# Miley Cyrus



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Did anyone catch her performance at The Video Music Awards just the other day? Did you watch and what are your opinions from it? At 20 years old, I think she's trying to escape her Hannah Montana days so she can become a bit edgier.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Well, since you asked, I think she (and the rest of those "performers") is a no-talent sleazebag who is emblematic of the disintegration of American culture!


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Gotta love Miley!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Well, perhaps not all off us. Miley needs to take her latex underwear and (paraphrasing her Daddy) her "achey-breaky smut" back to the privacy of her home and report to the woodshed for a well deserved spanking! LOL.


----------



## FalconLorenzo (Aug 14, 2013)

I talked to her best friend Lesley. She said "she's just being Miley."


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Well, perhaps not all off us. Miley needs to take her latex underwear and (paraphrasing her Daddy) her "achey-breaky smut" back to the privacy of her home and report to the woodshed for a well deserved spanking! LOL.


I don't think there would be a lack of volunteers to assist.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

You can keep her. https://rumorfix.com/2013/08/miley-...d-hank-hill-from-king-of-the-hill-after-vmas/


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Tiger said:


> Well, since you asked, I think she (and the rest of those "performers") is a no-talent sleazebag who is emblematic of the disintegration of American culture!


I agree Tiger, she is trying to hard to grow up, what will happen when she reaches 30?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Well, perhaps not all off us. Miley needs to take her latex underwear and (paraphrasing her Daddy) her "achey-breaky smut" back to the privacy of her home and report to the woodshed for a well deserved spanking! LOL.


What she needs is to go back to the way she used to be Hanna Montana.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

I'm far too old to know anything about Hannah Montana, but at the rate this little STD-in-sneakers is going, she may not survive to see age thirty...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Alas, Hannah Montana/ Miley Cyrus is not alone i this odd evolutionary trend. This seems an oft repeated pattern of behavior.
Perhaps an appropriate question to ask at this point would be, why do so many of these former child stars/performers feel compelled to go all evil, wicked, mean and nasty (EWMN) on us, soon after achieving adulthood(!)? Is there an entertainment rule we don't know about that prohibits good, wholesome, adult entertainment?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Even scarier might be how many adults condone the direction of American culture, and in many cases support it wholeheartedly. 

Things that were once shockingly immoral have become societal norms. Just about every indicator of American culture/society/politics points to us heading directly toward the sewer, and eventual disintegration. I fear it is irreversible...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Tiger said:


> I'm far too old to know anything about Hannah Montana, but at the rate this little STD-in-sneakers is going, she may not survive to see age thirty...


She might want to take up on Hugh Hefner's offer.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Good example of modern American women.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Beresford said:


> Good example of modern American women.


She's a bad example of how NOT to dress in public.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

As an emancipatory action, i don't find it completely useless nor that far removed from, say, what Madonna used to do. But then our views on nudity would be a tad removed from the American views, from what I've noticed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I guess you would put Miley And Madonna in the same category.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Bah. American conservatism at its best. Killings on television are within acceptable norms but god forbid any type of sexuality is displayed. What can you really expect from a country where mothers are prosecuted for breast feeding their children in public? 

Quick quiz..How many people are sexually active being an active killer of people? 

Does an attractive barely clothed woman offend me? Not at all.

Unless you're her direct family & have strict moral codes agsinst such, I don't see how this should be problematic. Beautiful women are like artwork. No one can really own them & they are at their best when viewed by all. 

Back in my university days 20 years ago, most of the people I knew were sexually active. The same could be said of my high school days. Some flaunted the fact while others were quite discreet. Is it not the same today? 

Was her outfit any more shocking than a bathing suit?

I would guess that 100% (or close to it) of the people who saw her perform/dressed that way didn't sleep with her so I'm not sure where the STD consideration comes in. 

I have 2 daughters. Their sexuality will be their choice. Has history & biology taught us nothing? The average age for first sexual liasons in the U.S. is 14- 15. This hasn't changed from the Victor Hugo days when Cossette married at 14. 

What control do you expect? Niether strict religion nor strict parenting has worked to avoid issues of premarital sex, "underage pregnancy", etc. 

After a certain age, your children, like you and your parents, will do as they please. 

Ummm. As this was a great publicity stunt (aka marketing) that made her millions of $s more, can we as a capitalist society really criticize such a move ? Surely people have gone much lower for much less. Who, when given a chance to make a few million, would forego the opportunity to dance in your bathing suit?

