I met Ruthie Kelly at WAM 2008; she’s the opinion editor of the San Diego State Daily Aztec and a rising feminist voice. I haven’t had much to say about the whole Miley Cyrus photo controversy, and I’m glad I haven’t, as Ruthie has gone ahead and said much of it for me, and said it better. Ruthie writes:
…like the other pop teen queens who came before her, Cyrus was sexualized long ago. That isn’t the real problem. The upsetting part is that her sexuality used to be innocent because she was sending signals with miniskirts and makeup but didn’t really understand what those signs meant. The symbols are meant to be understood by adults who aren’t part of her actual fan base. Her appeal lay in her inexperience - her powerlessness. Her appearance has always been suggestive, but she wouldn’t really know what to do in a sexual situation, so it was a type of make-believe.
But Cyrus is 15 years old now and is starting to grow up. She’s beginning to take control and embrace her sexuality, and use it the way she wants to, as opposed to the way she was directed. Being sexual on any level seems so monumental, new and powerful at age 15. But just when she matures to the point of wanting to embrace and explore that side of herself is when she becomes the most dangerous because then she is the one who takes control.
It’s an interesting point. Though I worry that Ruthie may be overselling Cyrus’ own sexual agency just a tad, I think she’s making a powerful and important point. Part of the discomfort we have with the Miley Cyrus images lies in our recognition that we’re dealing with a young woman who is very publicly asserting her sexuality. Whatever the designs of the photographers in Vanity Fair (or of those who leaked Cyrus’ private pics onto the ‘net), it’s clear from her meteoric rise that Miley (also known as “Hannah Montana”) is a remarkably driven, poised, and thoughtful young woman. And yes, she’s still fifteen.
So many of our feelings about girls like Miley are tied to our fears about the sexual response these photos will engender. And those fears usually trump all other possible reactions. Our anxieties about predatory older men are not unfounded or irrational, nor are we wrong to be frustrated with a culture that sexualizes the very young but condemns women over 35 to virtual invisibility. But the solution to the very real problem of older men hitting on teen girls is not to cover up those girls. The answer to the “invisibility” of older women is not an insistence that adolescents feign innocence and ignorance.
I’ve worked with teens for many years. My ability to be safe and trustworthy is not contingent upon remaining in denial about the very real sexuality that the young can have. Working with teens day in and day out, I can acknowledge a young woman’s sexual agency while remaining absolutely scrupulous, in mind and action, about seeing her as someone who deserves my non-sexual mentoring and care. In other words, I can separate someone’s right to be openly, even brazenly sexual from my own response to that sexuality. Teens are rarely subtle in anything they do. They are often in error and frequently in doubt. Exploring and asserting their sexuality is part and parcel of their maturation process. It’s an adult’s job to provide gentle reminders of the risks and rewards of that process, but it’s also an adult’s job to affirm the sexuality without responding to it. It’s not nearly as difficult a task as some folks make it out to be.
So I look at a picture of Miley Cyrus and her bare back and I see a lovely young woman who may or may not be sending a complicated message about who she is and how she wants to be perceived. I see a girl in the process of becoming a woman (cue a Britney Spears song), with all the awkwardness and excitement and boldness and fear that goes along with that. I don’t wince in horror, or worry that I might find myself aroused by her. I’m not impervious to beauty, but I am pretty damn clear I’m not going to respond sexually to a child. Because as far as I — or any other adult — is concerned, Miley Cyrus is still legally and ethically a minor. She is a thoughtful, talented, increasingly assertive young person with her own sexual agency, but she is still a child.
In the end, the right response to Miley’s pictures is to affirm her transition into adulthood, celebrate her assertiveness, and refrain entirely from seeing her as an object for adult desire. This doesn’t require intellectual contortions, nor does it require a frantic degree of self-denial. What it requires on the part of sensible adults is a willingness to acknowledge the reality of teen sexual agency while remaining unwaveringly committed to the protection of those very same teens. It’s not rocket science, just good common sense.
