'World Friendly' and 'The Artfulness of Nude Art'
by Ted Slater on 05/21/2008 at 2:10 PM
Two 16-year-olds. One who spends time with "Sex and the City." And one who spends time with Scripture.
In the article of hers that we published today on Boundless, "World Friendly," Suzanne Hadley explains that the media we consume affects us, whether we acknowledge it or not, whether we like it or not.
Is it coincidence that the teen who watches "Sex and the City" is posing semi-nude on magazine covers? Is it coincidence that the teen who studies Scripture is making a difference by involving himself with the global anti-slavery movement?
As Suzanne points out, she's not judging anyone, not dismissing them as "a sinner." I'm not either. We're all sinners. But perhaps we can learn from these two teens, perhaps making a connection between behavior and media habits.
"You are what you eat," some say. "Garbage in, garbage out," they say. I, for one, want to do better; I want to ingest good things.
The 16-year-old girl mentioned above is Miley Cyrus, as you likely know. She went along with the semi-nude photo shoot because she was under the impression that it "was supposed to be 'artistic.'"
I've wondered for a long time how unclothed bodies became "artistic," and therefore acceptable for public viewing, even promoted as virtuous pieces of culture for the enlightened among us. I'm reminded that Adam and Eve covered their naked bodies, and God also provided coverings for their bodies. The beauty and holiness of their bodies was no longer to be displayed for all the world to see, but was to be hidden, perhaps like the precious Ark of the Covenant was hidden within the Holy of Holies for only the High Priest to view.
Modestly Yours elaborates:
For some reason nudity, when presented as art, seems to get a free pass, even for wholesome young girls like Miley Cyrus. The argument, I believe, goes "art is 'cultured' and how could anything 'cultured' be bad?" Be even the most artistic, tastefully done nude photograph, while surely a step up from overtly trashy pornography, is still publicized nudity and therefore problematic in my mind.
Like the artists of the world, I believe that the human body is a beautiful thing. However, just because something is beautiful doesn't mean it needs to be shared with everyone. Under the guise of art, we've been led to believe that you can separate a body from a person. That you can appreciate the form itself while ignoring the essence contained within it. But body and soul are inseparable. And when a body is revealed in such a complete way, not everyone will cherish the soul that comes with it.
One insightful commenter replied, "Every artistic nude is tasteful -- until a slobbering, leering, horny person finds it exactly to his -- or her -- 'taste'. Then it's degrading and embarrassing."
I really should have split this one blog post into two, since it's really about two separate issues: media discernment and the effects of media on our character and behavior, and the appropriateness of public "artistic" nudity. I look forward to seeing which receives more comments.
HT: The Point
1. Holly (single, non-parent one) said the following at 2:23 PM on May 21:
A small quibble: Miley Cyrus is 15, not 16.
2. Louise said the following at 2:25 PM on May 21:
According to www.wikipedia.org Miley Cyrus is fifteen, not sixteen, years old.
Her date of birth, per the above resource, is Nov. 23, 1992.
3. Gina said the following at 2:27 PM on May 21:
Thank you for the Point link, Ted!
I would add, though, that the dividing line is not always drawn as clearly and sharply as we would hope. Case in point: I read somewhere that Miley Cyrus's favorite author, or one of her favorite authors, is Karen Kingsbury. I haven't read Kingsbury myself, but I believe she's one of the best-known contemporary Christian novelists (I notice that Focus sells her books, in fact). Given this and the fact that her family is at least nominally Christian, I wouldn't be surprised if Miley has read the Bible too.
This suggests to me the worrisome idea that in some cases -- not all, but probably quite a few -- the teenager reading Scripture and the teenager watching "Sex and the City" are one and the same person. And that's something Christians need to be especially concerned about.
4. Carrie (the original) said the following at 2:33 PM on May 21:
"I want to ingest good things."
Here, here! Good call, Ted.
Media discernment is huge. I'm glad that soon I will be parting with the television (I'm moving and not taking it with me). It will be interesting to see what I do when I want to just "be still".
I was really mulling over the whole media intake thing, privately, and I was talking with a pregnant friend a month ago. After a mid-wife visit, she was told to gain more weight. So, she obeyed and was eating loads of food - good food. She said "You know, eating all this good food, I don't even have a desire for junk food anymore". I thought that was incredibly profound.