Oh. If I wete single & Miley offered to spend the night, no way I'd refuse & unless they were very devout, I'd call any man a liar if they said otherwise( all the while keeping in mind that my first wife was a devout catholic & still ignored the "rules").


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

The "STD in sneakers" remark was a snide joke, not to be taken literally, justonemore.

I still believe in decency, modesty, morality, and discretion - the Cyrus "performance" was embarrassingly otherwise. You may not hold those things dear to you; others still do.

As to "calling any man a liar" who would say that they would refuse to spend the night with Cyrus, I find her repulsive and would never do so. Now, if Catherine Zeta Jones was available...


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

I unfortunately sat through the VMA's as it is something my wife enjoys watching "to see the crazy things these people do". I was not at all surprised with the "performance" (anytime I see a performance from an "artist" like this I find it is basically choreography to a pre-recorded song that uses lots of software to make their voices sound a certain way). When I woke up the next morning to watch Good Morning America they had on a guy that was an old MTV VJ Chris Conneley who said in the hours after the Miley Cyrus performance it had garnered 300,000+ "tweets" and everytime he saw a story about it he said good job to her and her PR team.

It even got it's own thread in a menswear forum.

Unfortunately if she had gone up there and did a performance as Hannah Montana without all of the filth she would not have been talked about so much, and we certainly would not be talking about her here and now. 

I am more offended that she is a "musician" who sang maybe two verses in her entire performance than the fact the she wore horribly ill fitting underwear that made he butt look horrible. More than anything it makes me sad for the state of music, or should I say pop music.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Filth? Really?*

I am distressed by the priggish and censorious tone of many of the comments here.

I agree with Bjorn and justonemore and could not improve on their remarks.

I am not a fan of American popular culture, or pop culture in general. I'd prefer an evening at Tonhalle with Zinman at the podium, although I wish he would wear tails instead of his less formal all black outfit.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Gurdon said:


> I am distressed by the priggish and censorious tone of many of the comments here.
> 
> I agree with Bjorn and justonemore and could not improve on their remarks.


Agree completely.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Perhaps one day we'll all become so nihilistic and non-judgmental that no standards will exist anywhere for anything, and all things will be viewed as equivalent.

Excepting, of course, for the topics that the putatively non-"priggish" and non-"censorious" members of the forum deem worthy of their denigration and judgment...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Has anyone seen her new video Wrecking Ball?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Perhaps one day we'll all become so nihilistic and non-judgmental that no standards will exist anywhere for anything, and all things will be viewed as equivalent.
> 
> Excepting, of course, for the topics that the putatively non-"priggish" and non-"censorious" members of the forum deem worthy of their denigration and judgment...


We're on our way, Tiger. The weak are simply playthings for the desires of the strong, and opposing this is judgmentalism or some such nonsense.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Tiger said:


> Excepting, of course, for the topics that the putatively non-"priggish" and non-"censorious" members of the forum deem worthy of their denigration and judgment...


Now you're talkin'!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> We're on our way, Tiger. The weak are simply playthings for the desires of the strong, and opposing this is judgmentalism or some such nonsense.


Sorry.. Did I miss something here? Who is weak? The multi-millionaire daughter of a multi-millionaire?

Was she somehow forced to dress & act in that manner or was it of her own free will?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Not saying anyone is weak but the 'ever pure and sweet' Ms Miley has had at least one concert appearance and her upcoming appearance on the cover of Vogue magazine cancelled because of her VMA debacle. Perhaps the forces of good taste and social decorum are not totally dead! Justonemore: the Roman's called and said they are holding your seat in the Coliseum! LOL.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ! Justonemore: the Roman's called and said they are holding your seat in the Coliseum! LOL.


Bread and twerkuses?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Not saying anyone is weak but the 'ever pure and sweet' Ms Miley has had at least one concert appearance and her upcoming appearance on the cover of Vogue magazine cancelled because of her VMA debacle. Perhaps the forces of good taste and social decorum are not totally dead! Justonemore: the Roman's called and said they are holding your seat in the Coliseum! LOL.


AH. So nice to have my old friend eagle respond to one of my posts. How unfortunate that the Romans called as I am usually opposed to violence unless called for in defense of oneself or their family. Please let me know when the Greeks call with a reservation for one of their orgies. In the meantime I will make certain that my wife wears a full face hijab & should she dare go outside the house without me, I will support a public stoning(societal standards need to be maintained afterall). lol. Many "Southern baptists" usually think women should only wear dresses. Is this really acceptable compared to a hijab? How about facial hair on a man? Muslims insist on it while here in Europe it's considered unprofessional. Maybe the U.S. can insist on a global standard?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The US is the world's biggest producer of pornography and people are complaining that an American 20 something singer/actress/performer is behaving indecently because she's wearing something a bit revealing, and her performance is a bit risque? Is that all you have to complain about?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The US is the world's biggest producer of pornography and people are complaining that an American 20 something singer/actress/performer is behaving indecently because she's wearing something a bit revealing, and her performance is a bit risque? Is that all you have to complain about?


