Your message is confused and confusing. Take this sentence:

"We're all too happy to see her clad in a girly frock and schoolgirl socks -- however, black thigh-high boots, and a black pushup bra? Horrors, that's a child!"

Who, exactly is you "we"?

You seem confused about who you're talking about: adults leering at a made-up child on magazine covers and perhaps covertly on Hannah Montana? Or the child consumers of a mass-marketed Hannah Montana?

Hooker-boot Cyrus is for adult consumption. Kids may see it by chance on the covers of magazines, but they don't see it in Cyrus' music or tv shows. Hooker boots don't make Cyrus money. They do keep her name in the media.

Cyrus' has become a very rich young woman performing in "girly frock and schoolgirl socks." But she's marketed to tweens. Having been there myself, I'd be shocked if more than a handful of 6 - 11 year old girls see in her a woman-child brimming with nascent sexuality. This is not Japan. Life is not a media studies class.

You need to exclude kids from your "we."

If you limit "we" to adults who consume Miley Cyrus imagery to analyze them as sexualized texts, and to adults who get off on images of women in "girly frock and schoolgirl socks," you have a point somewhere in there.

In the process, however, you obscure the context of the Hannah Montana phenomenon. The story gives kids the ability to fantasize about living a secret life: ordinary schoolgirl by day and rock star by night.

Given that innocuous context, Cyrus/Montana conveys no ambiguous message about sexuality to her target audience. There's just confusion on your part about the identity of "we," and perhaps about the duality at the heart of the Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana story. Watch an episode or two and you'll see what I mean.

I think in the end Miley Cyrus is just screwing with you.

Holly Sanders

I Totally Disliked The Coulum Written By "Tracy Clark-Flory". He Can Just Go Somewhere.

I am so disappointed in the way her parents are letting her distroy her career. Miley was a example for young girls and now she is ruining her career. Now, Selena Gomez and Demi Lavato are heads and heels about her, in image. I will not let may daughter even watch Miley/Hanna any more because she does exhibits what young girls need. I feel sorry what will happen to her careeer.

There is a vast difference between being a sexual being and being an overtly sexualized being...this is where the issue lies....

-- megroo

The issue lies here but the realization you offer does little to peel the apple.

I would wager your view of sexualization may differ wildly from mine.

How overt sexuality is determined will depend greatly on personal perception factors. A deeply-religious person will tend to label most sexual expression over-the-top and even destructive, while others may be so comfortable with the sexual expression that the very notion of overtness will be deemed excessive and frivolous.

There is a vast difference between being a sexual being and being an overtly sexualized being...this is where the issue lies....

My problem is not that Miley is "embracing her sexuality" it's that these pictures are hypocritical of the stance Miley HERSELF makes-- that she is a pure, "true love waits" girl (not yet a woman people- she's still only 16.)

Is this "pure" role that she has played a creation of her own, or a role that was created for her and that she was required to fill?

It occurs to me that the Mouseketeers of the 90s, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Justin Timberlake, have all broken radically away from their desexualized roles that they had as child stars to highly sexualized acts they sell as adults. And, indeed, their respective sexualities have manifested in fairly chaotic ways.

The problem here is that teenagers are sexual beings. The Disney myth of sweet innocents is ultimately only something that lives on to placate nervous parents, and has little relation to how said teens are actually living. And when they are not allowed to be sexual beings publicly, they develop extremely chaotic notions of what their sexuality is.

Miley Cyrus seems to be trying to express some sexuality while living off the Hannah Montana earnings. She may be able to pull this off like some of her predecessors (Anne Hathaway comes to mind) or she may spiral out of control like so many have done. In either case, it's imperative that we admit that she is a sexual being, and stop trying to demand that her sexuality be forced into a pre-pubescent frame that no longer fits.

but I'm unsure that Miley would even agree with the author that she wants to "actively and boldly embrace her sexuality" or that she wants to become the posterchild for this fight.

-- teevee2006

Sure, but this isn't the point. Teenagers are fluid creatures with few precise and/or structured motives.

A mature and clear-thinking adult is required to formulate and process what organically occurs through the teen bloom.

I think the greater point here is that young women should express themselves as freely as they can without fearing reprisal from a social system based on moral codification.

When boundaries are necessary they should not come as a result of what emanates from moral quandaries (however codified), adult peer pressure or overt religiosity, all of which tends toward the nebulous, external, and ambiguous.

This article deems that those who see these pictures as inappropriate are molded by American culture that says girls shouldn't flaunt their sexuality, and they sure as hell shouldn't be wearing "hooker boots."

My problem is not that Miley is "embracing her sexuality" it's that these pictures are hypocritical of the stance Miley HERSELF makes-- that she is a pure, "true love waits" girl (not yet a woman people- she's still only 16.) If her position is to see herself and promote herself as a role-model for YOUNG girls, then it would seem the 'come hither' look in leather knee-high boots is a little bit contradictory, don't you think?

I agree that culturally we're taught that women shouldn't be freely expressive in their sexuality (although I believe we are making progress on this front) and that there is a double-standard when it comes to men and women in embracing their sexuality. But this article is making the claim that these pictures of Miley as a "a sexually motivated and experienced teenager" have people outraged because of how straightforward in sexuality they are-- no, I believe the shock comes from the fact of whose feet are filling these boots and the context of MILEY CYRUS. Put another teen star, one that doesn't tout her pure, role-model aspirations (Taylor Momsen, or some other Miley-aged star for example) and I think you might receive some different reactions. I applaud any woman (or soon to be) who actively, and as the author put it "boldly", embraces her sexuality and isn't afraid to raise a few eyebrows and help us reconcile our cultural missteps on gender and sexuality and the label "slut", but I'm unsure that Miley would even agree with the author that she wants to "actively and boldly embrace her sexuality" or that she wants to become the posterchild for this fight.