Harem pants are, indeed, back. And they're called "harem pants." As in, a group of women who sexually service a man. These will set you back $58. Enjoy.

And so begins the display of skin. Distracted by the fact that she doesn't have a shirt? Toplessness is still hot, apparently.

A closer look: She is actually attempting to push product, you know. The sunglasses are $14, the skirt is $58, the bracelets — can you see them? — are $24 each.

Looky here! More nekkid. They're selling the hat, the bra, the stockings and the duvet cover. Not listed: The bag, the plant, the part in the contract where posing for Urban Outfitters means posing nude.

Whoops! Pardon us as we intrude on your intimate, bra-less moment, young lady. For sale here: Leaf umbrella wall art, $60; scoopneck tank, $24; geode necklace, $28; beaded plait necklace, $24. Are we to assume that her underwear is her own?

Well. The headboard is silk and $475; the strategically placed quilt is $160. The faux-voyeuristic feeling of watching "girls being girls" is free. Creepy and staged, but free.

Kate Moss you are not. But yeah, the 90s are back.

If you buy that $158 tie-dye dress on the lower right, you will probaby button a few buttons and sit with your legs closed, no?

Is this "sexy"? Let's see: Unconscious female? Check. Visible nipple? Check. Dress pushed up to reveal crotch? Check.

Oh god. Is this what the disaffected youths will be wearing as they totter to bars this spring? Desperately Seeking Soco?


Urban Outfitters [Official Site]
Earlier: Urban Outfitters: Seasonal Affective Disorder & See-Through Dresses
Urban Outfitters: Sequins, High-Waisted Trousers & The Return Of The Miserable Model
The New Urban Outfitters: I Want To Sell You This Skirt But My Dog Just Died
Urban Outfitters, Free People & Anthropologie: What's The Difference?

For some reason, when Kayla got in the back of the limo, she decided to throw her shoes off, too. (She kept her bracelets on.) She insisted that she didn't like being the center of attention, all while screaming at the top of her lungs in an open limo in a parking lot in front of a film crew. This led her roommate Tiffany to lose her mind and an argument soon erupted, which prompted one of the blonde Ambers to admit, "I'm confused."

Jamie Lee Curtis is over on the Huffington Post, blaming Miley's parents for allowing this to happen, and that paragon of moral virtue, our bro-site Gawker, (who brought you 14-year-old Taylor Momsen's underwear) is outraged, saying Leibovitz is sexually exploit[ing] minors. But here's the thing: I think Miley knew exactly what she was doing, and the ladies of the View agree with me.

Joy Behar, paraphrasing Donny Deutch, said during this morning's hot topics, that Miley's "fanbase is moving into their late teens and she's trying to keep her fanbase." Whoopi added that when Annie Leibovitz takes your picture, she does so on a digital camera; Miley got to see every shot Leibovitz took almost immediately after it was snapped. And then there's the accompanying article. Miley sounds like a very smart, very press-savvy cookie in her interview with VF. When asked about her desired career trajectory, Miley says, "Before, I'd say like Hilary Duff, or this person or that person. But there can't be a thousand Hilary Duffs. Then that doesn't make Hilary special. And there can't be a thousand Miley Cyruses, or that doesn't make me special. That's what a star is: they're different. A celebrity is different. So, no, mostly I want to make my own path." Does that sound like the same girl who is now calling her topless shots "silly"?

Then there are those racy shots from Miley's MySpace that surfaced last week which show the Hannah Montana star exposing her chartreuse bra to the camera with a come-hither look on her face.

The sexualization of teens is a slippery slope. Where people draw the line between kiddie porn and appropriate magazine fodder isn't something that's so cut and dry. The business world treats her like a grown-up — she recently signed a 7-figure contract to write her memoirs — yet when it comes to her body, she's treated like a child. My point is that Disney is making Miley Cyrus out to be victimized by big bad ol' Vanity Fair, and the reality of it isn't so easy.

Miley Bares Her Torment [NY Post]
Miley Knows Best [Vanity Fair]
Annie Leibovitz Calls Topless Miley Cyrus Pic "Very Beautiful" [US]
The View Women Give Their Opinions on the Miley Cyrus Photos [Red Lasso]
Topless on TV: The Miley Cyrus / Vanity Fair Saga [HuffPo]
Why Its Annie Leibovitz's Fault [Gawker]
Put Your Clothes Back On Miley [XX Factor]
Sorry Disney, But You're Kind Of A Skank Factory [Ad Rants]

[Image via Vanity Fair]

So here we make an open plea to Anna Wintour, editrix of American Vogue and clearly the best frenemy that Carine Roitfeld (her French counterpart) has ever had — or so we deduce from the fashion editorial spread inspired by Nuclear Wintour herself in the version francaise) — take a page for the livre du Carine: Naked. More naked, please. If there were more naked, well then, Anna, wouldn't the world be a better place? We think it would. There's something so lovely and freeing about seeing all these girls without a care in the world, wearing all sorts of expensive shit — and their birthday suits! It gives the whole magazine a very sophisticated/smutty feel. Because nothing spells taste like choosing to show a little nipple. Not to mention that these are the kind of pin-ups we can get behind. As a card-carrying member of the Girls Who Like Boys club, I sorta want chanteuse/former Mick Jagger flame Carla Bruni taped to my wall. And I refuse to believe that I'm the only one who feels this way.

So, Anna, seriously: Want us to stop hating on Vogue? Then three words for you: Naked. Girls. Posing.

Vogue Paris