Hugo, I haven’t been following this closely, but from this distance I guess I see the kerfuffle as more complex than you and young Kelly do. This isn’t just another high school sophomore discovering her own sexuality. It involves her parents (apparently, there was formerly a video on the Vogue website, which has apparently been taken off, of her cuddling with her father in a way that some people found sort of creepy), a high-profile photographer, and two giant business corporations (Disney and Conde Nast). It may be that she is not being, to use your word, “mentored” very well. In fact, maybe “used” is the word.
I agree to some extent Lester; I saw the photos and video of the Cyrus shoot and yes, it was a tad creepy (but only borderline, to the point where it wasn’t really clear whether or not I was looking for creepyness too closely…only Miley would know whether it was a case of the audience ascribing meaning or whether a creepy factor was really there, as opposed to Hulk Hogan’s recent debacle where he was massaging tan oil on his daughter’s ass, ugh.)
I definitely hate that young girls are pushed into sexuality before they’re ready as much as I hate them being suppressed from sexual expression when they are. It’s something I noticed with most of Disney’s young stars; they “pimp” them when the girls are young enough that they aren’t *really* sexual (in a way that clearly caters to adults’ tastes, not children’s) but when they start to reach an age when their choice to express themselves sexually becomes a possibility, they try to cover them up and make them more “virginal” (again, in response to adults’ tastes, not their fans’). Brittany Spears is the perfect poster child for this treatment, which ultimately grew beyond their ability to control (because she’s a person, not a product), and to which I attribute much of her current behavior; as a backlash response to being “managed” too much. I try to convey some of this in the column itself.
Basically, Hannah Montana’s character is being wrongfully fused with Miley Cyrus’ identity. I don’t know how much of her sexual expression is currently her own idea, but I did notice that she originally said she was “happy” with the photos and thought they were pretty, and then recanted when parents pulled the betrayed-the-fans card and teens started calling her a slut(!). To me, that speaks of controlling behavior in the second case much more than the first. Also, the second set of photos (the ones NOT from Vanity Fair) in which she is cuddling with a boy and exposing her bra appear to have been taken with cameraphone or handheld digital camera, suggesting a spur-of-the-moment thing with friends, and she probably never intended anyone to see them (foolish, yes — when a celebrity, always assume every photo will find it’s way to print or the internet, but 15-year-olds are known to be occasionally foolish). These show her being much more brazenly sexual, and, more likely, of her own accord. It’s possible that she is being encouraged to be sexual — by her managers, the photographer, her parents, and even her boyfriend — beyond what she would choose to be (as many teen girls are), but to me this is the opposite of the typical Disney pop-princess-assembly timeline. I’m waiting for them to issue her statement of abstinence until marriage (followed by a reality TV show cataloging her marital bliss) any day now.
My basic point is, Cyrus’ sexuality was always there, but now people are freaking out because it might actually be REAL (her own choice). It’s much less creepy to me to see a 15 year old Cyrus be sexual than an 11 year old Cyrus be sexual — and she was sexual all along. But her previous sexual appeal lay in her being too young to actually be controlling her sexuality herself. Now per the marketing campaign, she must revert to sexual immaturity to continue the process of not-being-in-control of her own sexuality. It’s appealing because the person in control of her sexuality is the _viewer_, which appeals to both the fundamentalists who would insist it doesn’t exist and the perverts who are attracted to children because of their ability to be manipulated. Cyrus appears to be breaking that mold with these pictures, and I hope she continues.
As I said at the end of my article, if she were to develop along a sexual timeline of HER choosing (not her parents’, her managers’, or her viewers’) then she could be a role model to all young women for the journey we all make to become fully-realized sexual adults. I am under no illusions that this will happen, but she is young; I can still hope.
I’m gratified that Ruthie at least partially agrees with what I said. (I see what you mean about her eloquence, Hugo!) I actually agreed with everything she said, right up to the end where she says, “Cyrus appears to be breaking that mold with these pictures, and I hope she continues.” As the parent of a teen, I am all for their being more exploratory and breaking molds. I think if they had more freedom they would (believe it or not) be more responsible. I’m just not sure that’s what is happening here. I hope so.
It’s so refreshing to hear someone say that it is an adult’s responsibility not to respond to a teen asserting their sexuality. It seems like I’m having to constantly fight to defend my position that adults should not have sex with young teens for ethical and emotional reasons, not just because it is illegal. Also, that doing so is NEVER okay, no case by case business. Sigh.
