Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic The Miley Cyrus Scandal Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post PinkLotus Posted at 10:50 pm on May 5, 2008 http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/ miley_slideshow200806? printable=true¤tPage=all I went on the search for said pictures. I mean no father would let their 15 year old daughter take nude photos. So, here is the truth... go ahead and look. BTW, I hate her music. But I hate for people's names to be dragged in the dirt.

Replies nikki Posted at 1:26 am on May 7, 2008 Quote: from katiecat at 2:25 am on May 7, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 4:16 pm on May 6, 2008 Quote: from katiecat at 10:48 pm on May 6, 2008     People need to not freak out so much about nudity - it's natural.    It's not even nudity, that's the point. You can see her back. How is that wrong? Exactly. But it's the fact that she is nude UNDER the sheet - or at least topless. And of course, since we always associate nudity and sex, it's a SCANDAL.   It's so idiotic. Exactly, I agree with you. It's stupid. And her having to apologise is the stupidest thing ever seeing as she agreed to do it in the first place. katiecat Posted at 6:25 pm on May 6, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 4:16 pm on May 6, 2008 Quote: from katiecat at 10:48 pm on May 6, 2008  People need to not freak out so much about nudity - it's natural. It's not even nudity, that's the point. You can see her back. How is that wrong? Exactly. But it's the fact that she is nude UNDER the sheet - or at least topless. And of course, since we always associate nudity and sex, it's a SCANDAL. It's so idiotic. nikki Posted at 4:16 pm on May 6, 2008 Quote: from katiecat at 10:48 pm on May 6, 2008 People need to not freak out so much about nudity - it's natural. It's not even nudity, that's the point. You can see her back. How is that wrong? slive Posted at 4:08 pm on May 6, 2008 This should be no scandal. Our society is so goddamn prude here in a America, it is disgusting. There is a huge difference between showing a bit of skin and sex. Our society would be better off if people would just loosen up a tad and realize the beauty of nudity. Who cares if she is 15? The photos aren't suggestive or that sexy. The are just beautiful. katiecat Posted at 2:48 pm on May 6, 2008 It's because everybody has such a problem with it. The fact that Disney is making her apologize is idiotic. It's obvious that she wasn't manipulated - she did it for art. People need to not freak out so much about nudity - it's natural. the raven Posted at 12:21 am on May 6, 2008 People should focus more on the fact that the girl agreed to do this, and then when people started complaining, she turned around and said she was manipulated. Even the idiots at Disney claim she was manipulated. As if she's some god damn toddler. It's publicity, but all it is doing is making her look a fool. PinkLotus Posted at 12:01 am on May 6, 2008 http://www.americanreadingforum.org/02_yearbook/html/06_Dowhower_final_files/image027.jpg I thought this was a beautiful painting I wanted to share. PinkLotus Posted at 11:57 pm on May 5, 2008 ^^^Do you think the one with the link may be it? katiecat Posted at 11:56 pm on May 5, 2008 Well, paleness was very common in the Victorian era. There's probably some painting from that time period - I think I may know what you mean. PinkLotus Posted at 11:54 pm on May 5, 2008 http://www.antiquehelper.com/auctionimages/2052t.jpg Maybe? PinkLotus Posted at 11:51 pm on May 5, 2008 lol, I think I know what you are talking about. I have it in my head... but its soo flipping vague!!!! ARGH.... google here I come. dreamweaver Posted at 11:49 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from PinkLotus at 2:46 am on May 6, 2008 I don't like how she is pale white, like she is dying. As far as the photo, I think she had a wonderful pose. for the life of me, I can't help but think of another painting/artist did that this is rather very similar to. Vermeer makes sense but I can't help but think of another artist Leibovitz was imitating as well. This will bother me for awhile... lol. PinkLotus Posted at 11:46 pm on May 5, 2008 I don't like how she is pale white, like she is dying. As far as the photo, I think she had a wonderful pose. katiecat Posted at 11:45 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from dreamweaver at 11:39 pm on May 5, 2008 Apparently all this was done in the name of fashion. *shrugs* I'm an artist but fashion was never my thing. Sometimes I don't even understand what goes through some of these fashion designer's heads. Leibovitz said that the portrait had been misinterpreted: "Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it. The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful."  Linky: Times Online Article Same. Fashion is weird. I do like the shot though - she looks very nice. It's just the odd coloring that I'm not really a fan of. But I guess that's what they were going for. dreamweaver Posted at 11:39 pm on May 5, 2008 Apparently all this was done in the name of fashion. *shrugs* I'm an artist but fashion was never my thing. Sometimes I don't even understand what goes through some of these fashion designer's heads. Leibovitz said that the portrait had been misinterpreted: "Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it. The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful." Linky: Times Online Article Most recent 15 of 39 previous replies displayed.