In my army days a few of us would hit a strip club on occasion. I suppose the death penality should be an option for the whole of my former batallion.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

I am stunned by the lack of logic spewing within this thread! Creating "strawmen" is no substitute for a sound argument, gentlemen.

The examples abound - justonemore seems to equate criticism of Cyrus with an attack on capitalism, while Chouan seems to believe that the Cyrus remarks somehow condone pornography. When did Europeans sacrifice logic for legerdemain? 

This fan of Henry Hazlitt is incredibly and classically "free market" - deploring Miley's antics does not negate that fact. To suggest otherwise is idiotic. Additionally, must I (we) castigate every single act by every single person in the U.S. before we can disapprove of Miss Cyrus? I'm reasonable certain that those of us bemoaning her "performance" would also deplore pornography - if it was the topic of the thread! Do I have to criticize Stalin, Mao, and Hitler before I can criticize a contemporary despot? This is insanity...

Gentlemen, your arguments evince an unwillingness to discuss the topic at hand. If you disagree with something I wrote (or anyone else, for that matter), fire away (as Gurdon and smmrfld have done). If you insist on making spurious arguments, find yourselves another sparring partner...


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

justonemore,

Surely there is some space in between being a nudist and a hijab-wearer. And some space in between literally not caring at all what people do and wanting to use the law to constrain them. And some space between allowing pornography to be consumed by those seeking it out and having simulated pornography broadcast.*

I don't have much of a reaction to Miley Cyrus's antics. Like most modern pop performers, I consider her to be a low-talent spectacle-maker, so it's hardly shocking when she makes a spectacle of herself in a talent-less way. And that's what I generally expect from things like the VMAs.

I'm also not particularly a prude regarding sexuality. I don't think sexual conduct, in and of itself, has a lot of moral content. I tend to think of sexual promiscuity or licentiousness as more unwise than wrong. If I were to lodge an objection, it would be grounded in the lack of_ dignity_. Our society seems to have lost its sense of dignity, and now accords that virtue little or no value. Cyrus's faux seizures, like her outfit made (as far as I could tell) from recycled blow-up dolls is just a symptom of a larger and deeper pattern. She's just a boil, not the plauge itself.

* The space in the last one is getting pretty narrow, I'll admit.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

justonemore said:


> Sorry.. Did I miss something here? Who is weak? The multi-millionaire daughter of a multi-millionaire?
> 
> Was she somehow forced to dress & act in that manner or was it of her own free will?


She did it on her own free will. She wanted to prove that she's grown up.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Tiger said:


> I am stunned by the lack of logic spewing within this thread! Creating "strawmen" is no substitute for a sound argument, gentlemen.
> 
> The examples abound - justonemore seems to equate criticism of Cyrus with an attack on capitalism, while Chouan seems to believe that the Cyrus remarks somehow condone pornography. When did Europeans sacrifice logic for legerdemain?
> 
> ...


The difference being I don't deplore pornography either, nor do I necessarily believe she showed a lack of dignity.

So I find myself seeing the lack of valid arguments on your side of the table instead, which I find prude at best. Chauvinistic at worst. Family value-oriented I think is the marketing term for it.

Would you apply the same standard if she were a man?

I think Howard posting that she should go back to Hanna Montana pretty much sums up the reasoning. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> The examples abound - justonemore seems to equate criticism of Cyrus with an attack on capitalism, while Chouan seems to believe that the Cyrus remarks somehow condone pornography. When did Europeans sacrifice logic for legerdemain?


I'm not suggesting that anybody should, or shouldn't, condone pornography, what I am suggesting is that it seems ridiculous, to me, to comment on the morals or lack thereof of, of a popular (apparently) entertainer, based on her recent appearances. As I concluded, is there nothing else in the US to worry people that she should cause so much upset?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

A few in our midst seem to overlook the fact that Ms Cyrus was appearing on an an an entertainment awards show, being billed as family entertainment and being broadcast over the TV network during family viewing hours. I have a problem with that. Adolescent children/grandchildren should not be surprised by Miley Cyrus, in her latex foundation garments grinding her barely covered butt cheeks into some guys crotch. If she wants to do that and others want to watch such on the restricted or late night TV channels, so be it. However, she was appearing on quite a different venue, the producers were unaware of and quite clearly caught by surprise by her antics, and Miley Cyrus's immaturity and lack of any sense of good taste was broadcast into my home, potentially to be viewed by my grandchildren. If Chouan and/or justonemore want their children to watch such filth, stay home and watch it in their own countries...broadcast regulations seem far more relaxed in Europe!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Curious that 1) you describe it and think of it as filth, and 2) you imagine that the producers had no idea of what was going to happen!
The question of taste is an entirely different one.....