I just read that Hugh Hefner extended an invitation to Cyrus to pose in Playboy when she turns 18. He says that she would be “welcomed in the magazine.” Yeah, that is the highest aspiration for a young girl, being attractive enough to be allowed to strip down for Playboy. He says that the scandal is “a reflection on how schizophrenic America is about sexuality.” I think the US is schizophrenic about sexuality, but not in the way Hefner thinks it is. This offer has made the whole thing that much creepier.
Firstly, let me start off by saying that I love your blog. I’ve lurked here for a while, and I’m always gaining new insights because of it. And because I’m new here, you’ll have to forgive me if my thoughts are a bit unorganized and unpracticed when it comes to my following comment.
In following this whole shebang, I’ve come to think that the critical issue of these pictures, and perhaps Miley herself, is the venue which was chosen to present herself as a sexual young woman.
Although she has been sexualized throughout her career, that sort of presentation was confined to the Disney channel. It was never openly presented to the adult world, as an adult source of entertainment and arousal –most adults, if they do watch the show, came to it through their children, rather than any interest themselves. (One would hope.)
On the other hand, the open sexuality in the photos were presented to the world on the cover of Vanity Fair, and though I don’t know the magazine’s audience or reading demographic, I would assume that it is significantly older than both the show’s, and her own age. Ruthie Kelly makes the point that most 15 year olds have boyfriends, but what seems to be missing is attention to the fact that most of the boyfriends are fifteen themselves. By presenting her sexuality in a vehicle which obviously lacks any audience that contains a group she would pursue any sort of sexual and emotional relationship with, it forces one to at least wonder how much agency she truly had in this decision. The power relationship between the art and the viewer are much different than they would have been if the pictures had been published in Teen Vogue, for instance.
In the end, I think the outrage is less a prudish reaction to a somewhat racy picture, and more a protective instinct against sheltering Miley from an audience so very different than she’s used to.
Interesting discussion. And I think Lester Hunt’s reference to “young Kelly” is creepy.
with a culture that sexualizes the very young but condemns women over 35 to virtual invisibility
Culture is not the cause, but nature. Men want to have sex with fertile women. At around 35 most women start to become infertile, so they become invisible for men. Don’t blame the culture, but rather God or evolution.
Rafael, that is patently silly and you know it. Women are less fertile at 15 than they will be five to eight years later. Very skinny women, so glamorized by pop culture, are often amenorrheic, meaning they can’t menstruate due to lack of body fat. Not to mention the rather high percentage of men who are attracted to, uh, other men. “Nature” is invariably oversold as a motive by those who choose to deny their own culpability in exploiting the young and the vulnerable.
but I did notice that she originally said she was “happy” with the photos and thought they were pretty, and then recanted when parents pulled the betrayed-the-fans card and teens started calling her a slut(!).
This is what offended me most about the whole VF photo “scandal.” Miley’s parents were on the set for the photo shoot. They used a veteran photographer whose provocative and sensual style is well known. Miley herself approved of the photos. And then, when their very calculated PR move backfired, they started screaming manipulation. And even THAT, I believe, was a calculated move. Because no one was REALLY talking about the pictures until Miley recanted. We’re all playing right along with their game - “their” meaning Miley’s parents and adult managers and agents, who are using a young girl’s sexuality to further everyone’s careers (the managers and agents make more money, Billy Ray is now in the entertainment business again and is no longer just the Achey Brakey Heart guy).
And Hugo, I’m rather shocked that you responded to Rafael so calmly and rationally. I thought you didn’t accept his sort of malarky here anymore (I guess you can call me pessimistic, since I don’t believe rationally explaining his misogyny to him will help his views).
Don’t worry, B, Rafael will live in moderation from now on — he threw up the darned softball that needed to be smacked good.
I think the thing that discomfits me the most about the Miley Cyrus brouhaha is that it just seems to solidify the pop culture tradition of hailing a young female star as “grown up” when she does something that can be recognized as overtly sexual. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was any room in the industry for understanding female pop stars as “growing up” when they started co-writing their own songs, or producing, or becoming more involved in choreographing, or any number of other “grown up” assertions of control that make sense in the context of the industry?
