NSFW: Miley Cyrus poses completely naked for Terry Richardson

[hELXIG 43,094]

Eh who cares. Some girl took her clothes off and did a photoshoot. And suddenly everyone thinks they're art critics and decides whether it's justifiable for her to be nude and blah blah blah. Which, might I add, is probably the whole reason she's doing it anyway. To get people thinking about what nudity means and why we are afraid of seeing unclothed human bodies. 

But y'all stay pressed  

[loribb 338]

Disgusting, nothing new about her, although I must say I do like that prostetic penis, I wonder what guy modeled for it to be made 

[FGGrayson 9,670]

14 hours ago, Redstreak said:

"The man, the legend"

 

slay  

Love that, i want one :air:

[DSK 611]

16 hours ago, TailoredGuilts said:

Don't get me wrong, I love nudity. It's a beautiful and powerful part of our existence. I appreciate any attempt one might make towards normalizing the nude human form and shed the shame, fear, and guilt associated with our bodies. Since it is such a universally sensitive/ taboo subject matter, one must address it in a manner that treats it as such in order for the nudity to become effective and ultimately serve the purpose of getting your message across. You have to ease people in if you want your message to be understood readily. Otherwise when the nudity has no discernible goal or purpose, you end up with poor shock value. Shock value is meant to garner attention and get people talking, however if the art has no substance behind it then the shock value is pointless.

If you want your point to get across, you have to portray your art in a way that forces the viewer to feel how you feel about it. I don't think Miley will be able to convince the general public that nudity is beautiful and okay when not only is she already naked which should be the focus in the first place, she has to wear an S&M associated harness, a strap-on and simulate auto-fellatio with it, and not shave areas where women typically shave. Which all seem to be a means of shrouding her potential inability to justify her nudity in the first place. This photoshoot to me screams "I'm an adult now and I smoke weed and I love being naked and it's cool dude'....'What other weird things can I do to be weird and to make sure people know that I'm weird and don't care what people think?'... 'But I do care enough to let people know this is how I am now, though." 

The result just seems to further confuse and bewilder the shameful views of nudity and s-x instead of understanding or normalizing them. 

Ends rant*.... I hope this makes sense and my point comes off somewhat okay and I hope people don't tear me to shreds before reading... *runs and hides after pressing submit* 

I totally get your point  and I agree that if you're making shocking art to spread a message, it should be clearer and well stated.

I just think that she really does not care at all whether the pictures have a meaning or send a message. Being s-xy/s-xual, even vulgar, playing with extremes, is fun sometimes. Everyone secretly loves perversion to a certain degree. She's just having fun with that in the pictures, from my point of view. The difference is that she's a public figure and ~~shouldn't~~ do such things. It's like we're not supposed to simply have fun and laugh with anything associated with s-x, as that's too 'intimate'. But what's intimacy nowadays, when we snapchat our private parts to people we barely know? (I'm talking about the generation as a whole, I know MANY people don't do that - and I'm neither in favor nor against it, as long as it doesn't harm anyone I don't see any problems).

[Kayla 7,595]

18 hours ago, venusian said:

omg why does nudity have to have some purpose? its a ****ing body if she loves her *** let her show it jesus christ

Exactly. If she was posing in an elegant gown no one would be insulting her and demanding a "reason." But when it comes to nudity you need to give them a reason or you get insulted.

It amazes me how rude people can be when something makes them uncomfortable. Miley has done nothing to warrant being insulted, yet it seems when s-xuality is involved people feel it gives them a free pass to turn their personal dislike into a reason to be hurtful. 

[c h e r 667]

y'all are gays, obviously you're going to be allergic to tits. i think this shoot is hot af :/

[Gianni Versace 2,987]

2 minutes ago, Kayla said:

Exactly. If she was posing in an elegant gown no one would be insulting her and demanding a "reason." But when it comes to nudity you need to give them a reason or you get insulted.

It amazes me how rude people can be when something makes them uncomfortable. Miley has done nothing to warrant being insulted, yet it seems when s-xuality is involved people feel it gives them a free pass to turn their personal dislike into a reason to be hurtful. 

thoughts on her velvet dildo?

[Kayla 7,595]

Just now, Gianni Versace said:

thoughts on her velvet dildo?

:rofl: Is it really velvet?! That sounds unpleasant. 

I can't say I have any outstanding thoughts about it. 

[Bloody 64,631]

I'm not a big fan of the photoshoot, but she's doing her thing as it seems and she's enjoying it. 

[politicqxs 358]

hahaha.

