Vanessa Hudgens oblivious to nude pic rule #1

[Blackmagik]

A spokesperson for the Walt Disney Co., which produced the "High School Musical" franchise, says it's sticking by Hudgens. Said Disney Channel spokeswoman Patti McTeague, "Vanessa has apologized for what was obviously a lapse in judgment. We hope she's learned a valuable lesson."

and shes safe!

[Eaglestrike]

So I have to wonder how it got out in the first place...

[Exoduso]

She's a retard and sent it via email?

[chellebell]

cleary the boyfriend leaked it.... atleast I would lol

[kuronosan]

She's pretty damn hot.


But oh yea... definitely an attention whore. Probably jealous because her boy toy is getting more acclaim and women that come with it and she wants his attention on her.

As always, we all benefit from the stupidity of celebrities and attention-depraved women in general.

[Fhqwghads]

Newsflash: Girls don't give naked pics to their boyfriends for anything but sexual reasons.

That's not a newsflash. I'm not arguing that naked pictures aren't viewed as sexual, I'm stating that it's viewed as sexual because that's the way society has defined it. If we didn't sensationalize nudity it wouldn't cause these ridiculous headlines.

I can see where you might argue this point about some things (like Janet Jackson, which was just a stupid reaction) but this is a children's role model taking an obviously sexually-charged picture That's going to be newsworthy even if sex wasn't so 'sensationalized' in the US.

Meh, I disagree. She's just standing there. Maybe if she was on her back with her legs spread shoving a massive dildo in her cunt then I'd agree. Everyone has their own idea of what's sexual though, so you're free to view it however you like (and I get the feeling many are viewing and liking it... again... and again... and...)

[Eaglestrike]

Newsflash: Girls don't give naked pics to their boyfriends for anything but sexual reasons.

That's not a newsflash. I'm not arguing that naked pictures aren't viewed as sexual, I'm stating that it's viewed as sexual because that's the way society has defined it. If we didn't sensationalize nudity it wouldn't cause these ridiculous headlines.

I can see where you might argue this point about some things (like Janet Jackson, which was just a stupid reaction) but this is a children's role model taking an obviously sexually-charged picture That's going to be newsworthy even if sex wasn't so 'sensationalized' in the US.

Meh, I disagree. She's just standing there. Maybe if she was on her back with her legs spread shoving a massive dildo in her cunt then I'd agree. Everyone has their own idea of what's sexual though, so you're free to view it however you like (and I get the feeling many are viewing and liking it... again... and again... and...)

If you look at some of the other pictures there she's making faces like models do in commercials and stuff to look sexy. And you don't really take a naked picture of yourself and send it to your significant other for non-sexual reasons, unless you are showing off your herpes or something...

[Charla]

cleary the boyfriend leaked it.... atleast I would lol

This is also what I assumed as soon as I read the first post.

She's 18. Being a "children's role model" doesn't mean she has to act like a child herself. Unless you're a soccer mom that thinks your daughter is going to run away and become a stripper the second she learns what sex is, getting upset at her over this just doesn't make much sense.

[Correction]

She's 18. Being a "children's role model" doesn't mean she has to act like a child herself. Unless you're a soccer mom that thinks your daughter is going to run away and become a stripper the second she learns what sex is, getting upset at her over this just doesn't make much sense.

With that logic Michael Vick should be allowed back in the NFL the second he gets out of jail.

The rules change when what you are and what you do are marketed towards children. Unfair? Sexist? Repressive? Sure, but that's how the world works. There are a million other girls who want her job and she got it under contract. Can't live up to the contract? See ya.

Even with all this considered she should count her lucky stars that she's not out of a job.

[Tulun]

Niceeeeeeeee.

[Charla]

With that logic Michael Vick should be allowed back in the NFL the second he gets out of jail.

The rules change when what you are and what you do are marketed towards children. Unfair? Sexist? Repressive? Sure, but that's how the world works. There are a million other girls who want her job and she got it under contract. Can't live up to the contract? See ya.

Even with all this considered she should count her lucky stars that she's not out of a job.

And we're comparing a person who attempted to privately share her sexuality with a significant other, but failed to take into account that person's disregard for her, to someone who abused and violently killed a number of dogs for fun and profit. Does this sound strange to anyone else?

It's true that the rules change when children are involved in this country. All I was saying is that it is unfair and repressive. I'm going to go way out on a limb and say "don't take a naked picture of yourself" probably wasn't in her contract. IMO Repressing the natural desires of adults is worse than taking the risk of corrupting children.

[Deejay]

No one said she couldn't take naked pictures of herself. It's wrong to take naked pictures of yourself and put them on the intranets. It's dumb, especially when you're a child star.

[Fhqwghads]

No one said she couldn't take naked pictures of herself. It's wrong to take naked pictures of yourself and put them on the intranets. It's dumb, especially when you're a child star.

