I don't think it is the bare back as much as it is the implied nudity. One of the pics has a half exposed boob and another a booty shot. Nothing on the lines of pornographic in my mind, but hey, we're uptight here on the East Coast.

Maybe it's less about the backs, and more about the bum cleave and side boob? Still though...

They all complain about those billboards then they go home and play with themselves while they fantasize about them.

Sex is very natural, people need to stop shying away from it so much. American kids are so clueless once they hit puberty, no wonder 1 in 4 girls between 15 and 19 has an STI. Our teen pregnancy rate is also sky high. If a kid asks, what's to explain? It's the human body. It's an adult female's back.

Scandal! Miley Cyrus NUDE:

http://celebritiesvidz.com/videos.php?v=Miley_Cyrus

It's exploitation that people hate. They are using sex to sell and the hell with trying to raise your kids to be good people.

With their "spokesmen" rebuked by even McCain, is this all the lunitic fringe can come up with to b*t*h about? Naked backs?!?! Let them crawl back under the rocks they oozed out from under!!!

Actually one of these billboards was in our neighborhood- and was just higher than eye level on an every day street complete with houses and children walking to school. It might be ok if it's up high and the backs are smaller in relation to their height, but naked backs spanning 12 feet tall is just inappropriate for anyone that wants to help keep their families eyes safe and secure. Normally you'd say, "change the channel" - in this case- change your house? I don't think so.

As far as the billboards are concerned, they are not as offensive as some ads in "womens" magazines. If it isn't defined as pornographic by the Supremes, then it's perfectly legal. As far as Miley Sirus is concerned, her father is the one who should be (and if she's under 18, is) responsibile for allowing her to pose provocatively. Under the new guidelines from the Supremes the Coppertone ad with the little girl with the dog pulling down her swim suit to show her tan violates the current law. We need clearer definitions, not contridictions from the folks calling the shots.

Oh for Christ's sake. They're BACKS, not vulvas. I don't think a parent has to "explain" anything to a 4 year old except to maybe say that the girls are not wearing tops. Sex sells. Stop trying to protect people from it. Americans are the laughing stock of the Western world because we still think erotica/sex is somehow dirty. Thank God nobody has yet to spew something about "protecting innocent children" whatever that means. Victorian ethics has always been a problem in this nation.

Ok.. all's fair in love and advertising right? Where are the naked guys? I want to see the muscley arms all 12 feet high. The ones with the tattoos on the backs are ok in my opinion, they are advertising a rock station.. those are rock bands. The ones with just the naked chicks?? What's the point? As far as explaining it to kids, just be rational, if you FREAK OUT and say how bad it is, they are just going to want to look at it MORE. If you treat it as what it is.. an AD for a rock station, it's not that big a deal and they move on. I also have to add that even though I'm not the worlds best at spelling, how can you people get along in this crazy backwards world thinking that Miley Cyrus is spelled with Sirus?

I don't believe people are fussing so much about the bare backs as much as they are about the side boob and booty.

this is sad, the naked body is a natural thing! why is it that people and prudes, have to make a big deal out of it, thats why things get out of hand. theres just a bunch of idiots out there! Teach your children right, and open yourself and they will learn right from wrong. get a life to those who have nothing better to do but make others lives misserable because theirs is...

their freaking out over miley cyrus`s bare sholder blades because she is a 15 year old child !