I don't know what's creepier, the fact that a 15-year-old is a sexual object in a national magazine or the fact that her father was there while the photos were being taken and didn't do anything.

stephen colbert for president.

I'm curious to know if she made those photographs with the idea that they wouldn't be published? Isn't it every girl's dream to be the object of men's desire? If the photographs were semi-tastful (I think they were), and they were going to be for art, why not let your daughter do them?

I don't think the photos are bad, they are arty, not pornographic.

I hate, HATE Anne Geddes pictures! They are on my top 10 pet peeve list!

I agree that they definitely weren't pornographic, and compared to Vanessa Hudgens and other teen stars photos that get leaked on the net (even miley's myspace ones) these were in really good taste. Plus the audience of Vanity Fair isn't 12 year old teeny boppers... so I'm going to have to go with it's up to the parents on this one.

I went and watched the video on vf's website of the shoot and saw some other photos from it and it seemed like a good clean fun family photo shoot.

From the report I heard of her comments (apologizing to fans) it sounds like she was a bit intimidated by Liebowitz--who wouldn't be?! -- and was reticent to speak up. I'm sure they worked up to this shot, it wasn't the first pose in the shoot. I would have thought her father would have said something, though. He seems like a dedicated and conscientious parent.

I don't think they were pornographic, but if I had a 15 year old daughter I wouldn't want her in a photograph like that. Her makeup is messy, her hair is messy and she is draped in a sheet with a bare back so she is at least topless. It is a very suggestive photograph.

Disney now claims that for the sheet pics, the parents weren't on the scene, but that her grandmother and tutor were. Neither would really have the authority to say. The pictures aren't pornographic, but no one could doubt that Miley's young fans would see them - of course they were going to make news and Vanity Fair is right at every checkout counter.
Really, why would Leibovitz, or any adult there, think it was appropriate to take pictures of a 15-year old girl wrapped in a sheet with disheveled hair and red lips? What image were they trying to create if not sex?
Even if 15-year old girls did dream of being the object of men's desire, they don't need adults pimping them out.

Disney now claims that for the sheet pics, the parents weren't on the scene, but that her grandmother and tutor were. Neither would really have the authority to say. The pictures aren't pornographic, but no one could doubt that Miley's young fans would see them - of course they were going to make news and Vanity Fair is right at every checkout counter.
Really, why would Leibovitz, or any adult there, think it was appropriate to take pictures of a 15-year old girl wrapped in a sheet with disheveled hair and red lips? What image were they trying to create if not sex?
Even if 15-year old girls did dream of being the object of men's desire, they don't need adults pimping them out.

Sorry about the double

I don't really think they are bad - they are arty, not FHM... she is 15 and that is an age that makes things difficult, she's not 11 and she's not 18, so it is hard in our society to figure out how to 'market' and brand her... without making her a Lohan. I think they've done a good job with her so far, since she's not being Britneyed into latex.

I don't see the photo as sexy - if it were an adult, say Keira Knightly, I still wouldn't see it as sexy... it is vulnerable and revealing, but not in a slutted up way.

ps - LOVE the Mapplethorpe drop-in... hilarious.

If Miley were posing in a bikini, which would show a lot more skin, would people be making a fuss? This picture looks like art to me. Why do we have to sexualize it? Does she have a come hither look, or Lolita red lipstick and knowing smile or is she posed like Kate Moss in so many of her old Calvin Kline ads? No,there's no need to put a sexual connotation on something just because she's nude.
Liebowitz hasn't done porn in the past I'm sure she's not about to start now.

For a society that has seen Britney's na na ... this is nothing.

It's artistic! Nothing is showing that they couldn't show on the Disney channel. I think it's a great photo by Annie.

raciccarone,
"a 15-year-old is a sexual object in a national magazine" ????

You can't be serious....

This way too much BS for nothing, the girl is covered and the photo shoot was about art, not porn!

The Washington Post did a great article about this whole sham of a controversy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR200804...

very enlightening!

RL, Are you telling me that a (presumably) naked girl, wrapped in a bed sheet isn't an attempt at sexual provocation? Now that's BS.

Colbert is genius. I don't think we should be upset about these photos. It's the nature of stardom. We would probably be surprised at how many lesser-known and even lesser-dressed models and actresses are 15 or younger! Plus, Disney has got to be on edge trying to avoid what Nickelodeon had to go through with the whole Jamie Lynn teen pregnancy.

I don't think the photos are all that bad, I think the issue is that so many of her fans are so young and its a bad image to project on them. If she didn't have such a young fan base I wouldn't think they were a big deal at all, but seeing that so many young kids look up to her, it probably wasn't the smartest move.

