Miley's Photos Too Sexy for My Budget

Does everything have to be about sex?

Tarting-up teenage performers, such as Disney'sDIS Hannah Montana star Miley Cyrus, may be a tempting business strategy, but the practice won't extract a dime from my wallet.

If anything, I plan to rein in future spending on merchandise depicting television characters. Gas is expensive. Food costs are climbing and the economy is sinking. Hannah Montana is certainly one expense that can go.

Photos of Cyrus, shot for Vanity Fair magazine by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz, are causing a national stir.

Vanity Fair Leaves Miley Not So Smiley

No wonder.

Several photos capture the 15-year-old pop star with a sultry look on her face, donning a sheet draped over her front, while her back is completely exposed.

I'm not a puritan -- just the mother of a six-year-old girl. And I don't want to spend my family's money on pop stars who take their tops off -- even halfway.

Leibovitz has reportedly described the photo as a "simple, classic portrait." Well, I'm not buying it, Annie (or this month's Vanity Fair). Miley Cyrus looks partly naked, and the shadows under her eyes could just as well be the remnants of yesterday's mascara. Why must her messy hairstyle convey that just-got-out-of bed look?

The shot of Cyrus lying across the lap of her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, with her mid-section exposed also seems a little too sensual for a father-daughter picture.

It would have been just as easy to capture an artful portrait of Cyrus fully clothed.