"But it was an on-again, off-again thing"

I thought that the guy Miley was lying on was her boyfriend--until I took a closer look.

Maybe I'm missing something by not being able to see the videos on my old computer. But I looked at the picture of Miley and her Dad, and all I could think was "so what?" I never had photo shoots when I was young, but I was close to my Dad, and I'm sure there are vacation shots of me in a bikini, posing with my Dad. There are certainly lots of pictures of him with his arms around me, and I'm probably wearing skimpy teenage outfits in some of them. I have no idea what the actual relationship is between Miley and her father, but I think people are reading more into this picture than might be warranted.

I'm sure these relationships are complicated by fame and celebrity and press attention. But when I was a teen, I was more likely to confide in my Dad when it came to sex, rather than my Mom - and I don't think there's anything icky about that.

I agree with everything you said. That photo IS creepy, much in the same way that Joe Simpson talking about his daughter's chest is creepy. It's. just. creepy.

but I do have to admit, the headline to that Hulk Hogan link damn near made me spew coffee all over my computer.

for those who didn't click here it is in all it's hilarious glory:

"Hulk Hogan to Billy Ray Cyrus: This is how you take inappropriate photos with your daughter, brotha!"

Wow, this is the dumbest thing I have ever read on Salon, without exaggeration.

Where is the sexual exploitation in the Miley / Billy Ray photo? What kind of weird sexual projection are you making on that innocent photo?

You have got to be kidding.

"Family values -- as defined by Walt Disney, the church, the Republican Party or anyone else -- do not include a father's ownership of his daughter's body or sexuality, or his treatment of her sexuality as his property or financial or personal resource."

Family values, as defined by any properly traditional conservative, most definitely DO include all of the above!

Ever heard of 'bride price' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price)

or 'honor killing' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing)?

Haven't you been paying attention? It's the 21st century already. You should read up on this stuff.

Those ‘daddy’ photos are so creepy I don’t even have the words for it. It makes that sheet photo eveyone is so excited about look innocent. I was really shocked that Broadsheet didn’t mention this photo sooner. When I first saw them I thought it was her boyfriend too.

And sorry – this isn’t a vacation snapshot and this isn’t a private ‘safe sex’ talk. This is on purpose sexy/creepy. It’s so icky. Just wrong, wrong, wrong.

And before you defend this photo – take another look and imagine that you at 15 with your dad. I love my dad – but yuck, yuck, yuck.

I've never understood this aspect of our culture. It seems the majority of the population might support public torture and hanging of convicted child molestors on one hand, while at the same time buying their underaged daughters provocative clothing with the other hand. Make up your minds people!

My sinking suspicion is that this isn't a situation of cognitive disconnect, but rather a case of actually enjoying the savoring of forbidden fruit.

I have several teenage daughters and I think Billy Ray seems to be doing a perfectly fine job in a nearly impossible situation.

I think the whole affair of the photos is really idiotic. An earlier age was able to enjoy the beauty of a woman's body without getting so freaked out about it. She's a cute kid, and why not take a photo with a bare back?

I'm pretty comfortable around my girls. I've been holding them and kissing them all their lives. And you think now I should stop being physically close to them because YOU have a dirty mind? That I should deny them love and affection and acceptance because of some stupid other sickos?

I think any teenager sometimes wants to retreat to being a child, loved and protected by their father. God knows the world is bearing down on them with all its might.

I should have realized earlier who was writing it.

So much to comment about, I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, these are ALL two way streets that we are discussing. There is NO slavery going on here. There is no victim and perpetrator. There are two parties, the producer and the consumer.

Second, let's take gender out of this. I do not even want to begin listing the number of women who opportunistically flaunt their daughters and sons in front of the media.

Third, you cannot, I repeat, CANNOT control what is going on in the mind of the consumer, though you feminists would deeply LIKE TO. (this one attitude ALONE will damn feminism to the scrap heap of history soon enough)

OK, let's begin. The mock outrage is media generated to increase traffic. There is no outrage within the society, unless it is feminist prudes or corporate heads looking to increase revenue.

Should there be outrage in the society? I don't know the answer. When is someone old enough to be able to exhibit their body in front of cameras? Should it be acceptable when a runaway 12 year old does it because nobody coerced her into this life? Is it less acceptable that a 15 year old with loving parents and good oversight is photographed? I would think the latter would be far superior as a position for a child to be in.

Like it or not, children's bodies become sexualized well before the typical modern ages of self consent of 16 or 18 (depending on the circumstance). Society is a constant battle against children being too exposed too early to potential opportunists.

So, consuming teen sexuality is a game. Because certainly a large segment of female society adores flipping through page after page of scantily dressed young teenagers. Nobody would accuse women of being potential pedophiles. THIS MAY BE A MISTAKE. Women, not men, get hot to photos of BOTH SEXES. why is it any more acceptable that women staring at girls be thought of as fine and that men looking at same should be shamed for having sexual feelings (granted, not socially acknowledged or accepted feelings, but feelings nonetheless).

If anything, this all smacks of more of the old style finger wagging feminism that wants to damn men for having a native sexuality, one that DIFFERS from womens'.

So, we learn from Trai that further down the article indeed she is damning FATHERS but not MOTHERS for the same behavior of putting their kids out in front of the cameras.

With every Barbie, every Abercrombie & Fitch catalog, every music video and every new style of miniskirt and tube top made in junior sizes and worn on "Hannah Montana," we send the message to young girls that their job and their worth as young women will depend on their ability to look and act sexy, preferably while mouthing words they don't yet understand about virginity and purity. Then, when they get to an age at which they might exhibit feelings or behaviors related to actual sex, we castigate and censor them.

This above is a totally screwed up paragraph, one that indicates how distorted feminism's view of life and sexuality really is (no, I do NOT think Trai thinks for herself).

The media may send messages, but those messages are proven to have an attentive and eager audience. Girls eat this stuff up from the time they are old enough to pick their heads up off their baby bed. Girls at 2 and 3 glom onto the 'princess' meme well before they understand what a princess even represents. Baby girls under 2 already know that boys doing girly things seems just somehow WRONG.

So, is the media supposed to ignore this beast or feed it? I suppose the ideal answer is that it should not encourage too much these beliefs girls already have but that it should not distort in the other direction either and ignore the princess impulse altogether.

The reality is that girls' worth DOES depend on their sexuality, but NOT EXCLUSIVELY.

Here is where Trai screws up big time. Just because a girl or young woman "exhibits feelings or behaviors related to actual sex", does not mean that there should be no limits of controls placed on this behavior.

For instance, many boys native though might be to slap a girl's bra strap to get her attention. I guess society is abusing the boys by "castigating and censoring them" as Trai puts it.

So we have here a terminal case of victim mentality attempting to write some sort of lofty theory about something she learned in women's studies classes, a field that is based on a bankrupt tautology where in all end runs, it is man=bad and woman=good. I used to at least somewhat like Trai's writing, but with this article I see she is learning NOTHING about being a responsible representative of the female point of view.