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> I think Howard posting that she should go back to Hanna Montana pretty much sums up the reasoning.


Hey, Bjorn did you see her video Wrecking Ball?


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> ...being broadcast over the TV network during family viewing hours...broadcast regulations seem far more relaxed in Europe!


The program was not broadcast and therefore not subject to broadcast "regulations." It appeared on MTV, which is only available on cable or satellite. You have chosen to have that service available in your home.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Cable or satellite TV service is a pretty common commodity it today's household. I must be naive, but I was unaware that such transmissions were not subject to regulation. There are certain broadcasts that should not be viewed by the children entrusted to our care. In our home, we do have certain channels blocked on the TV screens in our home...I guess I will have to add MTV to the list.

Thanks for the sorely needed enlightenment on my part.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> nor do I necessarily believe she showed a lack of dignity.


I'm curious, then, as to what you *WOULD *consider to be showing a lack of dignity?

Come on. You can argue it wasn't wrong, or offensive, or shocking, or harmful to viewers. You *cannot *seriously argue that it was dignified.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> The difference being I don't deplore pornography either, nor do I necessarily believe she showed a lack of dignity. So I find myself seeing the lack of valid arguments on your side of the table instead, which I find prude at best. Chauvinistic at worst. Family value-oriented I think is the marketing term for it. Would you apply the same standard if she were a man?


Clearly, our definitions of _dignity _differ.

However, you seem quick to accuse me of being prudish and chauvinistic - do you know what those words mean? A look at the dictionary may be fruitful. A prude would chastise the hypothetical Miss Smith for wearing a skirt that "displayed her knees", or Mr. Jones for using a mild expletive. One need not be a prude to be shocked at Miss Cyrus showing the outlines of her vagina through her barely worn outfit, or that chunks of her butt were displayed for all to see, or that she rubbed objects against her vagina in a sexual manner and rubbed her backside suggestively on some clown in a striped suit. Let's not forget the tongue-wagging oral sex simulation, or the references to the drug "molly." If you understand what a prude is, you sure didn't show it here, Bjorn.

Regarding "chauvinism": Another idiotic remark you direct toward me, without knowing a damn thing about me. I would gladly criticize both genders for their revolting "performances" and general behavior, but again, the thread was about Cyrus. Another attempt at creating a straw man, ostensibly because you lack the ability to discuss what was actually written. Why don't you create a thread about some male cretin, and I'll show you what I mean?

For someone who berates others for making judgments, you sure as hell are quick to do so to me - with the added irony that you have no idea who or what you're talking about! And, since you feel so damn free in launching attacks on me, then you certainly won't mind that I believe - based on your posts here - that you're an immoral and shortsighted jackass. You see how that works - if you have the freedom to call me names for not agreeing with your position, then I retain the same right to do so to you for not agreeing with my position!

There appears to be little that you deplore. Of course, one really never knows, until it hits close to home. Maybe one day your daughter or granddaughter will begin acting publicly the way Miley Cyrus did. Would love to be a fly on the wall when that happens. I'm sure you'll celebrate your daughter's lack of "prudery" with some of society's finest...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> I'm not suggesting that anybody should, or shouldn't, condone pornography, what I am suggesting is that it seems ridiculous, to me, to comment on the morals or lack thereof of, of a popular (apparently) entertainer, based on her recent appearances. As I concluded, is there nothing else in the US to worry people that she should cause so much upset?


Chouan, the topic was Miley Cyrus' performance, and that was what I commented on (with a couple of remarks being clearly "over the top"). Had the topic been the various afflictions of the U.S., you would've read comments pertaining to that; in fact, I've done so here a couple of weeks ago.

Have I not written about my disgust with U.S. foreign interventionism? The disintegration of American culture? The corrupt and distorted political system that has destroyed the concepts of the American founding, i.e., "the principles of '76"? The attacks on classical economic concepts? The near-oligarchical and autocratic power wielded by the federal leviathan? This traditional constitutionalist has been wounded to his soul - no need for you to remind me of _anything_.

