Miley Cyrus - what the heck happened?

[SapphireSteel]

Clinton might like to become a male stripper, but is that reasonable given his previous role? The end of the contract doesn't mean that the responsibility vanishes. Some roles are for life.

Are you serious?

Miley is not President, she's an entertainer.

Do you think she should remain in character as a 12 year old, forever?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Back to matters of more pressing importance, this man has been released from the shackles that bound ...

Thank god!

 

[Charlie09]

I thought their performance was lewd, embarrassing and desperate as well. But I'm mystified about all of the pearl clutching. If children saw this either as it was broadcast, or on TV outlets afterwards, magazines, twitter, instagram, tumblr, whatever........that's on "YOU" parents! My child knows nothing of this performance, because I do not watch adult themed programming (and yes, MTV has been adult themed for at least a decade now) around him, nor do I watch network news, cable news or FGS even listen to pop radio around him. It's MY responsibility to shield him from age inappropriate material. Why do people have cable news or news programs on when there are young children around? Why would a child have unfettered access to smart phones, computers, television etc? Because somewhere, a parent isn't taking care to monitor and supervise them while they are accessing these devices. I'm also always flabbergasted here when I read about forum members talking about their very small children being aware of the murdered and missing children discussed on this site. Really people???? My niece is a huge "BELIEBER", and is in the 4th grade, yet knows NOTHING about his offstage, and recently, onstage antics. Why? Because her parents monitor her exposure to media. It's not easy, but neither is being a parent. Are we really going to blame MTV, Miley Cyrus, Robin Thicke etc, for our own failings as parents? I look at her and shake my head and believe their display to have been pathetic and sad, but that's where it stops. Because I know that whatever went on on that stage that night has nothing, whatsoever, and will never have anything to do with my child.

I agree, it was funny we never have MTV on here (I'm pretty sure it's blocked, as is Disney, Nick and the Cartoon network) So it surprised me when my daughter asked if she could record it. She hasn't seen it except for what has been on the news.

I don't expect performers to necessarily be role models, I do expect them (and am usually disappointed) to have some responsibility to and for their celebrity.

She got a lot of talk about her, I doubt that it will translate to sales for her new album. Talk is cheap, just like her act.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I had to wonder about what all lead to this performance. My mind wondered to the horrid stories I've read about how many pedophiles are in Hollywood that prey on child actors. It probably has nothing to do with it.

I have to admit, I don't watch these things and I don't watch much tv at all. I do know young people will emulate what celebrities do. They like to dress like them, act like them, wish they were famous.... I don't like this at all. We can try all we want to shelter our children from this but it is literally impossible the older they get. Should we shame celebrities into setting good examples through their entertainment? I think we should. There really is no other way other than to speak out against it and stop spending money on it.

There is nothing cool or sexy about what she did. It was degrading. This kind of stuff certainly hurts the message we are trying to send about women being treated as human beings and not objects. Expressing ones sexuality has nothing to do with stripping to make it look like you are naked, twerking a old married man, rubbing your genitals on stage while girating your nasty coated tongue around and dancing with drugged pedo bears.

Thanks Miley and others, for making a "choice" to set a great example for your fans!

I think it's important to watch exactly this type of crap with your Tweens...to point and laugh. ( shame or whatever you want to call it) and discuss it thoroughly and why it's completely and totally unacceptable.

 

[revampz]

Some posters on the page prior mention things like Elvis gyrated, the kids loved it etc....

We have lots and lots and lots of celebrities prancing around in small outfits, dancing sexily etc and the kids are very used to it and must love it.

HOWEVER this was something else, for people saying the "kids will love it" please read some other pages on the internet, start with her own facebook page where there are 100 negative to say 1 positive post about her performance, most by kids and teens and the early twenties.

It is not only the adults bagging it, the kids/teens did not like it either.

This is a publicity stunt (or trying to show she's all grown up now) gone wrong.

