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

By: laura

laura — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:18:14 +0000

I dont see the issue with it. Seriously pedos get off on pics of kids that are dressed just as well as ones naked they sit in parks and watch kids. I say its between her and her parents. if shes comfortable enough with her body i say all the power to her and id like that in somebody whos a role modle for my daughter. Theres nothing to be ashamed of. And to all you people preaching about jeasus ya’ll gotta go! seriously religion is all about controling people to believe the same shit. screw that! whatever happened to independent thinking?

By: hareer

hareer — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:21:42 +0000

noooooooooooo do you mean bad girlllllllllllllllllllllllll

By: David

David — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:11:13 +0000

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!

By: Shawn

Shawn — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:07:09 +0000

HELL YES! If thay think there sexy, then yes. Fresh tits and ass at eny age is great!

By: H. L. Arious

H. L. Arious — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:46:13 +0000

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.

By: Katter lopes

Katter lopes — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:18:42 +0000

a Miley Cyrus e muito bonita… Amo ela… quero muiito que ela venha para o Brasil para fazer um show… Amooo Muito ela…

By: Petra

Petra — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:22:16 +0000

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.

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:05:35 +0000

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.

By: DaveC

DaveC — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:24:19 +0000

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..)

By: Miss D.

Miss D. — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:01:00 +0000

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.