... who, contrary to their oft-spoken rhetoric, are not out to protect kids from harm, but to prevent them from being considered attractive in a public fashion where adults--especially us evil, selfish men, Goddess help all!--might admire them.

Miley and naive, incompetent girls like her might be traumatized to find out they were admired in that fashion by disgusting adult men, right? Well, who are the voices who constantly tell them that men who admire their attractiveness are "the enemy"?

More importantly, who was doing the shaming and potential traumatizing here? A spokesman for Disney back in 2008 said a poor 15-year-old girl was "manipulated" into posing by some vile adults, but they were the ones doing all the manipulating--not just Miley's emotions to make her ashamed and apologetic for daring to look beautiful when she was "only" 15, but the emotions of everyone in the public to incite millions of people into becoming as outraged as possible, and to bully Miley into a cowed apology. Which she now says, 10 years later, she regrets having done.

Yet, the main potential source of manipulation, coercion, regret, selfishness, and trauma is always externalized upon the adults (especially us men!) who may find awesome girls like Miley attractive and fully worthy of being a relationship partner. That may give them adult support for their empowerment, and we can't have that, right? They might forget their proper place in the world! Which is not walking arm-in-arm with adults as partners, but under their heels as de-sexualized exotic pets.

So, 10 years later, what does Miley publicly regret? She regrets being shamed into regretting taking part in an artistic photoshoot that highlighted her great beauty and attractiveness, and which made her feel free and physically empowered. As if that was a crime, because she was "only" 15. She had no right to be empowered or to express her attractiveness at that age!

The anti-choice faction that dominates societal thought right now are not concerned with protecting kids from harm, but protecting their propriety, preserving the illusion of quasi-asexuality, and punishing men for being attracted to them and daring to respect them as a full human being rather than thinking of them as "just a child." As if that was somehow noble, rather than dehumanizing, disempowering, and condescending! It made Miley feel bad about herself, and that her body was inherently ugly just because she was young.

They do not care about traumatizing girls, or shaming them, or coercing them, or filling them with regret about decisions they chose as long as it's a type of trauma, shame, coercion and regret which they approve of, and which takes the form of deterring them from anything to do with sexuality and sensuality rather than honoring the sexual nature of those who choose to express it, or those who may admire it rather than gag over it.

Of course, all of this will be justified as "for her own good." Her regrets will be dismissed because "the intentions were good" and "we had no way of knowing if she freely entered into the photoshoot or not, so everything we did was 'erring on the side of caution.'" Mmmhmm, as long as the potential trauma, regret, shaming, and coercion happens in accordance with "erring on the side of caution" rather than giving the benefit of the doubt in the absence of good evidence, then all forms of harm are fully justified.

And isn't it ironic that the photographer was a woman, rather than an icky and evil man? I guess the argument will be that a man must have manipulated her into taking the photos at gunpoint behind the curtain, where no one could see him, or something like that.