you’ve taken a beautiful young woman and made her ugly.
On April 28th 2008, Bob wrote:

Apparently Molly and her Achey Breaky Heart father didn’t realize that all of those young kids who come to see her don’ t have money. They get to go because mom and dad pay for them to see her. Mom and Dad are not going to be happy to see photos of a nude teen in vanity fair. Especially not that god awful portrait that if you photoshopped some bruises onto it, would look as if it was a poster for child abuse. The makeup artist should be fired, as should the person who approved it.
On April 28th 2008, Tarla wrote:

I think it’s a beautiful photo and that she should be honored to have an artist like Leibovitz using her instead of cowtowing to the religious right and pretending that she didn’t know what was going on. It’s a silly distraction and not newsworthy.
On April 29th 2008, Rob wrote:

How is that being topless? By this logic, every picture of a woman ever taken be banned because every woman is, technically, topless under her clothes. What a prude, sexually immature nation this is.
On April 29th 2008, Jennifer wrote:

I beleive this has just been blown out of porportion. I am a model and have done nudes, not at 15, at 19, but it makes the same principle. The thing is she is doing what we call in the industry, implied nude. Implied, not an actual nude. Now if you are going to say that this picture will cause thousand of young girls out there to get nude and take their picture then we have a lot more to worry about than some just implied nude photograph. This is art, which is exactly what everyone should see it as. Why look at it as just a peice of flesh? As long as laws are followed (nudes only for 18 and above) I don’t see what the problem with implied is. My sister is 10, and she likes Hannah Montana and I know if she was this all she would say would be “wow, she looks different. Kinda scary” Not “Oh now I want to be just like her and take my clothes off and take a picture”

Even that thing with Britney Spears’s sister. My sister doesn’t think it is okay to get pregnant now that she knows she is. I think something is really wrong with everything if we blame all this stupid stuff on people that are in the media. Its how we are raised shows us what is right and what is wrong. But then if someone doesn’t listen to their parents they are doing it because there is too much violence in games or something stupid. I think it is time to start seperating the media from home life. Media is something that entertains us when we are bored, not give us life lessons and that is why America is going down the crapper. Noone wants to actually be the parental figure anymore, they just want their kids to go sit and watch tv or go play by themselves. How are they supposed to learn from that?
On April 29th 2008, miley cyrus hater wrote:

Shes 15 what the heck. She is always talking about how she is such a good person and a good role model. She most defenitley ruined that after the pictures. I quess she just finally realized how bad her singing is and how ugly she is so she had to do something to keep her famous!!!!!
On April 29th 2008, billy wrote:

Wait.. this is what all of the ruckus is over
wow i wouldnt even call this a nude pic
On April 29th 2008, PoopCrunch Manager wrote:

Hey, I think she’s hot
On April 29th 2008, Robert wrote:

There are thousands of snaps like that taken every year on beaches round the world wit or without Annie showing how it should look
On April 30th 2008, me wrote:

this is ridiculous america is over sexed anyway she look straving in the pic 1 st off and then she look like the girl in th4 ring. the fact that they have given a 15 yr the permission 2 do goes 2 show how Effed up the whole industry is , the only reasons theres any controversy is cos he started on disney which needs 2 destroed 4 real theyre no longer providn entertainemt 4 kids it jus a machine 4 turning out new beitneyesque singers.
On May 3rd 2008, shaniah wrote:

This is a artsy picture of miley
but at least she has a shirt on ..
duh…..its not topless
On May 28th 2008, chidi wrote:

Mily can u just turn around abit?, get a better view
On June 4th 2008, Massie wrote:

Wanna know something?
”Yeah”
SHE’S NOT FREAKIN NUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go ahead cuss my ass out I dont givva @#!$!
On June 11th 2008, Miss D. wrote:

Ok, I’m not sure what the definition of “NUDE” is. I don’t see nearly as much as I’d see on the beach or in a halter top dress. I think the dirty old minds of the dirty old men and women who are making such a fuss are the problem. Not the girl who is very well covered, posing for an artistic shot by one of the nations top photographers.

DIRTY is in the eye of the beholder. Wash your eyes out, folks.
On July 20th 2008, DaveC wrote:

ARE U KIDDING ME..

1) She is not nude, She did not POSE nude, and thier are no pics of her nude. (Unlike Vanessa H.)

2) That picture should be considered ART.. It’s the retarded sentiment of some small groups of people that this is pornography. So maybe those people need to take a long look at themselves to see if they are perverted and need counciling. If thats the only thought in thier head.

3) I have seen a HELL of alot worse at the local playground. I have a 5yr old daughter. And I tend to dress her conservitavely but trendy. No half shirts, and short skirts. I don’t need creepy ppl oogleing my daughter thank you. But even I consider this ART, not pornography.

Ok serriously folks, take a look at the picture, and I mean, REALLY look at it. The color, the depth, and such. Then take it all in, and see it for what it really was, ART.. Granted she is young.. But she is not naked, that would be ART in any other country.

For crying out loud, all you see is her back.. I agree with half the posters.. This is a very respected photographer, and she didn’t Have to do it. I would think her parents would have been a little mad if they thought she was in any way being take advantage of.

Thier is more allmost nudity and bare flesh just walking down the street. Girls her age and younger, being let out of the house with very little on, because it’s TRENDY..

Seriously people, grow up.. and find something else to bitch at.. and leave Miley alone.. (she starts posing for pics for playboy, ok then, you can bitch..)
On July 23rd 2008, Rich wrote:

The uproar concerning this picture is an outrage. you’d see just as much if not more, if she wore a strapless dress, good god. How can this be portrayed as nudity. The people calling for attention to be focused on more demanding issues are absolutely correct. Parents have a duty to subject their children to people they feel are appropriate, and if they feel Miley Cyrus is inappropriate, they can quite easily keep their children from viewing her. That would be a risk Miley knew she’d be taking when she did the shoot. However, to go to such extent, through a girl showing her back, and her arm, that would be in my opinion, pathetic.
On August 21st 2008, Petra wrote:

Miley Cyrus is perfectly within her own right to show her back, I have no idea why this is considered ‘nude.’ She has trousers on and is covered by the sheet.
This is a beautiful picture and the government has blown it out of all proportion. Girls aged 18, seem to be allowed to pose totally nude for lad’s magazines. 3 years difference and it only being a back and arm?
Stupid.
On September 10th 2008, Katter lopes wrote:

a Miley Cyrus e muito bonita… Amo ela… quero muiito que ela venha para o Brasil para fazer um show… Amooo Muito ela…
On November 17th 2008, H. L. Arious wrote:

I don’t really see how this is a big moral issue to so many people. I mean, it implies nudity, but it’s only exposing her arm and back. I don’t see it as sexy at all really. I would clissify it more as beautiful and artistic. Reminds me of a painting actually. (I’m sure that was the intention.) I’ve seen many “sexier” pictures of young girls on the red carpet with plunging necklines. Too bad she didn’t wait until after she finishes starring in Hannah Montana to have these taken. I think if she waited two or three more years and had been out from under Disney’s thumb, this would be considered a great photo of a young starlet.

Although, I do think all those ones of her in her underwear that are all over the internet do fall into the category of sexy. Those are the more concerning photographs really, and those were taken by Miley Cyrus herself.
On January 30th 2009, Shawn wrote:

HELL YES! If thay think there sexy, then yes. Fresh tits and ass at eny age is great!
On April 19th 2009, David wrote:

Miley is a great role model.
This is NOT a topless picture and does NOT degrade her in any way. She’s a really good girl!