Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Prison, Bitch

Throughout the history of this site, I've poked quite a bit of fun at Miley Cyrus; the fact that she was a tween icon, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Disney Company and the daughter of quite possibly the world's biggest douchebag always made her ripe for ridicule. But it's time I went ahead and copped to something: As Miley's gotten a little older, there's just no denying that she's become surprisingly hot.

The smoky voice, the long legs, the metric ton of great hair piled on top of that teenage head -- I'd be lying if I didn't admit that she's damn attractive.

But I say this with the knowledge that she's still jailbait -- and there's a reason why jailbait is called jailbait.

Maybe that idiot Perez Hilton doesn't understand this -- or maybe he's just so used to having his worthless, oversized ass inexplicably kissed by the media and has come to believe that his reputation as a mischievous firebrand somehow renders him invincible -- but he's now facing a wall of downward-rolling shit over his tweeting of an uncensored upskirt shot of Miley Cyrus getting out of a car, sans panties. I'll leave the head-shaking over the fact that Miley would be stupid enough to wander out of the house commando in the Age of the Paparazzi to another time; the most entertaining facet of this story is that while all Miley did was open her legs at an inopportune moment, Perez, né Mario Lavandeira, may have opened himself up to potential criminal charges. Miley may seem like any other celebrity in line for Perez's brand of juvenile mockery, but, once again, she's only 17 -- which means that posting pictures of her vagina technically counts as child pornography.

Perez is already playing dumb -- which isn't much of a stretch for him -- by claiming that he assumed Miley was, in fact, wearing undies in the picture. But anyone who's ever watched Chris Hansen grill some poor slob on national television knows that ignorance isn't much of a defense.

So has Perez finally backed himself into a corner he can't snark or slap-fight his way out of -- and will he eventually wind up on the receiving end of a Sisters-style laundry room rape at Shawshank?

Unlikely. In fact, I'll bet that in the long run this will just tack another 15 minutes onto his magically regenerating fame clock, and I'll bet he knows this full well.

But it's nice to dream.


Anthony said...

I kinda have to believe his ignorance plea. Do you really think he knows what a vagina looks like?

Chez said...

Oh, snap.

Alvin Greene said...

Do you like football?

brite said...

The photos I saw show she was wearing white panties...not that it makes any difference because Perez Hilton is still an idiot douchebag for posting them.
And I kind of have to agree with Anthony, there...

Fungi said...

there's been a 17 old vagina shot out there and we haven't heard from Votar yet? shocking.

Tracer Bullet said...

Don't be stupid. Do you really think these girls flash vag on accident? Do really you think Miley Cyrus has had a single moment that wasn't calculated by her handlers since she 8 years-old? Perez Hilton is a dirtbag, but he saw Miley Cyrus' twat because she (and her creepy-ass father) saw a profit in it.

The Jaded Armchair Reviewer said...

His real name is "Lavandeira?" That means "laundry woman" in my country.

Anon said...

Chez, as much as I want to see Perez in jail, think about what would happen if that did come to pass.

He'd turn it into a media circus, like another Hilton did with her prison sentence. Do you really want that?

If we send him to jail, let's at least send him to Federal. He'll learn just how much the world cares naught for his dreck the hard way.

AlwaysSunnySomewhere said...

Attractive? Yeesch. Men are so easy and so easily duped. The hair is fake and anyone who has to scream in pretense of singing will indeed, end up with a "smoky" or more likely, scratchy voice. I find her unfortunate looking. She's not hideous but she's certainly not the ubiquitous "hot".

Aside from that superficial observation, I find it completely hypocritical, regardless of what that toad, Perez Hilton peddles, that anyone in the Cyrus camp get their non-existent panties in a bunch. This "child" of 17 uses her microphone stand like a stripper pole as well as other desperate gestures of sexuality and shock value.

The proverbial bar is getting lower. There's always the Lolita factor, to be sure. But today, it's all product, commercialized, patented crap. Miley Cyrus (not her real name by the way) is not a sensuous, sexy young woman. She's an over-produced, under-talented, chipmunk, who was pimped by her father long ago. Today's society is simply perpetuating it.

Anonymous said...

The law in this case is infuriating. On the level of logic -- Miley Cyrus is a 17 year old woman who could have children if she chose, who is old enough to join the military if she chooses, who would be tried as an adult if she committed a crime -- a pole dancer who was caught on video giving a 45 year old man a lap dance. If the picture of her twat is child porn, why isn't accepting a lap dance from her sexual abuse?

