[rjknight]

So, I think this phrase may benefit from some context. Specifically, the cultural backdrop to the statement is that we[1] have a recent tradition of using the transition from "pure, sweet good-girl teen" to "raunchy, sexualised young woman" as a kind of marketing event for female pop stars who began their careers as teenage TV stars. Part of their marketing value derives directly from the public and "shocking" nature of the transition. It's essentially exploiting the Madonna-whore complex[2] for marketing purposes.

There are ambiguities, of course. Perhaps the "shock" value of female sexuality is a good thing and is helping us all to get out of outmoded views about female purity. Perhaps the presentation of female sexuality as being about raunch and nudity is catering to male fantasies and is thus bad. Perhaps the problem lies with the excessively "pure" image that teenage female entertainers need to maintain in order to be deemed "family-friendly".

Personally, I interpreted the comment in the article as being one about the exaggerated nature of the image change that stars like Miley Cyrus go through once they hit the age of consent. She's neither the whore of Babylon nor Hannah Montana, but it suited advertisers to portray her as both at different times.

Is this a suitable topic for a joke or a metaphor? I didn't interpret it negatively, so for me it was fine. I can appreciate why other people would disagree, but I thought adding some context might be useful[3].

[1] Actually this is mostly an American thing, so I'm not entirely entitled to use "we" here

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna%E2%80%93whore_complex

[3] Who am I kidding? I'm just giving my 2c on an internet forum like everyone else who has nothing better to do right now

[nemof]

your explanation is reasonable as far as it goes. Yes, the two states are being used to contrast the shocking change in nature of the product. However, this doesn't speak as to whether it's ok.

1) commodifying women is not ok.

2) comparing women as an object/product to a piece of tech is again problematic.

3) half your potential audience for your review is women. Do they want to read about other women being talked about like this?

4) using language like this makes it easier to accept it's reasonable and inoffensive. It's not inoffensive.

just saying oh well this is advertising and marketing is not enough. Questioning it's validity is worthwhile. Questioning whether we want to see this kind of exclusionary and sexist language in professional copy is worthwhile.

[devcpp]

So much argument... I can't believe some people get this offended by simple words. In this case, Miley doesn't even deny it, she's trying hard to give that image, so it's really childish to complain about it.

I hate this attitude that makes people watch their words. It may be true of public and influential personalities, but who cares your choice of words as long as you convey the message? I believe that everything and everyone can be laughed at.

Sure, you may feel offended inside. But you should at least understand that it makes no sense and refrain from sharing your "I'm offended" feelings. Same thing goes for the other end of the spectrum by the way: you can be sexist but as long as you don't act on it, I don't see a problem. That's what freedom is about.

[nemof]

> So much argument... I can't believe some people get this offended by simple words.

I'm a man, I can walk down the street without being wolf whistled, leered at or otherwise feeling threatened.

Every single woman I know has been hassled in public by men with sexist, threatening language like this. walking down the street they will get an unwanted comments about their appearance, if they ignore them or complain, they get called the kind of things you call "simple words".

Because this kind of language is in the everyday lexicon of of some men, it's used to hurt, threaten and intimidate women.

but y'know, please don't get upset by my simple words yeah.

[gojomo]

You are straining to take offense.

Some women have criticized Ms. Cyrus's image-transition as cynical and self-destructive – see for example Sinead O'Connor's "open letter" [1]. Those women might appreciate, rather than take offense at, a sly nod to the accelerated, commercial nature of Cyrus's sex-it-up-for-a-buck makeover. The review's throwaway line, to the extent it expresses any viewpoint at all, can equally be seen as embracing one particular feminist critique of sexualized-marketing.

So if some people find a word choice "offensive" based on a simple checklist of dos-and-don'ts, but others find the same phrasing a usefully vivid and possibly even progressive turn-of-phrase, which side should have its preference respected in future writing? Do we take a majority vote? Does one iota of declared offense, from the most easily-offended, always win, ensuring gray committee-vetted prose from here to eternity?

[1] http://gawker.com/everyone-needs-to-read-sinead-o-connors-op... – One of O'Connor's points is: "The message you keep sending is that its somehow cool to be prostituted.. its so not cool Miley.. its dangerous. "