why miley?

So I can't wrap my head around the controversy surrounding this picture.

Taken by the diva of photography herself, Annie Liebowitz, this portrait of teen pop culture queen Miley Cyrus has stirred up a lot of mixed feelings. Some say the photos of a 15-year-old with a bare back are to revealing, others say the "come hither" look in her eyes is not age-appropriate.

Who can decide what her eyes are saying? In my opinion, Liebowitz did what any great photographer does, and chose the photo where her subject's eyes were most intense. Just because her eyes are flashing, we do not know what she is thinking. Why, when a young girl has a brazen look on her face, do we automatically assume she is making love to the camera?

I know we've seen had some bad examples set by Britney et al, but in the case of Miley, it seems like people are projecting a precocious sexuality onto her. Not every young starlet is a ticking time bomb, waiting to explode into a drunken (or drugged out) nymphette.

She is a young, vibrant girl whose career is soaring. She is having her photo taken by one of the world's greatest photographers. Her eyes are probably shining because she's having fun.

In the Vanity Fair article that this photo accompanied, Miley shrugged off inquiries as to whether she was nervous about exposing "so much skin." When asked if she was uncomfortable she said, “No, I mean I had a big blanket on. And I thought, This looks pretty, and really natural. I think it’s really artsy.”

Now that the issue has hit shelves, and the photo has been widely criticized, Miley is reportedly ashamed. Her official statement states:
"I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," she said in the statement. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about."

It appears she has been shamed out of her former excitement about the image. After all, nothing about the image has changed since it met her and her family's initial approval during the shoot. The only thing that has changed is how she has been made to feel about herself.

I wonder: the look in her eyes aside, is showing her back setting a bad example for her fans? Did Liebowitz take advantage of her innocence?

According to an article in the New York Times, Disney believes so. A spokesperson blamed Vanity Fair, saying that "a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines."

Let's not insult Miley's intelligence. At fifteen, girls are pretty self-aware. In the photo, she knowingly clutches the sheet to cover herself. She is no longer a child with nothing to hide; what she covers is her blossoming sexuality. A sexuality that—were Disney to have it their way—would stay under wraps for as long as possible, so that they could continue profiting from her squeaky-clean image.

As the NYT article notes, Portfolio magazine recently quoted president of entertainment for Disney Channel Worldwide, Gary Marsh saying, “For Miley Cyrus to be a ‘good girl’ is now a business decision for her. Parents have invested in her a godliness. If she violates that trust, she won’t get it back.”

Miley's handlers seem more concerned about losing the "godliness" of their meal ticket than about helping Miley deal with her own self image. In this sense, it seems to me that Disney is just as guilty of manipulating her as Liebowitz might be.

I look at the photo from a photographer's standpoint and I think it is artsy rather than sleazy (though more corpsey than sexy). I look at it, furthermore, from a female's standpoint. Would I feel embarrassed of a similar photo at age 15? No, I would be proud of my youthful beauty...until, of course, someone reprimanded me.

If it were in some indie publication by a lesser-known photographer instead of VF by the photographer, would it have been so contested? Did the context of its publication dictate the nature and volume of the reaction? Or, is it simply so scintillating that it would have elicited shock regardless?

I'm not sure. Poor Miley, the latest victim of America's culture war.

women: arm yourselves

I find it interesting that the rhetoric accompanying abstinence-only educational and cultural phenomena endlessly discusses the need to protect women, and places the onus on women to protect themselves, while very rarely discussing the responsibility of men to remain pure, or at least to be sexually responsible. Abstinence-only educational efforts are predominantly aimed towards white, female adolescents. In addition to the educational curricula aimed at these girls, various cultural and commercial ventures are emerging to shepherd these girls along the straight and narrow. Advocates for chastity, in efforts to make abstinence appealing, are now telling young girls they have the power to choose freedom: to be free to choose abstinence despite living in an increasingly sexual culture. As author and journalist Judith Levine has pointed out, by using a word so strongly valued in U.S. society, “the idea of freedom, soaring like an aria over the ostinato of sexual peril, was a stroke of marketing brilliance.”

While abstinence is presented as a choice, it is also institutionalized as growing numbers of young girls are invited to the most recent trend in conservative sexuality: the purity pledge. Events and organizations that have young girls pledging their purity—which aim to make abstinence cool by pushing “chastity chic”—are quickly becoming the Christian Right’s main complement to abstinence-only education . The first major organization to popularize an abstinence-only-before-marriage pledge was True Love Waits. Founded in 1993 in Nashville Tennessee by youth minister Richard Ross, True Love Waits encourages youth to take a vow of premarital abstinence that reads: “Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate and my future children to be sexually abstinent from this day, until the day I enter a Biblical marriage relationship.”

Canadian writer and journalist Elizabeth Abbott notes the organization teaches that True Love is a God-given phenomenon that “attacks heterosexual couples,” and firmly asserts that “love intra-gender is neither true nor sacred.” It sanctions sex only after the couple has made its union permanent in a Biblically inspired ceremony. Although True Love waits is aimed at adolescents of both genders, all of the paraphernalia (such as dainty jewelry) is aimed towards young girls. Ladies, get yerselves some perty jewels to remind you to stay pure.

More explicitly designed to preserve the chastity of female adolescents are purity balls. Especially popular among evangelical Christians, purity balls also ask young girls to contractually pledge their purity until marriage. These balls, which are attended by daughters and their fathers, also incorporate fatherly protection into the vows. While the daughter lays a white rose in front of a cross, the father signs his own contract which says:

"I (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide, and pray over my daughter and my family as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come”

The creator of contemporary purity balls, Randy Wilson, explains that he identified a dearth in U.S. culture of sites for father-daughter relationships to flourish, and that the purity vow relationship established by the ball’s ceremony “allows the daughter to become a stronger person in her culture as she is bombarded with all the sexual images that are out there” (as quoted in the AFP). With the slogan “Because we cherish our daughters as regal princesses,” these balls function as a father-daughter prom where, after the pledge is completed, dads and daughters dance the night away in tuxedos and gowns . An article in Glamour reports that Wilson began the night by asking fathers “Are you ready to war for your daughters’ purity?” By using the rhetoric of warfare, Wilson’s statement reveals the ideological intent of the ball. With over 1400 balls in 2006, and double that expected in 2007, purity balls are growing as a site where fathers join the war to preserve their daughters’ chastity, and socially conservative sexual ideology at large. Given that those who take pledges break them 88% of the time (according to a study by Columbia University), accurate information about contraception should still be taught. Remember girls, it's up to us to protect ourselves, lest we end up like this. I am by no means against the promotion of abstinence, but I believe it constitutes a denial of human rights to teach misinformation about sexual health.

You can view some sample abstinence-only t-shirts (and some joke ones) here.

My friend Jessica referred me to a link about anti-rape condoms. Critics have called this device, which protects women against rapists by sinking plastic teeth into the man's member, "medieval". In the frequently asked questions section of the product's website, the question "Why must the responsibility shift to the woman?" is answered with:"Simply because your body is sacred and it is your legal and moral right to be safe. Nobody can make you safe except you. You do not have to secure your home, equally you do not have to secure your body, however it is better if you do so!"

Why is there so much pressure put on women and girls to prevent rape and consensual sex, and almost no focus the promotion of male sexual responsibility? Does anyone else see a problem with this?