If we give ourselves over to holy pursuits - media "ingestion" being among them - then we will recognize the nasty stuff for what it is. We will not be compelled to partake, but rather recognize it for what it is.
5. Jane said the following at 2:34 PM on May 21:
my parents own numerous nude paintings- some klimt prints and others. i think of them very differently from portraits of miley cyrus wearing a skimpy shirt (which it was, just to clarify). statues like that of venus, david, or the roman gods are also present in prints in my house. so i have a little different perspective-- ive got some of the christian renaissance humanist in me.
6. Elizabeth H. said the following at 2:39 PM on May 21:
It was my impression that Miley felt she had made a mistake and apologized publically. I think the media really latched on to the story, so it's hard to sort out the truth.
However, I agree with the basic premise of this post.
7. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:48 PM on May 21:
the teenager reading Scripture and the teenager watching "Sex and the City" are one and the same person.
Heard a story once...it went something like this:
A missionary led an indian chief to Christ. He left for a period of time and returned. He asked the indian chief how his spiritual walk was doing...the chief responded with this -
"I feel like there are two big dogs fighting inside of me."
The missionary asked him, "Which one is winning?"
The chief said, "The one I feed."
So in the case of Miley Cyrus...and ANY person who consumes two types of media - one good and one not so good - which are you consuming more of? Even though Karen Kingsbury is a great author, she is not scripture and still there is a modicum of moderation needed with reading christian novelists.
I grew up having to be incredibly careful about the media I consumed. Even when it came to reading Christian novels, if I was reading too much Lori Wick, my mother noticed I was overly consumed with romance. If I spent time in scripture, it wasn't so obvious or noted. Even today, i can recognize a significant change in my attitude if I consume too much of one media that is not scripture (even if it is christian media).
Even boundless is known for screwing up my world view if I consume too much of it without scripture to balance things - I tend to get overly judgemental =p
8. JB said the following at 2:54 PM on May 21:
I don't really see it as problematic to separate the form of the body from the soul of the model. I know nothing about the soul of the man who modeled for Michelangelo when he was painting Adam on the Sistine Chapel or about the woman who became Botticelli's Venus. But what does that matter? The art, by abstracting the human form from a particular soul, allows the form to stand in for any soul (or souls) that we want. Botticelli's Venus is no longer a depiction of the long dead model, she's a depiction of every woman. Michelangelo's Adam touching the hand of God is each of us. The nudity in these depictions is powerful and necessary to say things that ought to be said. If someone finds themselves leering at these depictions, that merely degrades the one who leers, not the artist or the original model.
9. P&P said the following at 3:03 PM on May 21:
Miley Cyrus has been covered by the Boundless Show, and it's old news.
As for the nudity issue, I'm reminded of an interview I saw with Rick Steves the author of Europe Through the Back Door book and PBS series. He said that these days, he and his crew have to be careful of showing what are considered to be great works of art for fear of offending some viewers.
I do agree however that art is in the eye of the beholder, but I'd still like to be my own judge, rather than let someone else determine it.
For those of you who are interested in art commentary from a relgious person, I suggest you check at your library (maybe Netflix?) to see if you can find the series done by Sister Wendy. She's a nun in England who did several television shows on great works of art that were shown on PBS in the US and I'm assuming the BBC in the UK. She makes things accessible and funny.
10. Tom Neven said the following at 3:10 PM on May 21:
Just stirring the pot:
Should we remove Michelangelo's "David" from The Accademia dell'Arte del Disegno in Florence? How about a good number of Reubens' work in the National Gallery in London?
The problem is that much of what is described as "artful" today is anything but. Even if you grant that Annie Leibovitz was attempting to be artful and not titillating, the desired result would not have been art.
11. Laura said the following at 3:13 PM on May 21:
Agreed. But it's interesting to know that Miley Cyrus and her family are members of the same church in which I grew up. Until her career took off and they had to be out of town so much, my understanding is that they were very involved, regular attenders.
12. JJ said the following at 3:13 PM on May 21:
1. Not gonna get into my opinion of the photo... but was Miley contacted at all for a possible interview? There is a lot of speculation in there and was just wondering if you're at all concerned whether this should even be our business.