On a personal level -- I was molested for years, beginning when I was not much older than your daughter, Chez. The perpetrator there was a pedophile. All any guy who gets off on Miley Cyrus's hot body is, is straight. Calling a picture of her child porn minimizes what happened to me and what happens to so many young girls in America. It makes them equivalent in a way that is maddening and deeply, profoundly, horribly wrong.

Chez said...

First of all, Always, I said technically it's child porn -- as in, on the books. Obviously, Mylie Cyrus has made herself -- or allowed those around her to make her into -- a sex object for years.

Now, Anonymous -- I appreciate your outrage, but the wrongness of objectifying, say, pre-teen girls and the molestation of same isn't a zero-sum game. Both can be equally reprehensible.

Riles said...

Votar is in his bunk...

Deborah said...

I'm with "Always". I am a decidedly 40-something whose viewpoint can probably be construed as jealousy over this young woman's money, fame, success...YOUTH. But I've never really thought that she's all that attractive, and I definitely believe that she's so incredibly "managed" that there's virtually nothing accidental about anything connected with her!! I've Googled this "scandal", and while, admittedly, I've not seen everything that there is to see, what isn't out there - at least, as I say, not that I've yet seen - is anything resembling outrage from her parents. Are they being quiet about it intentionally, as in not dignifying it with a response? Or are they just sitting back and waiting for the results to play out their way? That sounds horrifically cynical, this case, maybe not. And, I could be dead wrong. They may be carefully formulating some sort of response, or maybe I've not yet seen it. Whatever the case may be, the whole Cyrus bunch seems incredibly creepy and the stuff that's preceded this latest "scandal" - all of those other pictures, the pole-dancing, etc. - don't exactly paint a portrait of an innocent naif whose being continually victimized. Having said all of that - Perez Hilton is the biggest idiot that ever existed. Microsoft Paint-ing semen on people that he doesn't like? Scrawling junior-high-style epithets over people's faces? You have to wonder who buys into this guy's nonsense enough to have made him anything resembling a celebrity in the FIRST place.

Anonymous said...

Okay, first of all, I totally agree that there's *no* way something like that could happen by accident. You do *not* forget your panties, at least, unless you're so coked up and trashed you don't even know which way is up anymore (Britney might get a pass here).

But here's the thing: what if you, as a seventeen year old girl who has had to deal with paparazzi for years, finally worked out that you could get *revenge* on them just by giving them what they think they want? I don't think it's beyond speculation that she did it on purpose to get them into trouble. Frankly, it's ingenious.

VOTAR said...

Hey man, leave me outta this.

Besides, I've seen better.

Ahcuah said...

How the heck did he get a picture of her vagina. Did he stick an endoscope up between her labia? Or do you mean vulva?

Regardless, the whole child pornography thing shows how ridiculous some laws are. A 17 1/2 year old and an 18 year old vulva looks pretty much the same. And we all pretty much know what they look like. You've seen one, you've seen them all (well, almost). Yes, there really is exploitation of young children for sex, and it really is disgusting, and child pornography really applies there, but the child pornography thing in this case is really just grandstanding.

I've always found it silly that something easily seen in public suddenly becomes a crime if you actually take a photograph of it.

Chez said...

Thanks, Captain Semantics.

Alanna said...

the whole thing makes me uncomfortable...for her. I mean what woman (girl?) really wants that flashed all over the internet. Especially up close + personal. I kinda think she's an interesting character - but do agree she was prepackaged for mass consumption.

And she still looks like Hannah Montana to me with those chipmunk cheeks.

L. said...

I've probably worn a skirt less than 10 times in the last two decades, but I still bet I could get out of a car in one without flashing my crotch to anyone who was looking.

I find it kind of hard to believe any of these chicks aren't doing it on purpose (unless they're really drunk at the time). Who really thinks someone goes, 'now I have this miniskirt on with no underwear and it's riding up, so clearly I should spread my legs as wide as possible as I'm getting out of the car'? Granted these girls are never exactly Rhodes Scholars, but still. It's not that hard.

Also I know she's young and there are certainly things I did at 17 that I'm lucky weren't captured on camera, but I kind of have a hard time feeling badly for her over this. This is the same girl who took all of those wet t shirt and semi nude pictures for a Jonas brother (side note: ha!) a few years ago and then turned around and whined that those Annie Leibovitz pictures exploited her. She only wants to be sexualized when she wants to be sexualized and the rest of the time how dare you take advantage of an innocent child.

Sheriff Bart said...

She's just vying for a spot on the Palin/Lohan cabinet.

Vermillion said...

