A Disney spokeswoman, Patti McTeague, faulted Vanity Fair for the photo. "Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," she said.
This statement irks me beyond reason. Of course Vanity Fair manipulates in order to sell magazines, in much the same way that Disney manipulates children to sell (and hell, to buy) shit.
I think the image is whatever. I think the tempest in the teapot about it is a result of Disney being pissed that they aren't controlling her image as well as they would like.
a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines
As opposed to putting her on the cover of Disney magazine, which is a totally spontaneous event with no adult or corporate intervention at all.
@@ forever.
What Kat said.
I honestly think it's a lovely picture. And chances are she would show that much back in a dress on a red carpet anyway. It's a lot less provocative, to me, than Brooke saying nothing comes between her and her Calvins.
Thanks, amych. This is going to be very temporary as I'm taking the laptop in today.
On NPR, the reporter was talking about the response of the 10-15 year old set on some social network site. The reporter mentioned how they felt betrayed by the falls from grace that Lindsay and Britney took. And I kept thinking? What? How? They were into them when they were 5? That's ridiculous.
chances are she would show that much back in a dress on a red carpet anyway
IMO, there's more to the photo than just the amount of skin, though. Wearing a strapless evening gown does not (necessarily) carry with it the context of "you could totally hit this" the way the vaseline-on-the-lens bedhead sex kitten pose does.
And hell:
how many people let their 15 year olds, or their 12 year olds, wear makeup?
Wasn't it here where we were talking about the mani-pedi-facial parties at salons and spas for the under 10 set?
Sigh. People are irksome.
Yeah, I get that. I just ... It's a picture. A gorgeous one. And yes, she's fifteen, but I didn't get a huge sexual vibe from it. Maybe it's just me, but it just seems like a big uproar over not much.
Britney's a perfect example of how micromanaging your product's morality is a dodgy business at best. I guess people bought into the lie about her virginity, and it started to mean something to them, where I just think the public should back off the sexuality of a minor, since it's not theirs to consume, however ripe it is. The idea of Miley having sex bothers me much less than the idea of people making money off her sexual image.
Me hating you?
Hey, the weather's cooled off. So I don't I'll wear the vintage lace/linen dress I'd originally picked out. I'll find a pair of pants and a short-sleeved top instead. Maybe I'll wear makeup. I don't feel very femme these days. Even jewellry.
I found this which seems to be the end-all of the Curtis topless kerfuffle, and really? People cared? Don't get me wrong--I think she looks majorly hot, but why is that a big deal? There's no scandal there!
Seriously -- if you look that good at 50, show it off!
In other not-topless news: I am home sick with a cold. I have a porcupine in my throat. I feel like my head is stuffed with dirty socks. And I am not topless.
