Submitted by pc, Apr 30, 2008 00:26

I think what you say is valid. However, If these photos are offensive, you should look at the advertising that fills young adult magazines (most of which target young teens). They imply worse messages (lose weight, ugly = heavy, hate your body, change your body, paint your face, win friends by clothing etc..). Yes, Montana's photos are provocative, and maybe there shouldn't be sexual overtones to a photo of 15-year-old girl, but it only goes that far. 15-year-olds are young, and they are inarguably sexual beings. There could have been worse connotations.

Furthermore, her pose in the photo ( at least the one I could find) has a sense of modesty to it. Both her expression and body language imply what she is - someone transitioning between kid and adult. She is naked, but more covered than any bathing suit could provide. And there is a certain amount of discomfort present. The artistry to the photo is strong. This is in no way porn as the photo tries to tell a story beyond just "look at a pretty girl."

It was a poor choice, as a Disney star, but I don't think that the photos are disgraceful, and I don't think she needed to issue an apology.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.