2. I'm in the art field, and try to regularly go to life drawing sessions to keep up my skills. (yes, usually with a nude model) I have no problem with fellow believers not agreeing with nudity in any form, but I'd hope they'd extend me the same courtesy. In cases that aren't cut and dry I think a measure of grace and understanding is needed.
13. Sam said the following at 3:25 PM on May 21:
Gina, I share your concern. Statistics have proven that the Church acts like the world. So, before we start calling out folks in the "world" for watching smut like SATC, maybe we should call out our own folks.
Just sayin'.
(Btw, Ted, I know you're not "calling out" Miley for watching SATC. I just see this general blindness all around me to what really is going on in the lives of believers sitting in the pews week after week.)
14. k. said the following at 4:26 PM on May 21:
First...
Poor Miley. Dissecting her TV habits, questioning her spirituality, and looking down on her because she's not a loner on a crusade isn't fair. Neither is drawing a single line between what she watches, and who she is. We're complicated creatures. What we watch is just one factor in what makes us behave the way we do. You say you're not judging her, but you still come across that way. (Unless you think that Suzanne's criticism of the "fruit of [Miley's] life" is somehow non-judgmental?)
Am I saying that it's a good thing for a 15-year-old to be watching SATC, sanitized or not? Or that minors in sexy poses is a good thing? Definitely not. But this compare-and-contrast between Zach and Miley seems both artificial, and unkind.
Also, I would be very cautious with fawning over sixteen-year-old Zach Hunter. It's great that he's young and passionate about a cause. But hyping him and slapping his picture on posts might not be doing him any favors in the long run. Let's not set him up for failure by placing more of a burden on him than a 16-year-old is equipped to bear. Miley and Zach are both young. They both have a lot of mistakes to make, and a lot of things to accomplish. So stop trying to harvest the fruit of their lives -- it ain't over, by a long shot.
Second...
I'm not clear on what you're defining as public, artistic nudity. My $0.02 would be that it's subjective. Demi Moore's pose on Vanity Fair, naked and pregnant, I think qualifies as artistic nudity. Someone posing for GGW, on the other hand, not so much. Also, I'm not as impressed by the commentator you mentioned. The world's full of "slobbering, leering, horny" people. To let them define whether something is artistic or degrading is giving them way too much power.
15. kaj said the following at 6:28 PM on May 21:
Perhaps some might consider it more fair to compare poor Miley to another female who exemplifies purity and modesty, instead of a male.
(Or, another alternative would be to compare an "immodest" male with Zach Hunter)
16. Chris said the following at 6:58 PM on May 21:
Ted writes:
I've wondered for a long time how unclothed bodies became "artistic," and therefore acceptable for public viewing, even promoted as virtuous pieces of culture for the enlightened among us.
Three thoughts here.
1) The Miley Cyrus thing was borderline child pornography, pure and simple. And I'm what people on this board would call a flaming secular humanist.
2) Your statement sounds a lot like those offered by people who can't seem to separate nudity from sexuality. I'm not saying that's how you feel, but it's a typical type of comment that I see.
3) I'm reading "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" by Richard Hofstadter. Your statement seems to be strongly worded as an argument against "elitism". Hofstadter makes an excellent observation in the sections on anti-intellectualism and religion about how sexuality (or rather fears about it) comes into play into reactions to "enlightened" ideas.
Just some friendly psychobabble.......
17. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:23 PM on May 21:
Maybe there should be a link to a prior post which had a lot of good discussion about the "nudity in art" debate.
18. Leah said the following at 9:02 PM on May 21:
You say I've wondered for a long time how unclothed bodies became "artistic," and therefore acceptable for public viewing, even promoted as virtuous pieces of culture for the enlightened among us.
The naked (or semi-naked) body has been considered artistic for centuries. Have a look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Have a look at any of the multitude of Renaissance artworks. Michaelangelo's "David". Scores of paintings and sculptures have been created of the (semi)naked body over the centuries. It is nothing new, and not necessarily wrong. It depends on the taste and the image itself? Erotic and sexy? Then yeah, there's something wrong there. Tasteful and artistic? Nothing wrong.
19. alex said the following at 9:20 PM on May 21:
Re: P&P (#9) :
The sister wendy series is incredibly funny and good! I second the motion:).
20. Suzanne said the following at 9:27 PM on May 21:
The article was not meant to be an apples to apples comparison of the two teens. The only reason they ended up "compared" was because their various influences on me came at the same time.
