Politics and Culture

The picture in question.

My daughter loves Miley Cyrus and I'm happy she does: Cyrus and her Disney Channel (and station) mates make the best quality, most decent comedy television and pop music today.

Cyrus is also a gust of fresh air compared to the destructive Spears, Lohan, et. al. She makes a point of being a Christian in what must be a very faith-challenging business.

About the Vanity Fair picture controversy:

I'm glad that Cyrus is concerned about her image. She could have downplayed her responsibility to my daughter, but didn't.

When I first heard about the picture controversy, I didn't think that it was too much of a big deal. Yes, she's under age and, as a high school teacher, I know the last message girls need is: "be sexier," but the pictures weren't in the nude; How much worse could they be than Brooke Shields' Calvin Klein ad from the eighties?

One of my fondest teenage memories.

Then, I saw the first picture above and thought about the issue some more. The photo does seem racy for a 15 year old. Acting or looking "sexy" (as opposed to "cute") is meant to attract a certain type of attention- namely "sexual attention." What other purpose could there be? Comfort? A 15 year old girl shouldn't encourage men to think of her that way (same for married women and women who want a certain kind of relationship). After all, Miley's not available for that activity, right?

Plus: Shields and Madonna shortly thereafter have to take some of the blame for modern teenage girls' immodest dress and aggressive sexual mores (Check out MySpace.). If you don't think Shields and Madonna encouraged such conduct (No, I didn't complain at the time.) and fostered the social problems associated with them, then you're saying that advertising doesn't affect behavior and companies spend billions of dollars on it for nothing.