Why do we accept Miley Cyrus but reject the FLDS?
Bill Falzett III
April 29, 2008
Throughout history girls have been given and taken in marriage and have conceived from a very tender age. Biologically speaking, the majority of girls are physically mature at the age of 13, but most would agree they are not emotionally mature or capable of operating as independent adults for some years to come. As such, modern societies in the free world have undertaken to protect them from exploitation by adults and older children. Child pornography, child predator laws and the age of consent are the vehicles of this system of values. The protection of the rights of these innocents is among the noblest applications of our constitutional ideals.
Recent events in West Texas involving the removal of hundreds of children from their parents, have raised many questions about the role and authority of government when it comes into conflict with religious practice. The religious beliefs of the FLDS community includes the institutionalized practice of very young girls being married to adult men. Leaving aside questions of the aforementioned exploitation, the practice ostensibly leads to nothing more sinister than procreation and the growth of the FLDS community. Brides who are minors are common in the FLDS community, and despite the fact they are living what is otherwise a very modest and virtuous existence, many consider these marriages to be flagrant statutory rape. The culmination of this interpretation came with the recent raid of the community in Eldorado.
Enter Hannah Montana. Hannah is the fictional character made famous by 15 year old Miley Cyrus in the last few years. She is the idol of young girls everywhere, and most agree until recently, a good role model for kids. In recent weeks Ms. Cyrus has been seen dancing in a sexually suggestive manner on "American Idol". More recently, news has broken that Vanity Fair will release semi-nude photos of Ms. Cyrus in its upcoming June release of the magazine. The photos include what are considered by many to be sexually provocative poses, amounting in effect to soft porn. According to Ms. Cyrus, she is now embarrassed about the photos and insists she was persuaded to do them by the photographer, Annie Liebowitz. Ms. Liebowitz is reportedly a lesbian and political activist. According to a marketing rep, Ms. Cyrus is taking the baby steps to grow her image for the future.
Does this seem like a double-standard to any of you? Why does the alleged exploitation of girls result in a raid on a community in which hundreds of children are removed, and the rights of many others subverted. Why is a publication which clearly sexually objectifies a young girl, with the potential to influence millions of girls nationwide, justified? For my part, I am a believer in freedom. I want our laws enforced, but I want to tread lightly in calling police action to enforce a system of values. We as a society need to think through how we apply and enforce our values, and what constitutional principles we compromise in the process. In the meantime, I plan to make sure my daughter knows that Miley Cyrus is no longer an acceptable role model, and that she will be going to college before she gets married.
Recent events in West Texas involving the removal of hundreds of children from their parents, have raised many questions about the role and authority of government when it comes into conflict with religious practice. The religious beliefs of the FLDS community includes the institutionalized practice of very young girls being married to adult men. Leaving aside questions of the aforementioned exploitation, the practice ostensibly leads to nothing more sinister than procreation and the growth of the FLDS community. Brides who are minors are common in the FLDS community, and despite the fact they are living what is otherwise a very modest and virtuous existence, many consider these marriages to be flagrant statutory rape. The culmination of this interpretation came with the recent raid of the community in Eldorado.
Enter Hannah Montana. Hannah is the fictional character made famous by 15 year old Miley Cyrus in the last few years. She is the idol of young girls everywhere, and most agree until recently, a good role model for kids. In recent weeks Ms. Cyrus has been seen dancing in a sexually suggestive manner on "American Idol". More recently, news has broken that Vanity Fair will release semi-nude photos of Ms. Cyrus in its upcoming June release of the magazine. The photos include what are considered by many to be sexually provocative poses, amounting in effect to soft porn. According to Ms. Cyrus, she is now embarrassed about the photos and insists she was persuaded to do them by the photographer, Annie Liebowitz. Ms. Liebowitz is reportedly a lesbian and political activist. According to a marketing rep, Ms. Cyrus is taking the baby steps to grow her image for the future.
Does this seem like a double-standard to any of you? Why does the alleged exploitation of girls result in a raid on a community in which hundreds of children are removed, and the rights of many others subverted. Why is a publication which clearly sexually objectifies a young girl, with the potential to influence millions of girls nationwide, justified? For my part, I am a believer in freedom. I want our laws enforced, but I want to tread lightly in calling police action to enforce a system of values. We as a society need to think through how we apply and enforce our values, and what constitutional principles we compromise in the process. In the meantime, I plan to make sure my daughter knows that Miley Cyrus is no longer an acceptable role model, and that she will be going to college before she gets married.
Print
Email