[thefamebitch 834]

I could wear a jockstrap much better than she ever could, pretty sure even most of my female friends could too

[Harry 26,836]

41 minutes ago, thefameb---h said:

I could wear a jockstrap much better than she ever could, pretty sure even most of my female friends could too

receipts

[Kayla 7,595]

18 hours ago, Max Caulfield said:

I find repulsive to see both men or women full naked

It is natural to have a naked body but is it normal to show ? I mean, if it is that normal, why don't you go outside full naked and take pics and post them online? I mean, it's normal, isn't it?

I'm not against women posing naked , they can do whatever they want ,but calling it art is just really stupid, making art just a joke nowadays

 And to put myself in her shoes? Why? Because if I were her, I wouldn't have done this, but if she doesn't have dignity , that's her problem. If she loves to pose like this , then she should expect people to judge and label her... it just isn't something normal to publicly show your body naked ... then people complain about being raped and not taken seriously it's just wrong on so many levels, but okay, call it art, normal , however the **** you want, lol. No wonder the today's society is so ****ed up ,s-xualized and superficial

She doesn't have dignity? By saying that you're saying she doesn't deserve respect because of how she portrays herself s-xually. The issue I have with this is that it relates someone's worth to how they present their body, not how they actually act. Miley is a kind person. She gives to others, supports equality, and speaks with positive intention. Yet in spite of all that, because she portrays herself as s-xual, you deem her not worthy of respect. 

Society is ****ed up, s-xualized and superficial. But was it less ****ed up back in the 50s when women dressed conservatively and just dealt with abuse behind closed doors? Regarding s-xualization, s-x has always been a part of society. Nowadays it's just used as a selling point in addition to a part of our personal lives. In some ways, that's disheartening, but this is also the reason why I support people who are very aware of and intentional with their presentation of s-xuality. Seeing images of s-x and nudity just mean people are taking the things they do privately and being open about it. 

 

17 hours ago, Max Caulfield said:

 

 

16 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm totally with you. It was old back then and it's even older now. I think the overall lack of reporting of her new ventures and the lack of word of mouth of her in general is a sign that the public is just as bored of it as we are. Miley doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of "once something shocking has been done too many times, it becomes boring." Why else did Madonna pull back on her s-xualised image after Erotica and tone it down with Bedtime Stories and Ray Of Light? Because overt s-xuality always gets boring because s-x is one of the most basic concepts in existance. This is why some people end up being desensitised to the sight of the naked form after watching too much p**n. Plus, we've all got naked bodies ourselves, we see a naked body everyday. Therefore, artists must realise that they need to give us something more. Humans are adaptable creatures and stuff that we thought would be the downfall of society ends up being something we just get bored of and move on from.

This kind of thing has been done before and its been done so much better. I don't think Miley is trying to make things non-s-xy. Sex toys are by their very nature, s-xual, so adding them in means she intended for the shoot to be taken in a s-xual light. As do all her poses. It's just the same old objectification that women have always done, nothing boundary pushing here. If you want to put forward the idea of "naked for the sake of it" and "nudity is as natural as breathing," then this is not how you represent yourself. I've seen that concept expressed before and it's all about no make up, no props, no seductive expressions, no s-xualised poses. Nothing that is suggestive or sleazy. That's how you represent the beauty and naturality of nudity. But this is not what Miley is doing. She is using s-xualised props, s-xualised expressions and s-xualised poses to be seen as a grown woman, attractive and s-xy. And as always, her statement is "I'm an adult, not Hannah Montana anymore, I'm a s-xual being." Just like every other p**n shoot out there, nothing new to see.

I agree that the gays would likely not be as averse to a male celebrity posing nude but the s-xual orientation does play a role here. The LGBT community in general love s-xual expression. And a lot of them like s-xual women too, even the gay men. Miley has a large gay fanbase for this very reason. Like Gaga once said: "They love strong, s-xual women who speak their minds." Now, on the one hand, I totally applaud that theory. But take it too far and it can be damaging. I'm against the s-x industry as a whole, which is always hard for a lot of people to understand. I'm not a prude, I'm all for s-xual freedom, but not to the point where it can be physically or psychologically damaging. And unfortunately, the LGBT community can't always see that. A lot of them take a no-holds-barred view of it and think it can be nothing but positive. They don't seem to realise all the pitfalls. I think it's sad how representing herself as a s-x object so publically has damaged Miley. She doesn't seem to know what else to do to garner headlines or convey that she's an adult. It's a shame to see someone with talent bury it under so much pretence.

