What weirds me out about these Elle pictures is not the boots--though the laid back over the table thing is a bit more than suggestive--it's the fact that Miley's face on the cover looks like she is about 12. She has this snub-nosed innocence that makes her look like a little kid playing dress-up in Mommy's wig. Oh my GOD, you mean 16 yr old girls are sexual beings? The alluring mix of fuck-me pumps and please-don't-hurt-me eyes? She "looks" so innocent. What gets lost in all this is that she's a talented actress, a good singer, and a fantastic comedienne. As a parent, I don't "own" her any further than that. Tempest, meet teapot.

As the mother of one Hannah obsessed 7-year-old and one too "grown-up" for Hannah 9-year-old, I find it far less disturbing that Miley Cyrus might be wearing fashionable boots and expressing some very normal sexuality for her age than that Disney insists on marketing Joe and Kevin Jonas (both 20+ yrs old) for the same 7 and 9 year old's consumption. At least Nick is a mere 16 and not of an age where if said Jonas was actually interested in a fan, it would be icky if not outright criminal.

Though apropos of nothing, anyone ever think that Jonas, the Jonas brothers' TV show is modeled directly on The Monkeys? Joe is Davy. Kevin is Peter Tork. Nick is Mickey. The father is Michael and the little brother is the chimp. Having had a wild crush on Mickey at the tender age of 3 (4 yr old friend "got" Davy because she was older), I can't help but see the similarities. I guess, though, loving the Monkeys in reruns didn't hurt me all that much. After all, I never hooked up with Shawn Cassidy either. I was an OH-so-mature 6 when I crushed on him...

They were creepily incestuous.

She's trying too hard, and failing, to be hot. I mean unless you're into that dress up in mommy's clothes and do me stepdaddy sort of thing.

What's always puzzled me is why is a photo shoot like this a draw in a women's magazine? Where are the photo shoots of men?

There would be plenty if anyone was interested in seeing them

"it pictures her as a sexually-motivated and experienced teenager" --TCF, from the post

Isn't that exactly what she IS?

I am sick to death of people who insist that people = their clothes.

I don't think the boots look like "hooker boots"--I think they're cute, young, and a little bit rock and roll, which makes them appropriate for Miley. Who is after all 16, not 8.

Didn't Ann Hathaway wear some similar boots as a fashionista in "The Devil Wears Prada?" Ann didn't play a hooker in that movie, she was supposed to be portraying a serious businesswoman in the area of fashion. Why can Ann wear those boots but not Miley?

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.

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.

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.