The girl in the picture is no different from thousands of catalogue pictures for girl's underwear. What are they supposed to do - wear a raincoat over the product? That innocent picture is a world away from the decadent Lebovitz faux-porn in question. The American fashion industry types can't wait to corrupt a "Disney good girl" like Cyrus - it pleases them to tear down the image and see the girl turned into one of them. Dont' blame the Chinese - blame the Manhattan vampire culture that needs to foul anything clean.

This picture looked mighty Lolita-esque to me. I call it kiddie porn, albeit soft kiddie porn. It is certainly kiddie porn by the standards the US government uses to indict and convict kiddie porn evil-viewers. Why aren't the Disney executives being prosecuted for purveying such prurient, prepubescent perversions?

Catalogs could just show the undergarments unworn, or on mannequins, rather than create soft kiddie porn images that are no doubt used by some for their own nefarious auto-erotic purposes.

It's probably not soft kiddie porn; it may, in fact, be a girl wearing underwear -- and pretty wholesome, conservative underwear, at that. If anything, the image is very "cute," and cute is what sells stuff like Disney merchandise.

But if you're right, and it IS soft kiddie porn, then, really, pretty much any image of a child is too, considering that it might excite SOMEONE. If it's only underwear we're talking about here, then the implication could be that a picture of anyone of any age in underwear is soft porn and that all catalogues should show only the garments and never show them on someone, child or adult.

After all, as long as return policies can be made to accept undergarment returns, then who really needs to know how the clothes might look on a real person?

Again, you may be right, but I really do think that it is just a picture of a girl. In underwear. With Minnie Mouse sock puppets. Not exactly what most would call "erotic."

You know, I saw this as a bathing suit, not underwear, and in any case it's a far cry from the post-coital, bed-headed imagery that Miley's photo reeks of.

This could also be a bathing suit. I think it must be a slow news day or an attack on disney since this is where all children love to visit. I would suggest better safety inspections for all the rides everyday since so many band trips and other trips involving our children and teenagers are happening this month and next month.

Picture appears harmless to me compared to the Miles Cyrus picture. There are many such pictures everywhere. My question to you is this: If you are offended by the Chinese picture, why did you wait until now to bring it forth? Obviously the intention was not to express an outrage since you would have done this immediately after returning from your trip.

Oh, please. Shove it up your cheese hole.

I wonder if, in our commendable attempts to protect children from sexual abuse, we have inadvertently contributed to sexualizing kids all the more. Trying to decide what images a pedophile might find provocative is forcing us to look at kids with the eyes of a pedophile and making otherwise innocent pictures seem perverse.

I believe the intent was to point out the hypocrisy of Disney. They are outraged when a provocative image threatens their bottom line, but will use a provocative image when they feel it benefits them.

But the bias of the reader at the start of this thread seems quite clear. I guess he prefers the more wholesome corporate pedophiles as opposed to the decadent Manhattan ones.

The pedophiles are the ones who think the Chinese image is sexual or pornographic.

I saw lipstick and eyeliner while reading the article. Read some fray remarks like the raincoat one and looked again. A regular kid in undies/bikini. Like an optical illusion. Strange.

listen to all these comments... post coital, bed-headed? That's not what went through MY mind when I saw the Miley photos. I understand why some people might think them inappropriate, but who are the REAL pervs here? pedophiles don't need to be enticed. all they need to be turned on is a young kid- it has nothing to do with them being provocative et al. so why do we need to look at things through a pedophile's eyes in the first place?

if the miley photos were of anyone else, there'd be no problem. there are plenty of models her age who i'm sure have more revealing photos. if the pic was in an art gallery, noone would blink twice. People. be honest with yourself and admit that you are upset only because she is part of the disney machine.

There are two reasons that kiddie porn is illegal:

1) Creating real kiddie porn involves the sexual abuse and exploitation of minors

2) Suggestive images of minors may encourage potential pedophiles, and hence sexual abuse of minors

Whether you find the Chinese ad suggestive or not, there are those out there that do; hence, such graphics contribute to the sexualization and sexual abuse of minors. I once -- via a titillating/intriguing hyper-link -- came across a site which had lots of sets of pictures of 8-11 yr-old girls sucking each other's toes, and offers for picture sharing. This site, by legal standards, may not have been kiddie porn, but I'll be damned if that wasn't what the site was all about.

Hell, parents haven't gotten in trouble with the law for taking pictures of their naked toddlers and pre-schoolers, where clearly the intent was for family documenting, not kiddie porn. Certainly such sexualizing ads of minors are far more potentially insidious.

Suggestive images of minors may encourage potential pedophiles, and hence sexual abuse of minors

Pedophiles do not need encouragement. They are sick bastards. They have a psychological issue that does not go away. They can be just as turned on by a "provocative" picture as an unquestionably innocent one.

Personally, i found the billboard sized underwear ad more provocative than the miley pic (if only for sheer size and audience- really, what men read vanity fair?). But i understand the mixed bag of feelings on this. But you are wrong to think that if we just get rid of kiddie porn and lock all girls up under the age of 17 and throw burkhas on them, that pervs aren't going to get turned on. Women get raped all the time in those countries where they are told to cover up so as not to entice men.

Face it. The people who commit these acts are perverted and need no enticement.

Uncle Squinky:

There are two reasons that kiddie porn is illegal:

1) Creating real kiddie porn involves the sexual abuse and exploitation of minors

No evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation of minors here, so how is this point relevant?

Uncle Squinky:

2) Suggestive images of minors may encourage potential pedophiles, and hence sexual abuse of minors

Whether you find the Chinese ad suggestive or not, there are those out there that do; hence, such graphics contribute to the sexualization and sexual abuse of minors.

Censoring images that are objectively non-sexual because some people may be aroused by them is not reasonable. Members of a free society should not have their access to media limited to only what the most perverted or senstive members find safe.

I would say that sounds more like what the Chinese would do, but I guess I'll have to find a new group of people whose name is synonymous with repressive totalitarianism. How about neo-conservatives? It won't be long before people are calling China the land of the free.

Uncle Squinky:

I once -- via a titillating/intriguing hyper-link -- came across a site which had lots of sets of pictures of 8-11 yr-old girls sucking each other's toes, and offers for picture sharing. This site, by legal standards, may not have been kiddie porn, but I'll be damned if that wasn't what the site was all about.

Hell, parents haven't gotten in trouble with the law for taking pictures of their naked toddlers and pre-schoolers, where clearly the intent was for family documenting, not kiddie porn. Certainly such sexualizing ads of minors are far more potentially insidious.

Well, if intent determines and/or affects whether an image is pornography, then wouldn't the Chinese advertisement be excluded because it has a legitimate purpose and is objectively not sexual?