Thing is, like I've explained earlier, I don't think people are as shocked as they might have been back in the Bangerz era. Miley played all her cards at once, she used too much shock value so we were all shocked out after jsut a year. That's why her comeback hasn't made all the headlines that her 2013 VMA performance did and why there's been no buzz for her in general. The public have seen her naked before so it's not shocking now. We're bored. As for the disgust thing, for me personally, it's not because of the nudity but because of the messages that the nudity sends. That it's ok for an artist to be more about image than music. That it's ok to use s-xuality to get attention and admiration instead of talent and a good personality. That it's ok for women to be objectified and seen as s-x objects for the delectation of the male gaze. I don't like to see human bodies and s-xuality exploited for financial gain and for validation. Human bodies and s-xuality are beautiful and should be experienced in safe, private, non-exploitative ways. Without these things, something so potentially beautiful can be damaging.

This is the typical response every time someone states that public nudity is not their bag. Most of the time, it's nothing to do with being a prude, it's about respecting ourselves. If you're naked all the time, you get seen as nothing more than a s-x object and no one respects you. Maybe that's wrong but that's just how society works and it's not going to change as long as we continue to view s-x in its most hypers-xual form, as Miley is currently doing. By choosing not to be naked and s-xualised, it's about wanting to be seen as more than a s-x object, as a human with feelings who is worth more than their body. Sex is all very well but it shouldn't define us and shouldn't be something we need to share with everyone, especially not for validation.

I think the fact that Miley hasn't reeled back after the public is no longer shocked is evidence that she's being genuine about it. If she was doing this purely for shock value, purely for attention, purely for sales of any kind, etc. then she would have done something a la Madonna, but she's keeping this part of her image consistent. 

You're against people using human bodies and s-xuality for financial gain and validation, which I agree with and understand. But I wouldn't say Miley is exploiting herself; exploiting implies you're depleting something of its resources or misusing someone/thing in a method that degrades its integrity without appreciation of its worth. The reason I don't believe Miley is exploiting herself is because this use of her body in the public areas seems representative of her beliefs and use of it in private spaces as well. In other words- she does not seem to be depleting herself or her worth by doing this, and it is not done in a way that she feels destroys her. It's an honest representation of who she is. Some people are overtly s-xual. 

I'm a bit confused about the juxtaposition of saying that we're all naked so artists must give us something more and the ways in which you described how nudity should be presented. On one hand you're saying we need something more than a nude body, but then you're saying the way we should present nudity is in ways we see it every day- no makeup, no props, no seductiveness. 
Also note that it's not just nudity that Miley is presenting- she is presenting s-xuality. 

And it's not like Miley doesn't know how the media works. You're saying you feel bad for her because she's publicly damaged her image, but maybe Miley doesn't care what thousands of people she'll never meet think of her?
Madonna pulled back on the s-xuality after her s-x-focused era, Miley hasn't. Sure, maybe Madonna was being smarter about her use of s-xuality in relation to her career image, but doesn't that then mean she's the one using s-x as a method of financial and career gain? Wouldn't that mean she was exploiting her s-xuality for that album era?

Again, I really loathe when people equate respect to expression of s-xuality. So if Miley was doing this behind closed doors it'd be fine, but because she makes it accessible she doesn't respect herself? If someone being naked all the time makes them a s-x object who gets no respect, I think that's disgusting. You said yourself that Miley is talented, and she has a good personality- or at least she's very kind. Yet she loses respect because she....gets naked and explicit. 

And you think being hypers-xual makes society not respect someone? Think back to times where women would have been scorned for showing their ankle- would you say society "respected" women back then?

I think it's more disrespectful to place someone's worthiness of respect on how they portray their body.
We criticize people for using their body instead of their mind, but then treat them based on how we feel about their image more than how we feel about their mind. 

 

15 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm against the s-x industry because there's pain and suffering and enforcement in it. People being s-x trafficked to meet the demand of s-x tourists, people being forced into prostitution and exploited by pimps and raped by clients, p**n starts catching diseases (and dying of HIV) because no protection is used, p**n stars doing physical damage to their bodies because of unnatural s-x acts, p**n stars being forced into acts they didn't agree to, the s-xualisation of childhood in the media in general. What part of this defines "freedom?" It's basically the opposite, it's s-x slavery. Sex is supposed to be something we indulge in because we want to, not because we are paid to or forced to. Getting paid for s-x takes all the fun out of it because it'll inevitably become a chore. Getting forced into s-x is a violation against human nature. Sex should never cause pain and hurt, it should only bring joy. And you won't find any of that in the s-x industry. Having s-x because you want to is s-xual freedom, having s-x without being hurt is s-xual freedom, having s-x according to you and your partner's needs is s-xual freedom. But that's not what the s-x industry wants and it's not what it does.