Three things:

1) It is clear form the pics that she does have underwear on. Quite a few sites have pointed out that you can clearly see the outline of underwear. So unless she was wearing crotchless panties (which according to some of you, isn't too beyond her), this makes Perez Hilton an even bigger moron than before. This may also be the reason that nobody on her end are complaining: because she didn't do anything wrong.

2) According to the law, it doesn't matter if an image contains actual child porn or not. If the image is presented with the intent to be pornographic, that person is guilty of disseminating child porn. That is why "artbooks" and family photos with kids aren't typically considered porn; the intent isn't proven to be there. Perez (whether or not he knew about the underwear) ADVERTISED the picture as showing her jejuna, and that is considered to be of prurient intent. Why else would he be making a big deal about a 17-year-old showing her Herbert Hoover? That is why he is getting heat from the law. Everyone else, however, are only doing it because it is the cause du jour now.

3) Yay, ladies, you managed to exit a car and have nobody try to photograph your mwahahah. But have you done it while 20 or so paparazzi are constantly taking high speed pics with high-quality cameras, all of them intent on catching some shot of you as unflattering and sellable as possible? No? They why the hell are you comparing yourself to her then?

Yeesh, hey I get some of the Miley jokes. She really is a spoiled brat with speedy britches and little in the way of actual discipline or parental guidance. But come on now, people, give her a little credit. Just a smidge.

And yes, she has become quite attractive to me as well. Hey, nothing wrong with noticing, as long as it doesn't go too far.

Seriously, we really should have Warren Ellis adopt her before she gets legal. He has very interesting ideas on how to deal with folks like Perez.

Kel said...

Can we fire her from Disney for being too "hot"?..


Anonymous said...

I usually really enjoy your writing, and the intelligent discussions I find here. But this post and the comments are disgusting.

Regardless of her age, regardless of whether the shot was pornographic or not, taking an up-shot skirt of any woman without consent is wrong.

Sorry Chez, but there is no other answer. If this were Cher it wouldn't be considered child porn, if this were some unknown 18 year old going to her prom it would be less publicized, but unless the photographer had explicit permission it would still be wrong. The fact that the majority of Americans seem to feel entitled to treat any woman's body as nothing more than a sexual object is the same attitude that results in one in six of us being raped or sexually assaulted at some point in our lives.

You failed your audience (and potentially your daughter) today. And the responses are almost all revolting. Wearing a skirt in public, even a short one, does not give anyone the right to take a photo up it.

What if this picture were of a teenage boy who had on those baggy running shorts and his penis happened to be peaking out? Would that be acceptable to publish?

Yeah, I thought not. Double standards and treating women of all ages like sex objects or property in any way condones sexual harassment, assault, rape, and spousal abuse, among other things. It sends the message loud and clear: "It's OK to commit these acts of violence." After all, it's mostly women who get hurt, and as long as men behave this way it'll continue.

Chez said...

Uh, I don't seem to remember saying anywhere that I approve of the upskirt photo, alumiere -- or any of that ilk, for that matter.

Although the connection between a naughty picture and rape -- often made but tenuous at best -- is a hell of a leap.

Besides, I think it's safe to say that neither me nor anyone else is sexually objectifying Miley Cyrus more than she is herself.

Anonymous said...

First, I wanted to apologize if I mis-understood your intention here.

What I'm seeing is a post that says "she's jailbait" and PH shouldn't have posted the pic. And that it's technically child porn.

But that's where I think you first lost me. There is no technically about it.

And some of the comments blame Miley or her family for this, because she chose to wear a skirt (gasp) or like most teens today she looks hot or she'll be 18 in 6 months so who cares. Fail part two is not calling people on these attitudes.

Because it's not a far leap from a non-consensual picture to rape. That's part of the culture we live in, and if we want to stop rape and sexual violence we need to address the small stuff as well as the rapists.

This study gives some of the attitude I'm describing:

And some other good links are ("Rape culture is pretending that non-physical sexual assaults, like peeping tomming, is totally unrelated to brutal and physical sexual assaults, rather than viewing them on a continuum of sexual assault.")

And Miley and her family may not be speaking up about this because of rape culture - if she does, she'll be called a bitch or crazy or overreacting. It's part of the double standard we currently live with, and Inara is going to live in unless we do something to stop it.

Chez said...

Sorry, but you can't change the world. You can, however, affect one person. The best I can do is try to raise my daughter correctly -- make her smart and savvy -- and that's what I plan to do.

People are always going to objectify beautiful women. There's just no way around that. And there will always be those women/girls who exploit that for their own gain. Once again, the best thing to do is try to make sure your own daughter doesn't become one of them.