"blah blah blah" goes the media.

this same crap was brought up with Jodi Foster when she was 12 yrs old and took on the role of a hooker in "Taxi Driver."

then it was Brooke Shields doing a love scene when she was 13 in a movie and then provocatively posing for Calvin Klein jeans when she was 15.

and let's not forget our dear little Britney and her Rolling Stone cover when she was 17 acting like Lolita.

my point is that we always sexualize young women and encourage it but when some "moral" parents group has a problem with it, it causes a whole frenzy of controversy, the person gets a crapload of publicity and then it goes dormant for awhile. later, rinse, repeat.

of course Miley looks like a mix of Lolita and art but that just opens her up as she grows up, right? she can't continue to market to the tween set TOO much longer so she's gotta start taking steps to widening her audience. and of course, she's doing just that right now.

She projected an image of a fun kid, my little sisters are hooked and now she wants to throw this at them?

It's not okay. Parents should parent, but there is only so much they can do. If she wanted to be sexy she should have done sexy and my six year old sister would not be obsessed with her. But now it puts parents and kids who love her in a bad position and it's not right.

As for my personal opinion of the pics, I think its a little sick, making a 15 year old look like she just woke up after a hot night.

The message is important, I don't get people who say "you wear less at the beach" - when you are at the beach you aren't suggesting that b/c ur 15 yr old is in a swimsuit she is some sexual goddess, which these photos do. The sexuality is what is out of hand, not how much skin she is showing.

She could wearing a full on leather dominatrix body suit and a diamond thong and nipple charms on top - (sorry for the wonderful images) and she would be completely covered, but wouldn't we be opposed to a child wearing that? So it is not a issue of how much you are wearing, but an issue of what you are suggesting.

To me, Vanity Fair seems like such an inappropriate magazine for a "wholesome" 15 y.o. teen star to be in. Its intended audience is adult women; who exactly would Miley want to reach out to in this? Her fans are far too young for the magazine and Vanity Fair's readers too old to care about her beyond 'my 8 year old really likes her'.

I think her family and her managers completely failed to look at the bigger picture when dangled with an Annie Leibovitz shoot. The photos themselves are artful, but improper for Miley at this point in her career.

If you read the washington post article nica linked to, they talk about it as a career move to transition from being ms. teeny bopper to looking ahead to the future and making sure her name is know when she takes on newer and more adult projects. Which, to me, makes perfect p.r. sense.

Honestly when I heard this story I thought the pictures were going to be scandalous. I was shocked at how simple they were. I don't think it's a big deal. She looks like a kid, not a woman. They don't seem sexual to me. Of course I can understand how some people would be offended, but at the same time it's not Miley's responsibility to be a good influence to all the young girls of the world. How about something called PARENTS. I was into Madonna when I was young and sang like a virgin at the top of my lungs when I didn't even know what it meant. It was my parents that instilled my morals and values in me, not some popstar.

hello harmony! Talk about spot on!

yay, someone read the article! thanks Syako

i totally agreed with it...it sounds like such a PR stunt, it's not even funny. i'm sure there's some amount of embarrassment by the parents but then again, that "Achy Breaky" money went dry awhile ago and they need to continue to make their money so i'm sure they'll get over it!

Thanks Syako!

I just think it's all a bit silly - but I really do like the WP's point about it being a transition-type move, because she can't be Hannah Montana forever...

hannah montana foreva!

Notoriety Sells . . . Magazines.

This issue of Vanity Fair will probably be a sell out.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Who makes the money from this non-serious-event?

Vanity Fair.

Case Close.

I thought that she looked like the little girl in the Les Miserables poster! I think her vulnerablility made her look even more child like.

I have a little sister, and she'd be more upset about Miley in a micro-mini than in a sheet [which btw was more like a tube dress than a sheet]. Maybe my sister is the only little kid who appreciates art for art.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. I see 15 year old girls wearing less at the grocery store! It is just her back for crying out loud!I agree that parents should be parents and if they are offended they should discuss it with their children, but honestly, I think that the picture was pretty tasteful. As for the suggestiveness of the photo, I really don't see it, but some people do just have dirty minds. Overall I think the naked pics of Vanessa Hudgens were way worse! My 10 year old sister loves high school musical, and I would not want her to search for a pic of Vanessa on the internet and find those. Strangely enough, that got like three seconds of publicity, but this seems to be going on forever. It seems really wierd that nude back pics would cause more of a fuss than fully nude ones.

She will be in Playboy when she is 18. America is waiting!

Oh I love myself some Stephen.... makes everything just seem right doesnt he. even this thing somehow

Very funny! I definitely didn't think the VP shoot was that serious, especially the one with her father. You couldn't see anything and I thought it was cute too! Colbert is funny as hell, always makes an awkward situation funny.

for anyone who believes those photos of A 15 YEAR OLD GIRL could be looked at as 'art' in ANY way...consider all the PEDOPHILES that probably feel the same way. things like this becoming acceptable are not only sick, but quite sad. we need to protect our children. they should not be looked at as 'sex symbols'...ever.