I also believed Adam Holz' article was very fair and insightful. Let me say something right here: I see myself in Miley, which is the reason I wrote the article. I understand that she is young...that what happened may have been simple immaturity. But I was challenged by Adam's words, because I, like Miley and many of my friends, tend to have enthusiasm for things of the world that really have no place in my life. I feel like that comes across in the article.
Also, my inclusion of Zach Hunter in the story had little to do with his abolitionist activities (although those are admirable). Yes, there is evidence of good fruit in his life. But I was more impacted by a consistency I saw in Zach that was frankly deeper than my own.
21. BDB said the following at 10:22 PM on May 21:
Does this discussion make Prince Caspian seem more appropriate in comparison to the other media choices out there? Anyone remember when Disney came out with Buckskin Barbie - er - their adaptation of Pocahontas?
Ah, I yearn for the innocence of when I didn't know who Hannah Montana was...
22. a sassy sister said the following at 10:52 PM on May 21:
I notice we're talking about nudity, art, faith, impressionable people, sexuality etc. But I also believe that this discussion will be unfruitful if there is no action in regards to this. Translation: unless you are willing to put your lives under the exact same standard of judgment and give assistance and the solution to this issue, how about we be discerning in our INDIVIDUAL media habits(including Christian stuff, because sometimes it's just plain tradition and man's opinions without a solid Biblical basis), offer solutions in conversations seasoned with grace, and pray for those who are not, with the understanding that media discernment doesn't mean living in a isolated bubble but with a filter.
23. DannieA said the following at 12:19 AM on May 22:
when I was 12...my mom and I did a mother/daughter picture that is in our house with our bare shoulders....It's very nice and no it wasn't meant to be sexual...the picture of Miley Cyrus was not nude...it's so sad that people get judged just because almost everyone knows who they are!
24. Naomi said the following at 5:04 AM on May 22:
Modesty became necessary in the Garden of Eden after man sinned. "They were naked and were ashamed" Gen. 3:7. It is the sin nature that requires people to cover their bodies!
I think nude "art" is a lame excuse for immodesty. Undoubtedly, someone is going to stumble as the result of a picture of a naked body. Nudity is wholly inappropriate, and yes, sinful, in any public context.
25. Randy said the following at 8:25 AM on May 22:
To answer the question of how long we've been fascinated by nude bodies: since the beginning of recorded art. The very beginning. In fact, most early art work is of human figures, usually unclothed. This is true for ancient Greek statuary / painting, this is true of primitive native art from pretty much all parts of the world. So we've had art of nude bodies for as long as we have been making art. In fact, in the modern art scene nudity is a bit passe. My girlfriend just graduated from art school, and I went to their uber-exhibition of graduate art works. 5 buildings, 4 floors each, crammed to the gills with sculpture, paintings, installations, videos, photographs etc etc etc. I saw almost no nudity, and only 1 sexually explicit project. Out of literally hundreds that I looked at. Compare that to the output of Renaissance painters and sculptors, who were all Christians, of course.
26. obewan said the following at 8:37 AM on May 22:
Yes we should practice media discernment. But I have to ask, what is "semi-nude" about her bare back? I would be a lot more concerned a frontal shot of her in a bathing suit, which would be considered clothed by some.
27. Ronnica said the following at 10:21 AM on May 22:
Nudity as art goes back much further than our culture. Previously, the human was the subject of painting becuase it was seen as God's chief creation. Now, it just seems to be the object of sexual desire.
I do believe that it is inappropriate for a minor to be photographed to appear as if she is naked in a bedsheet. I don't blame Miley for this, as she is still a child in many ways, but her parents/handlers on the set should have known better.
28. Kathryn said the following at 11:08 AM on May 22:
This might interest some readers; a story on a man who photographed a 13yr old girl for artistic purposes with parental permission, nude.
"The opening of the show was cancelled amid complaints about the show's explicit content."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23744360-5006784,00.html>The Australian Newspaper article.
As for me, I don't think Cyprus' photos were appropriate. They may be artistic, but they look like she just got out of bed naked, which implies adult activities. I don't think it was very artistic. But she's publically apologised, so I've no beef with her. :)
29. whs said the following at 12:26 PM on May 22:
Would it make a difference if you did not know who the subject was or how old she was?