If one can't express an opinion because there are other more pressing issues, then no opinions would ever be expressed - because there's always something more pressing to discuss!

If you (or anyone else) disagrees with my opinion (or that of others), just make your counterpoint(s). This flailing in all directions is nonsensical...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Bread and twerkuses?


I'm not a fan of puns, but that was really inventive!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

If you were willing to look into it, I believe you could see my message contained 3-4 different " societal standards". My question is more as to which standard we should follow. The same questions we find over & over in Philosophy & Ethics. If your belief is that dignity/moral standards means that women wear a dress cut below the knees, you are probably in the middle of the "hijab" crowd & the "hedonist" crowd (but still nowhere close to modern standards for females in the current age. 

Again I'll mention the prosecution of mothers that breast feed in public on the U.S. Some consider it undignified & somehow sexual & whine/complaon about a lowering of standards & ruination of society. Many/most here wouldn't give it a second thought. As some members have suggested (perhaps rather in bias), Euopean viewpoints might be relaxed compared to those in America. Women sunbathe topless at our public pools. There are plenty of sex shopd (some of them right in the middle of town) & I've never seen a picket line of religious fanatics in front of them. I don't see any bombings of abortion clinics, because we have no clinics for a widely accepted medical procedure. We indeed limit ourselves in our neighbors doings & minding our own business is fine with us. A pair of intentionaly exposed breasts on public t.v. doesn't seem to cause public controversy let alone if one were to accidently fall out of a woman's dress (i.e. janet jackson). We still provide top notch medical care & education for a fraction of that in the U.S. & our crime & unemployment levels are still considerably less, so it doesn't appear that we've been to negatively affected by these more relaxed ethos.

Would I sit down to a cable tv program known to be "shocking" with my daughters? Well my daughters aren't allowed to watch tv. We allow them pre-screened children's programs about once a week as a bonus for their efforts at school. In the past year I myself have used the tv for entertainment once. In fact, my children ask to go to the book store over the toy store. My standard is not to be watching television let alone mtv, not by yourself & certainly not with young relatives. Keep the fricken idiot box off & open a book (hopefully something other than just the bible). Perhaps have a meal out & a discussion as to life. 

If you really want to make a moral statement with me, don't cry about a program that can be turned off with the push of a button. If you objected to a performers manner of dress, then why continue watching to the point of them rubbing objects on themselves? Is MTV known for family programing? I thought they went to trash programing & stopped being about music back in the 90s. A few posters here seemed to have known that the VMAs provide shock value. In this day & age is it not possible to educate yourself about your entertainment choices before you get involved in something you find offensive?

A young woman acting in a sexually suggestive manner for money is nothing new. It's been around since the start of mankind & I refuse to be "shocked" by old news. I admit that at only 40, I've become rather jaded with life, but I fail to see how anyone that pays any attention to history & current events can claim to be somehow suprised with the human condition. Hasn't Madonna been doing pretty much the same thing for 30 plus years by now?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Oh. Cuffdaddy. While the middle ground arguement may be valid in some cases, personal standards is not perhaps one of them. Nudists will be nudists & those who believe in wearing a hijab will be as they are. Do both extremes have to fall into your belief of a middle ground? Perhaps instead, due to societal concerns, you would be willing to fit into one of these extreme beliefs? If the extremes were Islam & Athiesm, then I suppose that in the name of a common decency we should all be Catholics?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Tiger said:


> Clearly, our definitions of _dignity _differ.
> 
> However, you seem quick to accuse me of being prudish and chauvinistic - do you know what those words mean? A look at the dictionary may be fruitful. A prude would chastise the hypothetical Miss Smith for wearing a skirt that "displayed her knees", or Mr. Jones for using a mild expletive. One need not be a prude to be shocked at Miss Cyrus showing the outlines of her vagina through her barely worn outfit, or that chunks of her butt were displayed for all to see, or that she rubbed objects against her vagina in a sexual manner and rubbed her backside suggestively on some clown in a striped suit. Let's not forget the tongue-wagging oral sex simulation, or the references to the drug "molly." If you understand what a prude is, you sure didn't show it here, Bjorn.
> 
> ...


I made that comment based on comments above, not on a full and thorough investigation of whom you are as a person.

One mans immoral and shortsighted is another's freedom of expression.