That’s an excellent point, pnts. We make a huge and damaging mistake when we privilege sexual maturation over other markers of growing up, such as the ones you suggest. The expression of sexual agency is one, but hardly the only, sign of the transition towards adulthood. And it’s impossible to have a healthy attitude towards young women’s sexuality until we stop focusing on it so relentlessly.
prefer,
Mandy Moore fits your wish, I believe. I remember when she was a teenager, she said in interviews her mom wouldn’t let her wear revealing clothing. Now she’s been using her music (song choices, style) to project that she’s no longer a bubblegum teen pop star, but rather a grownup singer/songwriter.
Unfortunately, she does seem to be the exception rather than the norm, but it’s good to know it can happen.
I was always very confused about Christina Aguilera’s assertion that her nakedness was to signify that she was no longer a teen pop star. As I’ve aged, I haven’t lost any of my clothing.
Great discussion on a topic that initially appears to be about celebrity sillyness and actually reveals our confusion and contempt for adolescent sexuality. As a parent, I hear lots of our friends with kids this age, or on the verge of this age refer to their kids as being negative, but I always wonder how much is a reflection of the energy they receive from adults. What’s telling to me about this situation, marketed or not, is that how angry folks got at Miley. Perhaps we’re angry at her for growing, failing to (appear to) remain innocent and are confused by our own response to that emerging sexuality. The seething anger, from fans, from parents from Disney execs, etc is absolutely not about a photo session, but about the emerging sexuality from an appealing kid. We can all think back to how uncomfortable our family was when we hit puberty, imagine if you did it in front of a room full of suits who were banking on you. It would be hard to make those grown up assertions in any case.
Hugo, I like the way your commentary struck a balance between the idea that Miley Cyrus is an actual agent with abilities, and it’s an adult’s responsibility to not sexualize teens, not the teen’s, but I think it’s important not to forget how stage-managed Cyrus’s career is. This girl is worth a lot of money to a lot of people; a Vanity Fair photoshoot isn’t about self-expression; it’s about self-promotion. I think it’s entirely possible that she knew what she was doing and wanted to express herself sexually, and I think it’s very probable that Miley’s “people” (including her parents) knew what they were doing when they set up a shoot with Annie Leibowitz. The whole thing is being “sold,” and has done a very good job of putting Miley in the public eye; look, we’re talking about her, and we probably wouldn’t have been otherwise.
Now, I know I’m not the only one who saw the one widely-circulated image from Annie Leibovitz’s Miley Cyrus photoshoot and though “aw. Cosette. That’s cute,” and thought no more about it.
What I can’t understand is how it could be that *this is where the dust-up occurs and not over the overt commodification/sexualization that is a part of Cyrus’ whole Disneycated persona - and that of Hillary Duff before her, and on and on back to at least Annette Funicello.
Come *on, people!
As someone who has a very tactile relationship with her family (not inappropriate, I might emphasize), I really am getting annoyed with all this talk about her “creepy” dad and the “cuddling.” I’m in my 30s and still will cuddle up next to whatever parent I am watching TV with. I also do it with my brother when we both happen to be visiting. Seriously, is everyone is from one of those no-touching puritanical families or is it just some kind of weird alternate universe of no hugs that I moved into? My family and I are comfortable around each other and it’s not a big deal! Keee-rist!
Here, here, Nav. As I say in the post I reprint today, we live in a culture that is immensely suspicious of physical affection, and that suspicion has disastrous costs.
Some people are more naturally expressive and demonstrative of affection than others. I used to hug (appropriately) and occasionally touch (lower arms) etc., much more than what I do now..I’ve stopped due to people reacting inappropriately or misreading–men sexualize immediately and women are suspicious. Their inappropriate reactions have done much to inhibit my responses towards them and others. I’ve also become far more reserved than what I used to demonstrate and less willing to discuss my emotions or private life and thoughts. Again I see this as a direct consequence of how people responded to me. I had a man coworker/supervisor one tell me that I used my hands to much when I talk and that it was distracting from what I had to say…Some cultures use their hands more expressively than others…The strong message that I’ve received is to stifle my true self and pretend, in order to survive. I agree that suspicion has disastrous costs, but then so does misintrepretation and sexualization of physical affection.