Miley and Billy Ray, sitting in a tree...

I shall make a clear disclaimer before I proceed. I have not really watched any of the television shows that I may mention, and have only seen Miley Cyrus in limited interviews and such. I do not fall into the demographic of what her fan base is. What I shall say may be offensive to some, but is purely opinion, not fact.

The photos surrounding this blog show the bucktoothed teenage sensation Miley Cyrus. Don't know her? Perhaps the name Billy Ray Cyrus rings a bell. If not, then Acky-Breaky-Heart and the mullet of the 90s should ring some bells (look left). Well, as everyone seems to know, Billy Ray has a bucktoothed singing teenage superstar of a daughter, star of the Disney hit show Hannah Montana.

Now there has been much controversy over several things with Miley, but most famously has been the photo shoot with legendary photographer Annie Leibovitz. What I found so interesting was that there was such a hubbub about a 15-year-old with a sheet wrapped around what seems to be her tiny bony frame, and yet hardly any mention of what I would call a controversial photo. Of course I understand where the cries of concern come from regarding the "topless-sheet" photograph, but enough has been said about that. Let's check out the one with her father (look below). Now, how many girls would you see posing in their father's groin. EWWWWW!!!!!!!!!

Not I'm not suggesting anything incestuous (a la 60 minutes' father daughter couple from Adelaide style) but I see this as a highly sexualized photograph. Perhaps I am looking too far, but I find that if such a cry is made over the first picture, then why ignore the sexualized second picture. It's also interesting that the Billy Ray/Miley picture has not been as criticized. For some reason the media went with the scoop that they went with. Adding to the controversy and pandemonium was the Cyrus family claiming to be unaware that they were conscious during the photo shoot. They were not happy with the results. This prompted several questions such as "Well, why did you let the photo be taken?"

Regardless, I find neither offensive. But plenty did, and especially Disney. Can't be overtly sexual at Disney, which many applaud as affirmative action in regards to positive female role models. But what was the point of these photographs, I wonder. Was it Leibovitz's intention to be overtly sexual (at least with the first picture, the second is just a dirty mystery to me) or to show something else, perhaps the opposite; innocence, or a conundrum or paradox of both? I do not know, and by suggesting what is sexual or non sexual really just gets into the philosophical debate over what art is and the whole "art is in the eye of the beholder" and "it's all relative" arguments.

However, let's just closely look at the Billy Ray/Miley photo, and ask most daughters and most fathers if they would be keen to reenact this photo. I can imagine the answer.