I'm just not sure that, if you are an artist, and you perform in a sexually suggestive way, you are robbed of your dignity. That seems to me to disregard all the little special rules that apply to artistic performances.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> I'm curious, then, as to what you *WOULD *consider to be showing a lack of dignity?
> 
> Come on. You can argue it wasn't wrong, or offensive, or shocking, or harmful to viewers. You *cannot *seriously argue that it was dignified.


I don't see how it affects her human worth, which would go to dignity. She's an artist, she performs, it's shocking, the performance ends. Dignity is a very ambiguous concept.

I don't find the performance immoral nor unethical, so dignified/undignified is hard to apply. It's also hard to say that something wasn't wrong nor offensive nor shocking to viewers and still claim it's not dignified. ? That would be inconsistent on my part.

I also don't think it's harmful to children, for the record. I'd much rather see nakedness and sex than violence, and the evidence of violence on tv and in video games being harmful to children seems ambiguous in itself, at best.

I think there's a strong subcurrent of control in the view that these types of behaviors are wrong, harmful, disgusting, immoral, etc.

Since that control (I don't know if normative is a good word to describe it) goes towards someone else's sexuality, or even toward everyone else's sexuality, I don't like it.

I think that if everyone participating can ask themselves: do I feel a need to have a measure of control over other people's sexuality, and answer that question with no, then it's most likely ok.

If my views on the subject and in the comments above have offended you, then I apologize. It was not my intent to argue ad personam, and ascribe you the qualities of being prudes and chauvinists, I simply view your posts in that light. So again, apologies.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> One mans immoral and shortsighted is another's freedom of expression. I'm just not sure that, if you are an artist, and you perform in a sexually suggestive way, you are robbed of your dignity. That seems to me to disregard all the little special rules that apply to artistic performances.


But these are disparate thoughts! Just because one believes that an artistic work - sculpture, painting, architecture, musical composition, literature, et al. - is either poor, or sleazy, or indecent, or undignified, or shocking (or any other response those "prudes" may have!) doesn't mean that one is against the artist's freedom of expression to produce the work! I prefer the Frick Collection to the Museum of Modern Art, but would never dream of seeking to censor any artwork in either.

For the record, I do believe that even with artistic license, some art can still be undignified, among other things. Artistic license - those "little special rules" (if they exist at all) - does not have the power to create a world of relativity, robbing even critics of _their _freedom of expression.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

CuffDaddy said:


> I'm curious, then, as to what you *WOULD *consider to be showing a lack of dignity?
> 
> Come on. You can argue it wasn't wrong, or offensive, or shocking, or harmful to viewers. You *cannot *seriously argue that it was dignified.


She was rubbing a foam finger up and down her crotch
She had clothed coitus with Robin Thicke and sticking her tongue out (on stage)
She was touching teddy bears


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

> I don't see how it affects her human worth, which would go to dignity.


Absurd. You've just collapsed the meaning of dignity into human worth. You've just made dignity synonymous with goodness. The two are distinct concepts. If I run around with a rainbow wig on my head, honking a little horn, and doing pratfalls, I don't think I've done anything bad, nor have I compromised my human worth. But I have not acted in a dignified manner. That may be OK. Dignity is not the be all and end all.

But, again, if you want to contend that Miley Cyrus's performance was dignified, then I'm afraid that position will cost you all credibility as to the meaning of words.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Oh. Cuffdaddy. While the middle ground arguement may be valid in some cases, personal standards is not perhaps one of them. Nudists will be nudists & those who believe in wearing a hijab will be as they are. Do both extremes have to fall into your belief of a middle ground? Perhaps instead, due to societal concerns, you would be willing to fit into one of these extreme beliefs? If the extremes were Islam & Athiesm, then I suppose that in the name of a common decency we should all be Catholics?


What? I'm not sure I follow. I didn't say anything about whether people should be any particular religion. I was merely pointing out that people expressing some disapproval of Cyrus's antics need not necessarily be calling for government intervention or censorship, nor being anti-sexuality in general.

In case my own views aren't clear, here they are: I have no interest in the VMAs, nor Miley Cyrus in general. (I think there are many female pop performers who are both more musically talented and, to be frank, far more attractive to look at and watch dance!) I don't think anything significant will happen to western society because of her actions. I do think her performance was indicative of a general decline in the value accorded by society to dignity. An excessive devotion to dignity can be stultifying, or a cover for repression of individual expression. Still, I wonder if we have de-valued that attribute too much. Cyrus didn't give me that concern, she's just one small example of the consequences of the shift. I am also concerned about the messages that pop culture sends to young girls and adolescents. Fifty years ago, society told them to repress their sexuality to an unhealthy degree, I think. Today, however, I am concerned that society exerts a lot of pressure on girls to be sexualized very early, and to be very overt. I think every individual ought to be able to make their own choices (and face the consequences of same) regarding their sexuality, and how front-and-center they want to be with it. Uniform societal pressure not to be sexual is not healthy. Neither is uniform societal pressure to be overtly sexual. Right now, I see more of the latter than the former, and that worries me. But Cyrus didn't cause it; she's evidence of it.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> What? I'm not sure I follow. I didn't say anything about whether people should be any particular religion. I was merely pointing out that people expressing some disapproval of Cyrus's antics need not necessarily be calling for government intervention, nor being anti-sexuality in general.