And the reason no one likes it: it was so damn unattractive........the hand, the bears, the sleazy old coot, the hair, facial expressions and most of all the tongue! The music was pretty lame as well.

I mentioned before that guys are not finding this attractive, and a few posts came back with, well who cares its not all about them, she is a sexual being and its ok to show she likes sex etc , well girls are not finding this attractive, entertaining or an expression of sexual freedom either.

The problem isn't that she got up there and expressed herself freely

The problem is no one wants to see it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I thought their performance was lewd, embarrassing and desperate as well. But I'm mystified about all of the pearl clutching. If children saw this either as it was broadcast, or on TV outlets afterwards, magazines, twitter, instagram, tumblr, whatever........that's on "YOU" parents! My child knows nothing of this performance, because I do not watch adult themed programming (and yes, MTV has been adult themed for at least a decade now) around him, nor do I watch network news, cable news or FGS even listen to pop radio around him. It's MY responsibility to shield him from age inappropriate material. Why do people have cable news or news programs on when there are young children around? Why would a child have unfettered access to smart phones, computers, television etc? Because somewhere, a parent isn't taking care to monitor and supervise them while they are accessing these devices. I'm also always flabbergasted here when I read about forum members talking about their very small children being aware of the murdered and missing children discussed on this site. Really people???? My niece is a huge "BELIEBER", and is in the 4th grade, yet knows NOTHING about his offstage, and recently, onstage antics. Why? Because her parents monitor her exposure to media. It's not easy, but neither is being a parent. Are we really going to blame MTV, Miley Cyrus, Robin Thicke etc, for our own failings as parents? I look at her and shake my head and believe their display to have been pathetic and sad, but that's where it stops. Because I know that whatever went on on that stage that night has nothing, whatsoever, and will never have anything to do with my child.

Just curious, how old is your child? Does your child go to school? Have friends? The day is fast approaching that you will no longer be able to shield and filter what your child is exposed to. Unless you consider locking them in their room a real option.

I feel after about age 9-10 it's doing a child a great disservice by not allowing them full access to the information and the guidance of a healthy framework provided by a parent in which to view it.

Pretending the outside world doesn't exist and protecting them from everything outside their little protective bubble isn't realistic, healthy nor does it teach a child anything about how to function in the real world. I would much rather deal with the tough issues now, while I still have their ear, than wait until their friends expose them to it, without the benefit of parental guidance and input.

 

[ArianeEmory]

The problem with the "everyone hated it including the kids" argument is...

http://top40-charts.com/chart.php?cid=27

 

[Gardenlady]

Back to matters of more pressing importance, this man has been released from the shackles that bound ...

Thank god!

Oh come on now lol. Seriously? This smacks of "eeeevilll she-devil sinks claws into poor unsuspecting menz!" nonsense! Old stereotypes and tropes of manipulative, sneaky woman corrupting poor innocent men. Blah.

I've no doubt he was enjoying his own twerking with Miley for a long time.

 

[doubt]

Can we please stop with this? I am not an old woman nor am I conservative. I'm a liberal feminist from a huge family of professional entertainers on both sides -Flamenco dancers, singers and guitarists on one side, classical, jazz, Middle Eastern and punk musicians and dancers (belly dancing) on the other.

I grew up in the metal and punk scene. I've been to more underground shows than you can imagine. I got blood and wine spurted on me at Crash Worship shows, watched Marion do sex acts on herself at shows with the Insaints, I love drag shows, and my brother was good friends with Rancid and Green Day, Offspring, and Link 80, back in the day.

My parents were intellectual hippies from Europe and our home on Christams as a child was filled with artists, musicians, poets and performers, drinking, pot smoke and naked hippies sleeping under the piano which caused my brothers and I to giggle the next morning when we found them.

I favor museums, music of any kind, protests and politics. I have seen art shows so sacriligious it would make your head spin.