Couple of points.

1) It's our fault as a society that we act horrified if a child sees a naked human. Children, especially young children, don't care about nudity in the slightest. They'll happily run around without clothes and not think twice about it, because to them there's no shame and absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's due to the adult attitude toward nudity that as kids get into puberty that they start to adopt the same (in my opinion flawed) disposition.

2) Why should it matter if there are naked pictures on the web of a star whose audience is children? If parents were parenting, their child would never see the naked pictures because they'd be involved in what their children are doing, especially when it comes to the web. Unsupervised web browsing can lead to a lot more disturbing things than a naked entertainer.

And to the guy who compared naked pictures of a person to the violent slaying of animals for money - come on. Are you for real?

[Charla]

If you're using the assumption that she put the picture on the internets herself, then that's a little different (mostly because it would make her an attention.whore). As I said earlier, I'm working under the assumption that she intended for exactly one person to see the picture, but was "oblivious to nude pic rule #1" (like it says in the thread title). Also, what the Strongbad avatar guy said.

[Deejay]

No one said she couldn't take naked pictures of herself. It's wrong to take naked pictures of yourself and put them on the intranets. It's dumb, especially when you're a child star.

Couple of points.

1) It's our fault as a society that we act horrified if a child sees a naked human. Children, especially young children, don't care about nudity in the slightest. They'll happily run around without clothes and not think twice about it, because to them there's no shame and absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's due to the adult attitude toward nudity that as kids get into puberty that they start to adopt the same (in my opinion flawed) disposition.

It's also your responsibilty as a parent to tell your kids to put some god damn clothes on when they run around naked. What good comes out of being naked? It only makes kids even more curious about what "those parts" are used for, and why tickling between the legs feels so good. I'm not saying nudity is wrong, but atleast clothe your children untill they can fully distinguish why/when it is appropriate to be naked.

2) Why should it matter if there are naked pictures on the web of a star whose audience is children? If parents were parenting, their child would never see the naked pictures because they'd be involved in what their children are doing, especially when it comes to the web. Unsupervised web browsing can lead to a lot more disturbing things than a naked entertainer.

So you're saying it's the parents fault if they let their kids use google? My 10 year old sister could find these pics within 10 minutes if she heard the story on the radio. Is NSFW.com even an adult only website?

I don't understand how you can go from pro-nudity for your children to cock-block the shit out of their internet access.

[Charla]

So you're saying it's the parents fault if they let their kids use google? My 10 year old sister could find these pics within 10 minutes if she heard the story on the radio.

I blame the radio.

[Correction]

1) It's our fault as a society that we act horrified if a child sees a naked human. Children, especially young children, don't care about nudity in the slightest. They'll happily run around without clothes and not think twice about it, because to them there's no shame and absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's due to the adult attitude toward nudity that as kids get into puberty that they start to adopt the same (in my opinion flawed) disposition.

Not arguing with this. But you saying that doesn't change the way things are. And chances are it won't change for a very very long time. But this isn't about mere 'nudity,' as if she's posing for some art class. She took lewd pictures of herself as a turn-on for a man. In other words, this is amateur porn. Hardly something created that you could defend as harmless in a court of law when it's exposed to children, and this is why she's in trouble.

And to the guy who compared naked pictures of a person to the violent slaying of animals for money - come on. Are you for real?

Don't put words in my mouth. I was addressing the 'private lives should have no impact on a public figure's career' issue.

[Ryko]

And to the guy who compared naked pictures of a person to the violent slaying of animals for money - come on. Are you for real?

Don't put words in my mouth. I was addressing the 'private lives should have no impact on a public figure's career' issue.

Uh, in vick's case, his private life was against the law, his public career would be fucked with by his private life regardless if he went to jail.

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

And to the guy who compared naked pictures of a person to the violent slaying of animals for money - come on. Are you for real?

Don't put words in my mouth. I was addressing the 'private lives should have no impact on a public figure's career' issue.

Uh, in vick's case, his private life was against the law, his public career would be fucked with by his private life regardless if he went to jail.

And he was black.

[Correction]

And to the guy who compared naked pictures of a person to the violent slaying of animals for money - come on. Are you for real?

Don't put words in my mouth. I was addressing the 'private lives should have no impact on a public figure's career' issue.

Uh, in vick's case, his private life was against the law, his public career would be fucked with by his private life regardless if he went to jail.

Your point being? I thought I already said that Vick's career is over because he broke the rules of the NFL in addition to the charges against him. It's an extra penalty on top of the jailtime he faces. It's not like Mike Tyson, he doesn't just get to make a comback into millions of dollars. Why? Because that's what the NFL wrote on his contract.

And what are we arguing about, ultimately? She hasn't lost her fucking job, but if she does break any of Disney's rules they are fully within their rights to fire her.