Perhaps I misunderstood your point. While I agree that there's alot of middle ground from being naked & wearing a hijab, my point was that this middle ground is not usually acceptable to those who wish to set and maintain a set of standards based on their own experience in life. I used the example of religions because morw often than not, they are what's used to justify these standards. From Catholic teachings of no sex outside of marriage to Southern Baptists insisting on long dresses for women & no dancing to the Islamic hijab. Which of these groups would be willing to find an acceptable compromise? I'd guess none.

Other than small news snippets, I know next to nothing about Ms Cyrus but I don't find her behavior to be anything new or shocking. As I mentioned earlier, Madonna has been doing the same thing since before this girl was born. Her limit on what defines dignity is hers to choose. Many people would consider cleaning toilets for 20 years at $5.00 an hour as undignified as well. Money changes things quite often. I remember an old college buddy that considered working for a gay phone sex company (which certainly wouldn't be considered by most as dignified 20 years ago).


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

OK, I kind of thought we were talking past one another. I agree that society shouldn't try to formulate moral rules that govern non-harmful-to-others behavior and then impose those rules. But, equally, society must allow its constituent members to have whatever views and judgments they have about the behavior of others. Part of a pluralistic society is that Cyrus gets to do what she did, and Tiger, eagle', and any others get to disapprove and discuss their disapproval. 

Regarding dignity, money does NOT change whether something is dignified or not; it often changes how much dignity one is willing to forego. I will admit that reasonable people can disagree on all sorts of things, but it is manifestly unreasonable to claim that Cyrus's act was dignified. That doesn't make it bad or evil, it just makes it very, very undignified. What value you attach to dignity will inform how bad or good you think it was.

I also agree that it was entirely anticipated/done before by Madonna and others. Anyone who was "shocked" hasn't been paying attention. Frankly, that robs it of whatever "performance art, the newness is the statement" claim it might otherwise have. And also the lack of talent. It just wasn't any good, from what I saw. Derivative, old-hat... about as creative as mooning a retirement home.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> OK, I kind of thought we were talking past one another. I agree that society shouldn't try to formulate moral rules that govern non-harmful-to-others behavior and then impose those rules. But, equally, society must allow its constituent members to have whatever views and judgments they have about the behavior of others. Part of a pluralistic society is that Cyrus gets to do what she did, and Tiger, eagle', and any others get to disapprove and discuss their disapproval.
> 
> Regarding dignity, money does NOT change whether something is dignified or not; it often changes how much dignity one is willing to forego. I will admit that reasonable people can disagree on all sorts of things, but it is manifestly unreasonable to claim that Cyrus's act was dignified. That doesn't make it bad or evil, it just makes it very, very undignified. What value you attach to dignity will inform how bad or good you think it was.
> 
> I also agree that it was entirely anticipated/done before by Madonna and others. Anyone who was "shocked" hasn't been paying attention. Frankly, that robs it of whatever "performance art, the newness is the statement" claim it might otherwise have. And also the lack of talent. It just wasn't any good, from what I saw. Derivative, old-hat... about as creative as mooning a retirement home.


Very well put. I particularly liked the final paragraph and especially the final sentence. Not shocking, really, rather tired actually.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks, you are very kind to say so.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I think this explains most of it:

https://www.theonion.com/articles/let-me-explain-why-miley-cyrus-vma-performance-was,33632/?ref=auto


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

just', that explains about 90% of news coverage these days. Need more clicks? Just throw up a story about one of these: Miley Cyrus; George Zimmerman; Lindsay Lohan (losing effectiveness); sick child's inspiring words; teacher _____s student (fill in blank with violent or sexual verb of choice); dogs; cats; pandas.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

justonemore said:


> I think this explains most of it:
> 
> https://www.theonion.com/articles/let-me-explain-why-miley-cyrus-vma-performance-was,33632/?ref=auto


