In the first photo, a woman who appears to be Prejean wears pink panties and looks over her shoulder while holding her breasts. Pop Crunch reports that Alicia Jacobs, a Miss USA pageant judge who criticized Prejean's views on gay marriage after the pageant, has seen all six photos and says the others are more revealing. She thinks the photos may have been taken after Prejean's breast augmentation, which the Miss California USA organization paid for.

Prejean, 21, originally said the photos were taken of her when she was 17 (which would make them child pornography) according to the clip from The Today Show below:

In a statement released this morning, Prejean didn't emphasize that she was a minor when the pictures were taken, but said, according to E!:

I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be. But these attacks on me and others who speak in defense of traditional marriage are intolerant and offensive.

The text posted along with the photo on TheDirty.com does describe Prejean as a "self-proclaimed bible thumper," and concludes:

So much for being a good role model for the state of California Carrie. Looks like your Dirty photo shoot makes you a sinner too.

Though the site makes jokes about Prejean's religion, it seems the intent was to attack the hypocrisy of her presenting herself as the poster girl for squeaky-clean traditional values, rather than mocking her belief in God. If Prejean were any other Christian Miss USA runner up, it's unlikely the photos would have generated much national interest or focused as much on her religion. But, if photos of another state pageant winner came to light, that woman's most likely response would be to apologize and relinquish her crown in disgrace. Though Prejean's attempt to frame herself as the victim of religious persecution is somewhat ridiculous, the pictures were obviously released to discredit Prejean by revealing that she's an ignorant slut because she's posed for a half-dozen semi-nude photos! (Uh, like many young women her age?)

Prejean has already proven through her words that she's a poor spokeswoman for the anti-gay marriage movement. Posing for vaguely racy photos doesn't mean Prejean couldn't have an intelligent or articulate point about gay marriage, but not knowing much of anything about the policies she's advocating does. Christian conservative groups like the National Organization for Marriage have already shown they are willing to tolerate her ignorance on the issues, but it remains to be seen whether they will accept a spokeswoman who doesn't fit their view of how a "moral" woman should behave.

Exclusive: Miss California Carrie Prejean Exposed [TheDirty.com]
Miss California Nude Picture - Carrie Prejean Naked Photo Scandal [PopCrunch]
Miss California Denounces Racy Photo Leak [E!]

Earlier: Who Needs A Scholarship When You Can Get Sponsored Breasts?
Miss California Opens Mouth, Exhales Inanity
Celebrity Missives About Miss California Make Us Wish For World Peace

Cindi Leive, editor in chief of Glamour, doesn't really understand what the big deal is either. She said at an event held by Mediabistro idiotically titled "Skirts, Slacks and Supper": "I think it's a bit hypocritical how up in arms everybody is about it because clearly girls are sexualized far too early in this culture all the time, so we look at that one, I agree, relatively tame picture and we're suddenly so shocked, shocked! It seems a little disingenuous."

Speaking of disingenuousness, blogger Auntie Fashion posted a picture of then-17-year-old model Behati Prinsloo in a see-through shirt, walking down the runway in Lagerfeld. Auntie was outraged when he realized that the girl was under age, and asks, "Where were this child's parents when she was walking down the runway in a see-through top. Where were her agents? Where was Karl Lagerfeld?"

Maybe ol' Karl was checking out Disney billboards in China, looking for his next runway star. According to Daniel Brook at Slate in Beijing he spotted a billboard showing " a white girl who looked all of 12, reclining in a matching bra-and-panties set adorned with Disney's signature mouse-ear design. In a particularly creepy detail, the pigtailed child was playing with a pair of Minnie Mouse hand puppets. In the upper left-hand corner was the familiar script of the Disney logo." When Brook notified Disney, they were horrified — apparently they license Disney products to a third party, and with thousands of such third parties, they don't have the time to comb through every piece of advertising that gets created. Brook, however, was reassured by Disney execs that the offending billboard would be taken down immediately.

The age of consent in China is 14, a year younger than Miss Miley. Even with the big hullabaloo about Miley's Vanity Fair pics, the media will continue to sexualize teenagers especially as long as the "ideal" body type to many is one possessed mostly by the under 18-set. And it might not ultimately ruin Miley's life anyway. Brooke Shields' Calvin Klein ads from 1980 made her a cultural icon, and she doesn't seem to regret them one bit. "The response] was immediate," Shields told VF in last month's issue. "It was me and the jeans. We were inseparable. I didn't do a television show without that being in my bio. I didn't go on the street without somebody saying, 'Got your Calvins on?' People still come up to me and mention it."

'We Like Our Venuses Young' [Guardian]
To Timberlake, Or Not To Timberlake? The Debate [Portfolio]
Mickey Mouse Operation [Slate]
Double Standards [Auntie Fashion]
Calvin To The Core [Vanity Fair]

Earlier: Is Tween Titillation More Offensive Than Casual Racism?
Miley Cyrus Is Not The Innocent Victim That Disney Makes Her Out To Be

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]

If the kid is younger than 3 years old, it's probably harmless. At least, this is what many adolescent psychiatrists believe. Very young children won't notice anything odd about a parent who prances around the house in the buff. Likewise, babies who breastfeed at 12 months are physically intimate with their mothers and don't think twice about it. Chances are good that a 2- or 3-year-old won't form any lasting memories of seeing his parents in their birthday suits.

At worst, it's annoying. Like, does she have to do the NY Post crossword in a turtleneck and no pants? My mom is an R.N., so the human body is no big deal to her. (She also believes in "airing out," i.e. chillin' around the house with no underwear.)

I think that when you become a mom, the process of getting that baby out of your body is one of the most intense things that you go through. Exposing your vagina to your baby who came out of it, or your boobs to your baby who is nourished by them is actually really normal. It's probably more damaging for Sean and Jayden that we've seen her vagina a bunch of times. Or it will be when they learn how to surf the internet.

So what's the worst that will happen to Brit's boys if she continues with being naked around them? They'll become gay? First of all, there's nothing bad about that, and secondly, they have an incredibly camp mom. The odds of them becoming gay are way higher than most. Anyway, alls I'm saying is that Britney's nudity is not dangerous to her children—just to her career.

Should Kids See Their Parents Naked? [Slate]