God made the human body to be beautiful to us. The problem is not a photograph of a naked body but the objectification of an image.
We can run from the sin patterns that rule our lives and into a cave to live out our days or we can fight the good fight and defeat those patterns through the power of the Holy Spirit. I'm not advocating inoculating ourselves to porn. I am advocating fighting the real battle which is the objectification of humans, either gender.
I personally am going back and forth on this. Why doesn't ancient and Renaissance nudes bother me but this does a little?
30. composer girl said the following at 12:54 PM on May 22:
This is a complex issue. I personally don't believe that all nudity can be classified as pornography. Some of it is very beautiful and artistic.
Mike Theemling (#17) linked to a previous article about art and nudity, and in reading through the article and comments, I found a comment of his that seemed to me to provide good guidelines.
"-What message is the art trying to send?
-What is the person doing in the artpiece?
-Is the nudity/sex/etc. 'necessary'?"
I think that the third question is a little nebulous, since 'necessary' or not is subjective, but the first two questions are, in my opinion, effective guidelines. Artists can communicate other things through nudity besides seduction and lust. As an example, the photographer Anne Geddes sometimes takes nude photographs, but the main subjects of her photographs are babies and mothers, illustrating the beauty of life and of motherhood.
Here are a few of my random other thoughts:
1. I think that most people, if they see a famous person, such as an actor/actress or a singer, posing for nude or semi-nude shots, will perceive those photographs as pornographic.
2. If photographs are marketed as pornography, they will obviously be perceived as pornographic. Porn may be marketed as art, but most artists don't try to market their serious artistic works as porn. So if it's marketed as porn, it probably is.
3. Photographs are probably more often perceived as pornography than other mediums of art, since pornography widely uses that medium and because it is often perceived as more representational of reality than painting, sculpture, or other media.
4. I learned in Art Appreciation (which makes me an expert, of course :P) that the nude human form is one of the hardest images to create. If an artist can successfully master the skill of creating an image of a nude, it usually makes them even better at creating images of clothed persons. This would, in my opinion, justify the teaching of nude drawing, painting, sculpting, etc. in art classes (Though my conservative Baptist university still does not allow its art students to use nude models).
Those are most of my thoughts at the moment. Nude art can be very beautiful, but everyone must follow their own convictions, and if it causes them to stumble, they should probably avoid it.
31. Karen said the following at 4:10 PM on May 22:
Yay! Someone who stands up for modesty in art! Thank you so much for saying that, Ted. Let's think biblically about this, people (those of you who are Christians)... what do you think God was saying when he clothed Adam and Eve? That they should wear them unless they felt like painting each other? The ancient societies which portrayed nude art were basically godless, and humanism was aflame during the renaissance--despite the fact that the "church" was in power, their real hero was man. When they were portraying the human body as they did, they did it because they thought man was glorious and should be praised, not necessarily God. Also, traditionally lack of clothing portrays disgrace, shame, or sexuality (which should also not be displayed for the world to see).
32. Zama said the following at 6:45 PM on May 23:
Basically we have this sin nature dwelling within us even though we are christians, so one or two episodes of SATC could wipe out a whole lot of scripture that we read, so we have to be careful about the things we watch because they can make us prone to reasoning the way the world does as with the case. Instead of listening to what scripture says.'presenting your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptible to God'.
33. Loris said the following at 8:19 AM on May 27:
I suppose I don't have a problem with classical nudes because they're not a specific person, but archetypes. Modern nudes of famous people bother me because we know so much of their lives whether we want to or not, thanks to the media. I don't want to see them naked any more than I want to see my favorite church ladies naked or my husband's best friends. The artistic nude is most powerful when it is anonymous to us. Thinking "so that's what so and so looks like naked" ruins any artistic value a nude would have had otherwise.
34. obewan said the following at 9:40 AM on May 27:
I have to laugh at some of the art comments. My last Christian roommate had a Greek nude sculpture – you know – the white marble type?. Because he had no “real” girlfriend at the time, it became the brunt of many merciless jokes and comments. How did he respond? He had a very nice tasteful silk dress custom made for it. Then people teased him about having to control lust over a chunk of rock. Personally, it never caused me to lust, but I was glad to have the dress draped over it so as not to offend any visitors to the house.