Oh, yeah, Onion nailed it, as usual. Watching that nice-enough-looking young girl trying to be low class "sexy" was only slightly less disquieting than one of those "Toddlers & Tiaras" shows.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

A performance that I found really quite jarring was Dolly Parton's "The Sacrifice". Not her performing it as such, but the lyrics, comparing herself to Jesus in her quest for fame and riches...... Bizarre.

https://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/d/dolly_parton/the_sacrifice.html


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

CuffDaddy said:


> just', that explains about 90% of news coverage these days. Need more clicks? Just throw up a story about one of these: Miley Cyrus; George Zimmerman; Lindsay Lohan (losing effectiveness); sick child's inspiring words; teacher _____s student (fill in blank with violent or sexual verb of choice); dogs; cats; pandas.


news coverage from around the world is more interesting than what's happening with Miley Cyrus


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Absurd. You've just collapsed the meaning of dignity into human worth. You've just made dignity synonymous with goodness. The two are distinct concepts. If I run around with a rainbow wig on my head, honking a little horn, and doing pratfalls, I don't think I've done anything bad, nor have I compromised my human worth. But I have not acted in a dignified manner. That may be OK. Dignity is not the be all and end all.
> 
> But, again, if you want to contend that Miley Cyrus's performance was dignified, then I'm afraid that position will cost you all credibility as to the meaning of words.


From Wikipedia:

"Dignity is a term used in moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to be valued and receive ethical treatment"

And

"In ordinary usage it denotes respect and status, and it is often used to suggest that someone is not receiving a proper degree of respect, or even that they are failing to treat themselves with proper self-respect."

I am not confusing it with goodness, and if you ran around honking on stage, that would be different from running around honking on the street.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Ehum, from my Swedish perspective, you have pretty far to come to reach "overtly sexual". "Sexualization" comes at puberty for both genders, and in not an unnatural thing. It may, in fact, have more going for it as being natural than any current jacket shoulder configuration. 

And when men state views on females who are young and overtly sexual on stage then we've entered a quagmire where one can easily sink straight down into some pretty ugly preconceptions on society, no matter that anyone is free to express disapproval. One is equally free to call people on their views. 

Putting young women up on a pedestal just seems rather pointless and demeaning to me. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## fly4food84 (Feb 17, 2013)

Oh my acky breaky heart.


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

Many people frame this as a gender issue. I see it more as courtesy and respect.


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

Imagine if Andy saw this


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Now she's twerking Santa Claus. 



What's next? The Easter Bunny?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^In the final analysis, 
perhaps it's a fair exchange...trash for cash. :icon_scratch:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Putting young women up on a pedestal just seems rather pointless and demeaning to me.


By saying "putting young women up on a pedestal" do you mean "holding in high regard" or ankle grabbing fun??


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I don't know if I should post this but just the other night she was on stage dancing on a plastic phallus, it's just amazing as how far she'll go to create a buzz.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Howard said:


> I don't know if I should post this but just the other night she was on stage dancing on a plastic phallus, it's just amazing as how far she'll go to create a buzz.


No Howard. The buzz is only created by those that find it buzz worthy. Should I desire better looking women willing to perform these acts, I'll consult a site that specializes in such.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I'm just going to say my 5 cents straight up! 

Take it or leave I'm not fussed! 


Woman + dancing + some naked flesh + smile + she's having fun = always a good thing. 

Turn it and twist it whatever way you want. But she was enjoying it & so did I! 

I'm out!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

justonemore said:


> No Howard. The buzz is only created by those that find it buzz worthy. Should I desire better looking women willing to perform these acts, I'll consult a site that specializes in such.


the only people who find it buzz worthy are people who are so drunk out of their minds.


----------



## Carguy (Nov 29, 2012)

Can anyone explain to me the whole "sticking out your tongue" thing and what that's supposed to mean? Why do I see it more and more in pictures of teen girls? Am I going to be shocked when I learn the answer?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Carguy said:


> Can anyone explain to me the whole "sticking out your tongue" thing and what that's supposed to mean? Why do I see it more and more in pictures of teen girls? Am I going to be shocked when I learn the answer?


This whole sticking out your tongue idea was Miley's idea. she don't like smiling so they thought that sticking out your tongue was cool in her pictures.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Howard said:


> This whole sticking out your tongue idea was Miley's idea. she don't like smiling so they thought that sticking out your tongue was cool in her pictures.


As in so many other regards, she was dead wrong about that too.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Odradek said:


> As in so many other regards, she was dead wrong about that too.


sticking out your tongue makes you look childish.


----------

