Can you tell me, because I really don't get it.
How is this picture any different from say, this?
or this?
or this?
Um. Or this?
Can anyone tell me how the first photo is really any different than any of the following? They show the same amount of skin (actually, the Vanity Fair picture shows less skin.) Is it her wet hair? No, that can't be it, because she has wet hair in the bikini picture. (which really shows far more skin than the VF photo) And really, who cares if she has on a bikini, right? if I had her body, your damn-tootin' I'd be sportin' a bikini. Year around.
Some mothers are outraged by the example the VF picture presents to their daughters. I don't understand this line of thinking at all. Have a little faith in the way you're raising your children. Haven't you taught them the difference between real world and TV world? Don't they understand that 'Hannah Montana' is a character and not a real person is there to entertain NOT set an example? Don't the parents understand that Miley Cyrus is a teenage girl who isn't perfect? Who isn't going to be perfect? And in the grand scheme of things, that beautiful photo taken by Annie Leibowitz is really not a big damn deal? Especially since her parents were there the entire time and approved of the photo?
Am I wrong in this line of thinking? So what if the pictures were provocative? They aren't any more provocative than the other pictures where she's vamping it up in high heels, plunging necklines and backless dresses. As a parent, I am offended by these uber-nazi-moms who say that these teen celebrities need to be 'appropriate role models' for their audience. Whatever. The celebrity's job is to entertain. My job as a parent is to make sure my kids know the difference between reality and TV-land. Celebrities should not be shouldering my job. They should just entertain and then be able to live their life, however they choose. And if that means posing for Annie Leibowitz, then so be it.
What do you think? Am I out of my mind?
