My first exposure to the phenomenon that is Hannah Montana came when my wife and I went to Typhoon Lagoon (a Disney World waterpark) and saw most of the little girls wearing these shirts with “I love Hannah Montana”, “Hannah Montana rocks”, etc. Having not exposed myself to the Disney channel since I was in grade school, I had no idea who the heck this Montana person was. Now, however, you cannot turn your head without running into Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana’s alter ego): American Idol, movies, and on and on.

This morning, the blogosphere is awash with news of Cyrus’ recent photo shoot with one of photography’s heavyweights – the great Annie Leibovitz herself – for Vanity Fair. The photo in question features the 15-year old Miss Mont… I mean Miss Cyrus wrapped in a sheet exposing her back with her face turned to the camera in a “come hither” stare. Parents, Disney officials, and watchdog groups are up in arms that little innocent Hanna… I mean Miley could pose topless for a magazine. Cyrus originally seemed proud of the pictures, calling them “not skanky” but has since recanted saying “I feel so embarassed”.

I think that the photo is inappropriate, but not for the reasons other people do. Rachel Hulin at Shoot! the Blog has a post about Sally Mann’s diptych Jessie at 12 [NSFW]. While these photos show actual nudity (and I’m not totally comfortable with them), they are not as overtly sexual in nature as the Miley Cyrus photo. While Cyrus only shows her back, her face is overly made up and has an expression of sexual anticipation that exists totally separate from her state of undress.

You may or may not have a problem with the photo itself. However, if you do have a problem with it, it is important that you realize WHY. I think it is debatable whether there is any actual “toplessness”; however, there surely is sexuality. Picture Miss Cyrus fully clothed with the same pose and expression and you will notice that the “feel” of the photo isn’t much different.

Too often, we try to define our morality by a set of rules that we can easily enumerate and understand. However, I don’t think that works in this case. Why do people have a problem with the picture? Is it her back? Or the sheet? Or the wet hair? Or the turn of her head at an x degree angle? I think that the answer is yes and no to all of those questions. In another context, the back might not be a problem. Not all pictures with sheets are sexual. Should we avoid pictures with wet hair? Alone, none of these set off alarms. It is the context in which these elements are combined that we should consider. This is not an endorsement of relativism, but rather a call to deeply understand your standards and why a picture, movie, song, etc. may or may not violate them.

via FOXNews.com

Tags: HannahMontana, Miley Cyrus, Vanity Fair, standards, relativism, sexuality