Disney's Dirty Little (Victoria's) Secret

31. Doesn't look any different than a JC Penney Catalog advertising girls panties and bras to me! Are they guilty of racy photo's too?

Posted at 2:07PM on Apr 30th 2008 by JC pin

32. Just because they have Pooh on the label doesn't mean they are being marketed by disney. China is well known for pirating name brands and selling them.

Posted at 3:30PM on Apr 30th 2008 by China Pirate Kings

33. git ur mind outta the gutter...this ad is no different than the Sunday pullout section, it is not even *sexy* underwear, and I would not call it lingere

Posted at 2:15PM on Apr 30th 2008 by pimp

34. wow~ a lot of controversy over nothing. all this over some PERSONAL pics that a normal teenage girl took while goofing around. and then, there were some highly UN- risque pictures taken by a highly respected internationally known photographer. this whole thing is much ado about nothing--other than publicity that is.

Posted at 2:13PM on Apr 30th 2008 by jengirl

35. Do you mean more gullible than the average American who voted to send troops to Iraq? Seems like the weapons inspectors got it right when they couldn't find anything.

Posted at 2:19PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Irate Weapons Inspector

36. Disney (post Walt) has had nothing but blood on its hands. In this case teenage vaginal blood!!!!
.
Time for reckoning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted at 10:32AM on May 1st 2008 by blablabla

37. Can it be Winnie the Pimp!!

Posted at 2:21PM on Apr 30th 2008 by val

38. This is nonsense. What do you expect models in an underwear ad to be wearing?
It's not even sexy lingerie -- looks like just your staple gear for girls, to me.
"Dirt" is in the mind of the beholder... what business is TMZ in?

Posted at 2:29PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Tag

39. TMZ's snarky attitude nauseates me. I will never watch your television show or read your website articles again.

Posted at 2:29PM on Apr 30th 2008 by PXM

40. Goebbels, your mentor, would be so disappointed in you, TMZ Obviously, propaganda and disinformation ain't your game-though you try very hard. The models in that picture are in their 20's, and there is no excuse, legally or morally, for what Leibovitz and Vanity Fair did TO Miley Cyrus. None. Why didn't Annie discuss the "money shot" with Billy Ray and Tish, huh? Only after they left the shoot did the snake, Annie, propose such filth to Miley. And Miley's aged grandmother and her schoolteacher were in no position to stop the shoot. I say-prosecute Leibovitz and Vanity Fair to the fullest extent of the law-those purveyors of filth, child abuse, and child pornography.

Posted at 2:35PM on Apr 30th 2008 by every breath you take i'll be watching you

41.
OK now let's get real. One group of pictures is for the sole purpose of advertisement to sell Disney under garmets to pre-teen girls (DIRECTED TO GIRLS AND PARENTS-- Not sold on news stands), the other MILEY photos in Vanity Fair are not selling anything but her flesh.
Those photos in the advertisement are selling a PRODUCT...product.
What is Vanity Fair selling? Can you order the sheet she is draped in? I think not. In this story, you are comparing apples to oranges. Just because they sell beer and wine in Walt Disney World, does it make Mickie and Minnie Mouse, drunks? Each genre Disney persues is aimed at a different age category. It is UNFAIR to compare an advertisement to the --naked-- images of Miley in a reputable magazine. ***** Disney should have insisted that THEY have a legal say in any outside work Miley does. She is held to a higher standard and should act accordingly. ***** Does this now mean that when she is a legal age she will pose for a Hooter's calendar or Playboy and sing a kid Disney channel song the same week? Who set the VF photo shoot up for Miley?

Posted at 2:39PM on Apr 30th 2008 by DuBiOuS...

42. Bad news: The ad is pushing to people interested in little girls' panties.

Good news: The women in the ad are little women, not little girls. They're short, skinny, and wearing a good amount of make-up, but they are in their twenties.

Posted at 4:17PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Gavin

43. So, does this mean Asian guys have American school girl fantasies?

Posted at 4:17PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Amanda

44. Here's another similar picture that appeared on a billboard in China: http://www.slate.com/id/2190209/ (scroll down about halfway through the article). In this case, the girl doesn't look anywhere near 18.

Disney is trying to distance itself from this particular ad by saying that it was done by some subcontractor that they don't have control over. Nonetheless, I'm sure that Disney isn't disavowing the profits that are generated as a result of ad campaigns like this.

I'm deliberately not commenting on whether I think that it's acceptable or not for a company to run ads like this. The point I'm making is that Miley's photos are not all that different from this picture, insofar as both involve girls that are clearly less than 18 years old.

Posted at 2:41PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Disney profits from the eroticizing of children

45. Newsflash: Disney is hypocritical, and has been for years.
Newsflash: Water is wet.

Posted at 2:44PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Duh