So can we stop with these generalizations and accusations of shaming? shaming is about shaming a woman for enjoying her sexuality. Miley writhes around with dead or angry eyes. There is no enjoyment on her part.

My criticism has zero to do with Puritanism. It has to do with the fact that Miley's act was vulgarity with absolutely nothing else. It was debasing to her and all women.

So please stop.

OT.....but i want to come to your house for christmas!!!

 

[Gardenlady]

She calls herself a dissident feminists and I think calls out much of what is wrong with current politically correct feminism.

I appreciated her critique I posted earlier and calling the performance as she and many saw it ..lewd and quite frankly, a horribly tasteless performance.

You did see that she criticizes Cyrus, and other pop stars like her, for being too cold and robotic (my paraphrase), and not erotic *enough*, right?

I find it kind of odd you would be so supportive of Paglia. She is definitely NOT anti-sex, or anti- sexual expression. she is extremely sex positive. Of late she writes a lot about how sterile and unsexy and 50ish "artists" like Taylor Swift (whose wholesomeness she positively bemoans) and Katy Perry.

 

[Gardenlady]

I'm not sure how that sad face smiley keeps ending up on top of my posts lol. I'm not sad! I will chalk it up to my clumsy fingers on the iPad keyboard!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I'm not sure how that sad face smiley keeps ending up on top of my posts lol. I'm not sad! I will chalk it up to my clumsy fingers on the iPad keyboard!

At the reply page, it says that you can choose an icon for your post. Yours is probably set for the face.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Some posters on the page prior mention things like Elvis gyrated, the kids loved it etc....

We have lots and lots and lots of celebrities prancing around in small outfits, dancing sexily etc and the kids are very used to it and must love it.

HOWEVER this was something else, for people saying the "kids will love it" please read some other pages on the internet, start with her own facebook page where there are 100 negative to say 1 positive post about her performance, most by kids and teens and the early twenties.

It is not only the adults bagging it, the kids/teens did not like it either.

This is a publicity stunt (or trying to show she's all grown up now) gone wrong.

And the reason no one likes it: it was so damn unattractive........the hand, the bears, the sleazy old coot, the hair, facial expressions and most of all the tongue! The music was pretty lame as well.

I mentioned before that guys are not finding this attractive, and a few posts came back with, well who cares its not all about them, she is a sexual being and its ok to show she likes sex etc , well girls are not finding this attractive, entertaining or an expression of sexual freedom either.

The problem isn't that she got up there and expressed herself freely

The problem is no one wants to see it.

The kids who liked it aren't posting complaints about it, they're too busy buying latex underwear.

As far as "publicity wont get her money" well yes it will.

America honours the famous. The more famous you are, the higher your potential earning capacity.

Don't believe me? Check out Back Door Farrah and Tan Mom...famous for absolutely nothing and doing quite well out of it thank you very much.

Everytime Miley gets a click online that's another $1. Currently nearly everyone in the US is clicking on her twitter, how many folks in the States again? Several hundred million?

All the other celebrities are out copying her, getting cropped hair and twerking for their lives.

Reason? It's not that they want to be Miley, it's that they want her fame and the resulting $.

I think she's fresh, sexy, cheeky, naughty, talented and slightly cuckoo.

I don't want my daughter to copy her, she won't anyway, I didn't bring up kids who cant think for themselves.

The parents of the kids who "don't like it" only have themselves to blame for allowing the kids to watch.

:moo:

 

[Karmady]

The problem with the "everyone hated it including the kids" argument is...

http://top40-charts.com/chart.php?cid=27

I'm sure not all kids hated it. And I'm not sure "hated" is the right word for the kids who didn't think it was cool. I have a dd in Miley's "audience" age group. She showed me her most recent video when it first came out and was like "wow, can you believe this?" She watched the VMA's, too. When Blurred Lines was on the radio the next day it reminded her of Miley's performance and she was like "omg, mom, it was soooo rude and gross." She thinks Miley is probably headed for rehab or has gone off the deep end for some reason a la Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, etc. So, I would say she saw it for how inappropriate is was, but watched it like a train wreck. She also likes the song -- probably because it's catchy AND inappropriate. Not liking some of the behavior of a particular artist doesn't mean kids (or adults for that matter) won't still consume it. For better or worse. jmo

 

[kdblaisdell]

I have a dd in Miley's "audience" age group. She showed me her most recent video when it first came out and was like "wow, can you believe this?"