An artist can be about image too but the talent should always come first. If you make music, that should always be at the forefront. Miley posing nude has nothing to do with her music. If she wants to be all about displaying herself nude, well, there's other career paths for that.

I don't mind that you're disagreeing, so long as you're not making personal put-downs. Restriction sounds bad within something like s-x, but it's there for a reason. We have ages of consent so children don't get hurt. We have consent laws in general so no one gets raped. We have to get people to sign a release waiver to ensure that their s-xual images are used with consent. We discourage abusive s-xual acts that could seriously hurt someone. We encourage people to use protection so they don't get HIV and die. There are some restrictions that are simply necessary in s-x. It's not something you can just have an "anything goes" attitude to. I've listened to the stories of too many people who got damaged through this attitude to believe it's healthy.

If you want s-x to be something you indulge in because you want to, not because you're forced to, then I believe we should support people who show signs of indulging out of personal desire to do so. When you demonize all of it you also cast out the people doing it for genuine purposes. 

For example, there's a lot of bad things that go down in the **** industry, but then you have studios like the one Stoya made where they're creating ****ography with an artistic angle. And not just pretty, softcore stuff, but actual artistic imagery and concepts. She's also involved in writing articles about love, s-xuality, the **** industry, and non-s-x related things. She's also involved in an organization, along with other **** actors, that is aimed at putting more power into the performer's hands, supporting **** companies that respect their workers, and educating people (especially aspiring **** performers) about what the industry is actually like and how to remain in control of their career if they do decide to partake in it. 
The people protecting others are the ones who are helping the good side- not the ones who are refusing to make a distinction between the positives and negatives. It's like the difference between s-x education and abstinence education- one actually prevents pregnancies, and it's not abstinence-only education. 

In your other post you said "s-x shouldn't define us," and I disagree for myself. It shouldn't define anyone who doesn't want it to, but I personally would define s-x as a very important part of my life.

You know when s-x caused me pain and hurt? When I didn't understand it.
I spent years of my life ridiculing promiscuous people, insulting people with atypical relationship dynamics, and rejecting s-xual interests I had. I had little to no self-esteem, thought lowly of anyone who showed/shared their body, and would lose respect for people who defended s-x workers in any way. I would sometimes feel physically sick after going on a tirade against someone else's s-xual morals. 

Then one day, I realized I was sick of being so hateful. And instead of rejecting others and putting myself up on a self-righteous high horse for my "moral" s-xual beliefs, I started learning about things. I sought out opinions and words from s-x workers, strippers, **** performers, promiscuous people, people who'd had threesomes, polyamorous people, swingers, etc. 
Do you know how many nights I spent at my computer and in conversations just shaking and in some points crying?
And a lot of my reaction was because as I actually listened to these people, I realized I saw myself wanting what they had. 

I actually didn't feel comfortable with s-x until I accepted it. And now, I love expressions of s-xuality. It comes natural to me. I'm not down to do anything and everything, nor will I do something with just anyone, but I find beauty and peace in being immersed in honest expressions of my s-xual nature, and I support people who do the same in their own methods, even if I personally find it weird or unappealing.

I think that's why I take this topic so seriously. Hate towards s-x was more damaging to me psychologically, and this idea that it's only respectable if it's in private caused me to disrespect people who didn't follow or even believe my own personal morals.  

[Kayla 7,595]

15 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm not shaming her, I'm showing concern for her. It's a shame how showing concern is viewed as judging these days. I take pride in my naked body too (well, as much as one can) but I don't feel the need to flaunt it about. Because I'm secure enough within myself that I don't need that validation. 

Let me just say that I didn't show off my body until I was secure with myself. By saying "I'm secure enough within myself that I don't need that validation," and "I don't feel the need to flaunt it about," implies that people who do show their bodies are insecure and are showing it out of a need for validation. 

I can tell you that it wasn't until I felt confident that I was showing my body more. Back when I was insecure I wouldn't have dreamed of doing and showing some of the things I have in the last handful of years. My personal expressions of s-xuality and nudity happened after I gained self-esteem, confidence, and security in myself. 

Another assumption that grinds my gears is the idea that "Oh, I respect myself which is why I don't flaunt my body." 
That's fine if that's true for you, but there are plenty of people- myself included!- who respect themselves and show their bodies. The two are not mutually exclusive. 

[Snow 1,582]

20 hours ago, Sinsemilla said:

THE HYPOCRISY IN THIS THREAD OMFG. GAGA POSES NUDE ALL THE TIME. SHE HAD TEAL PUBES FOR GOD'S SAKE. And none of your "well gagz has a reeeeaaassssoonn" bulls--t. I'm so done with GGD

Amen!