Should we ban "back pornography?"

From the Community…

• 
  Posted by Sally Thu May 22, 2008 9:13am PDT

  I am sorry but that girl looks like she is doing a hunger add. She needs to eat something quick. I do think that that photo is a little risque but she is not my child. If it were my kid then she would not have come out of the dressing room, but if her father approves who are we to tell a parent how to raise their child.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by CK Thu May 22, 2008 9:15am PDT

  The Miley Cyrus photo is not about an exposed back. The picture paints an image about an underage girl in a sexual situation. Miley was too young to understand this until it was pointed out to her, but the photographer knew what she was doing. The picture was about sex. In Europe it might not be a big deal, but they also allow consent in several European countries at the age of 13. In the US where most of the country has an age of consent of 18, the Miley pictures should be looked on as taking advantage of an underage girl.

  On the topic of this not being a big issue in Europe, once again I will point out that the age of consent is often much younger in European countries than it is here. Many other sexual activities are more lienent in Europe than in the US. Personally, I would rather have Europe raise the age of consent and not be as lienent on other sexual practices, because these usually hurt women more than free them.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Zijuzijazijana Thu May 22, 2008 9:38am PDT

  It's not about nudity,it's about her age.Picture is sexy and it's leading into one thing only ,to show more on next one.I think she has plenty of time to take everything off and show what she is pleased to but at the time when she will be old enough.I used to strip for living and there was a lot of problem with underage women like her posing for older and even coming up with fake ID's and than everyone else would be guilty but not them "sweet and innocent angels" who they were not.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by lilly T Thu May 22, 2008 10:07am PDT

  ARE U SERIOUS I MEAN REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!! PEOPLE JUST WANNA DISH ITS A BACK NOTHING MAJOR GUYS SHOW THERE BACK ALL THE TIME SO WHY SHOULD A GURL GOTTA COVER UP I MEAN SHES COVERING HER WOMENLY JEWELS SO WHY ARE PEOPLE BEING SO CONTROVERSIAL

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Tia Thu May 22, 2008 10:08am PDT

  Just like Diana (first comment) I grew up in Europe and I simply can not understand how it's OK for my kids to see beheaded corpses and killings on TV (news, not movies) while a bare back (or bottoms or breasts) are something people complain about and are appalled by. I would let my son and daughters see naked body in the picture or TV over masacared one anytime. Miley's photo is beautiful!

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by RetroMom Thu May 22, 2008 10:08am PDT

  I think the point is being missed: Regardless of a 15 year old's fame and notoriety, she is still 15!!! I don't care where you are from or what religion you subscribe to, but as a parent I find it reprehensible that this photo was taken and published with out explicit consent from a minor's parent or guardian. Her parents or handlers should not have left a minor on a photo shoot alone, but they should have also been given final say on what was published.

  Why is it that rules of common decency don't apply to the famous or should I say infamous? And since when has Common Sense found itself on the endangered species list?

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Thu May 22, 2008 10:08am PDT

  What is the big deal. Everyone needs to just get over themselves.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Janiac Thu May 22, 2008 10:15am PDT

  What we should ban is stupid questions.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Chris and Talia Thu May 22, 2008 10:20am PDT

  I like Miley Cyrus and think that she does a good job as role model for the younger kids watching her. I think the real problem is that we have these celebs under a microscope 24 hours a day and they're bound to get caught making a mistake once or twice. Backs are backs, not a big deal.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Dr. Jerrod Thu May 22, 2008 11:07am PDT

  Showing the bare "back" is not pornographic ! Not in females, nor males ! Not the head, neck, arms, legs, feet. or hands. A "pose" with all the clothes on 'can' be sexy, and perhaps pornographic, but I would vote for sexy. Total nudity is not necessarily sexy or pornographic. It depends on the person, a pose, and his or her intention. Relax, it's only the epidermis we are talking about. Not intercourse !

  Dr. Jerrod

  Report Abuse