Yep, that was my daughter's reaction, too. She thought it was funny in a train wreck sort of way--the VMA performance, too.

I do have to admit that Blurred Lines is so catchy that I like it (hangs head in shame and stands in corner).

 

[squish]

You did see that she criticizes Cyrus, and other pop stars like her, for being too cold and robotic (my paraphrase), and not erotic *enough*, right?

I find it kind of odd you would be so supportive of Paglia. She is definitely NOT anti-sex, or anti- sexual expression. she is extremely sex positive. Of late she writes a lot about how sterile and unsexy and 50ish "artists" like Taylor Swift (whose wholesomeness she positively bemoans) and Katy Perry.

So now feminists are saying women MUST be overtly sexual? There's NOTHING sex-positive about this modern form of repressing and controlling women - the pendulum has swung completely to the other side. Now female celebrities (and by proxy the young girls who idolise fame) MUST publicly express their sexuality, or else be sneered at and decried as prudish, prissy, child-like, sterile, blah blah. What's wrong with Taylor being "wholesome"? Why does she have to justify her artistic choices, unlike sexual performers like Beyonce and Rihanna?

By the way I loathe professional feminists, writers and journalists who get treated like their opinion sets the agenda for all women. Their opinions are no more important than the viewpoints of anybody else. It's just that they are given the platform to be heard.

 

[SapphireSteel]

This is a storm in a teacup.

There's much, much more important things to worry about than a scantily clad pop star performing a risqué dance routine on a stage somewhere.

Like world hunger, for instance.

 

[ArianeEmory]

(For what it's worth, gardenlady is not the one who originally invoked Camille Paglia on this thread. I think some irony is probably being missed here.)

 

[Gardenlady]

So now feminists are saying women MUST be overtly sexual? There's NOTHING sex-positive about this modern form of repressing and controlling women - the pendulum has swung completely to the other side. Now female celebrities (and by proxy the young girls who idolise fame) MUST publicly express their sexuality, or else be sneered at and decried as prudish, prissy, child-like, sterile, blah blah. What's wrong with Taylor being "wholesome"? Why does she have to justify her artistic choices, unlike sexual performers like Beyonce and Rihanna?

By the way I loathe professional feminists, writers and journalists who get treated like their opinion sets the agenda for all women. Their opinions are no more important than the viewpoints of anybody else. It's just that they are given the platform to be heard.

Uhm, yeah. I think like AE pointed out, you missed that it wasn't me who brought up Paglia. I just found it strange that a poster engaging in shaming language over something sexual would invoke the words of an extremely sex-positive critic.

Edit to add - you also must have missed, or not been aware, that Paglia is definitely NOT representative of feminism. By her own admission.

You can ask Paglia why she thinks Taylor being wholesome is a problem. Incidentally, I agree that Taylor's faux-wholesomeness is problematic, but that's off topic.

Btw thanks for sharing your loathing of feminists. I was feeling too much love lol. :lol:

 

[Charlie09]

You did see that she criticizes Cyrus, and other pop stars like her, for being too cold and robotic (my paraphrase), and not erotic *enough*, right?

I find it kind of odd you would be so supportive of Paglia. She is definitely NOT anti-sex, or anti- sexual expression. she is extremely sex positive. Of late she writes a lot about how sterile and unsexy and 50ish "artists" like Taylor Swift (whose wholesomeness she positively bemoans) and Katy Perry.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: nice jab
and yes, that is quite a paraphrase