by Michael Haley

Created on: September 17, 2007   Last Updated: October 31, 2008

Vanessa Hudgens, simply put, didn't do anything wrong, even though members of the media and members of the general public are acting as if she has something to be sorry for. Why is it not congruent to be a lover (on her own time) and a children's star simultaneously? Call me hopelessly liberal, but I don't see the harm in lovers trying to arouse each other. The fact that it was released on the Internet is irrelevant.

Let's look at this more closely. She works for Disney. Premise One. She's supposed to be a role model. Premise two. She sees herself as a positive role model for fans. Premise three. Fans (mostly parents but some children too) who thought they knew the "real" Vanessa Hudgens feel let down after this new information is presented. Premise Four. Therefore, we should lambaste her for her indecency. Conclusion.

Let's go back through that again. Lots of people work for Disney, as they own just about everything. Since that is a part of the argument, we assume that all Disney employees have to be virtuous since they are on the late Walt's payroll. Well, it's illogical to assume that Disney's 100,000 employees are all going to be saints, and if Vanessa is not allowed to arouse her boyfriend on her own time, than it follows than none of their other employees should be allowed to either, regardless of their age. They work for Disney after all, and Disney doesn't do that. This clearly makes no sense, so we can toss out the premise that Hudgens working for Disney has a bearing on the ethics of her behavior.

The next claim is that she is supposed to be a role model. Well, here we get into a larger argument of what constitutes a role model, and whether or not the role model in question is someone of genuine virtue or merely a tool used by a repressive patriarchal order in order to enforce the status quo, and preaches virtue as a means to inhibit people's actions and behaviors for hidden, unspoken agendas (a la oppressive governments.) Since there are children here, let's assume we're talking about the former. These photos were not meant to be seen by children, so it is unfair to hold it to her that if young children see it, they are going to be somehow warped. No matter how much the post modernists argue, the media is powerful but not THAT powerful, and the image of one media darling is not going to tarnish the lives of the children who should happen to see it. Will it give the kids ideas? Maybe, but it shouldn't be anything new. These sexual impulses have been

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>