35. Marc said the following at 9:26 PM on May 27:
Some have posted in this blog-post (as well as other blog-posts on this site) that Boundless is too judgemental. Though I do not always agree with Boundless, allow me to be so bold as to say the following...
Is Boundless "too judgemental" or are we so immersed in a world where there is no black or white, but only grey, that, when exposed to a strong truth that is hard to swallow, we overreact and jump to the conclusion that the writers of Boundless are "too judgemental"?
36. Libby said the following at 10:14 AM on May 28:
I've thought a good deal about the controversy of what is artistic and what isn't. I enjoy nude paintings and nude sculptures but it seems like the way that I can look at a nude painting and say someone else can, can be very different. While, my mind can be on the beauty of the human body and the emotion that the artist was able to catch in the picture the person standing beside me could be on a totally different train of thought.... but does this make nude paintings wrong.....?.....
37. Lizzie said the following at 11:38 AM on May 28:
I think whs (#29) made a good point. Most nudes in classical art can be seen as a celebration of beauty rather than an objectification.
38. obewan said the following at 12:49 PM on May 28:
Composer Girl #30 said:
“>>This is a complex issue. I personally don't believe that all nudity can be classified as pornography. Some of it is very beautiful and artistic.<<”
What about those indigenous cultures where the women go topless? I cannot say I enjoy it, but at the same time photos of the natives do not incite lust for me. It is a problem more than one missionary has had to deal with. And, I can recall more than one PBS documentary where they have flashed the images across my TV screen. I think to call such images pornography would be to degrade a portion of humanity that is different from our culture.
At the same time, there may be a need to “civilize” such people – perhaps more for our own benefit than theirs because in their culture, such exposure may not incite lust because they are not looking at something out of the ordinary – i.e. forbidden fruit ECT…
39. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:59 PM on May 28:
Lets see...
The nude body is a thing of beauty is coming across a LOT.
That we should be able to see artistic forms of nudity to be just that - art.
But what is art? Art captures the essence of beauty, right? Doesn't it mean anything to us that one man look at our body some day and think, with the eye of an artist, that I am beautiful? That this alabaster skin made of silk was created by a God that thought it best to hide it from the eyes of the world when sin first entered creation until such a time as this?
Why should we display alabaster statues of aphrodite and think "its just art"? Why should men and women roam an art museum and admire the fine curves of a french virgin painted upon a canvas? Why should we feel so inclined to marvel at the contrast between titian hair and skin as white as the moon?
Is it possible that there was a reason Adam and Eve were clothed when sin entered the world and they were still the only two in it?
Maybe its because our sinful natures would learn to take God's beauty for granted? And we are the most treasured of all God's creation, so why would he want us to display any of such awe-inspiring beauty for just any one to see? Even in a painting or a statue... Instead, take your wife to your room and marvel at the beauty that God created for YOU - knowing that you would hold one of his most prized creations in your arms, loving the beautiful essence that his artwork captures. Only not in cold stone, and not on 2-dimensional canvases.
40. Ted Slater said the following at 1:11 PM on May 28:
In my OP I wrote:
"The beauty and holiness of their bodies was no longer to be displayed for all the world to see, but was to be hidden, perhaps like the precious Ark of the Covenant was hidden within the Holy of Holies for only the High Priest to view."
Why was it wrong for all but one person to view the Ark of the Covenant? Why was such a sacred item hidden from view? Why did God kill those who, though forbidden to do so, touched it? Surely it was beautiful -- why keep it under wraps? Why not put it in a museum for all to enjoy, for all to marvel at?
Is nothing sacred?
41. sarah said the following at 11:06 AM on Jun 21:
When discussing nudity in art, it is important to keep in mind an audience. If you study art and art history, you find several nude, and biblical scenes. According to karenkingsbury.com Miley doesn't only read Karen Kingsuury, but the author notes that she has met Miley, and her family, and that while Karen Kingsbury is one of her favorite authors, the Bible is her favorite book to read.
Saying that nudity itself is bad is not true. After all in a perfect garden, God created man and woman naked. It really comes down to sin. That's when things become bad. If this photo of Miley causes others to sin, which I'm sure it has, then yes it was wrong for her to do this. It was an immature move made by a 15 year old girl. Does this surprse you? Miley is growing, as an artist, and as a teenager. I think as Christians, we should instead of criticizing her, pray that she would grow as a person, as a role model, and as a sister in Christ.