Maddie Ziegler is following the common pattern we see with all young celebrities who become widely popular and admired under today's restrictions and expectations placed upon younger people by the adults who control their career trajectory before they turn 18.

Remember the debacles that occurred with both Jamie Lynn Spears and Miley Cyrus? Both had popular TV series that were designed by Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel respectively to serve up mostly innocuous, "innocent" fun to younger viewers (a few tidbits to the contrary escaping the censors here and there notwithstanding). But the "problem" was... in actuality, both Jamie and Miley were normal young teens with typical teen desires that did not gel with the sanitized image Nick and Disney sought to promote.

In Jamie's case, she was caught lying about this on behalf of her career and the idealized image of the "young teen" it demanded of her. At the age of 15, she was interviewed and told a sugary sweet story to the public that they very much wanted to hear and believe despite how unrealistic it was: That she never had a boyfriend because she was adorably shy and afraid to approach boys for fear of being rejected. Did anyone seriously believe that a young girl who was beautiful, famous, and very popular would be afraid to approach male peers, and evidently never had been approached herself by attractive and popular boys? Well, yes, many did because they were fed a story they very much wanted to hear. And this despite the fact that it was fed to them by a girl who was, by vocation, an actress who was adept at playing a role that was not actually her.

The carpet was pulled out from under that charade, however, when Jamie Lynn got unexpectedly pregnant at 16 and it came out that she was dating a popular local football hero she met in school from the time she was 14, and very likely sexually active with him from the get-go. Unless one believes they limited things to casual hand-holding and short kisses until her 16th birthday? I'm sure many still believe that, and if that gets you through the day, so be it. The point is, Jamie Lynn turned out to be a normal teen who made a mistake rather than the pristine one she played at the time on Zoey 101. Sadly, her TV career seemed to go into a permanent hiatus since then, with a few attempts through the succeeding years to break back into TV or into a singing career like her older sis falling through. Is this due to the "scandal" of betraying her image so many years ago that her once-adoring public refuses to forgive her for?

Then there was Miley, who since Hannah Montana premiered was forced to apologize to the public on several occasions by her overseers at Disney for being publicly "caught" being a normal teen with normal desires for fun and sexual experimentation. Remember her self-posted pics of that quasi-racy rendezvous with some female friends at the hotel? Remember those pics she took for a mainstream magazine where she was naked in a towel and showed off her bare back (oh noes!) as a form of expression over a body she was rightfully proud of? Unlike Jamie, Miley started a great singing career after reaching the Magic Age and getting away from Disney (though it seems to be winding down of late), but she quickly rebelled by creating an adult stage persona that openly spit in the face of the saccharine image she was forced to convey during the days she was legally underage and under the iron boot of a big corporation that insisted on forcing her into an unrealistic image of what teens actually are. She also went on public record to criticize Disney every chance she got. She was clearly more angry at Disney for putting her under the stress of pretending 24/7 to be something she was not for several years and humiliating her when she fell short rather than grateful for getting her career started. What does that tell you? That Miley is ungrateful...or that she felt all the fame she had during those years came at a price that she was put under crushing stress to pay?

We are forced to ask: What path would Jamie Lynn and Miley have taken as celebrities prior to turning 18 in a youth liberated society where what passes for youth culture (outside of TikTok, for the most part) was not strictly controlled by adult agencies and corporations?

Now we come to Maddie Ziegler, who likewise stated in an interview before turning 18 that she refrained from dating and any type of 'hanky-panky' that would be unbecoming of a youth, where she was applauded by the interviewer rather than called on it since it was clearly what he--or his studio, let alone the adult guardians of her legions of fans--wanted to hear. Unlike with Jamie and Miley before her, no direct evidence ever surfaced to suggest otherwise but her words do not ring true at all when you consider both her attractiveness and popularity. Is she simply a combination of luckier and more cautious than Jamie Lynn and Miley were about keeping up a career-preserving ruse?

It should be noted that since turning 18, Maddie has appeared in numerous pics with her boyfriend on Instagram and elsewhere, some of which suggest they are really into each other, if you know what I mean. This suggests to me that she is not asexual, and hence I highly doubt she refrained from 'hanky-panky' entirely as easily as she claimed she did prior to turning 18, anymore than Jamie or Miley did. She simply would have had too many opportunities to cross that line. I didn't know her personally nor was I never near her circle so perhaps she was a mistress of self-control for sake of image and didn't let loose until she turned 18...but personally, I'm not buying it.

Chloe Moretz made a similar claim in an interview at 15, where she said she allegedly was not allowed to date at all. Moreover, she said that the matter of choice was out of her hands at any rate since she had several older brothers who constantly monitored her and would put a serious beat-down on any boy who dare approached her outside the strict scrutiny of the family that controlled her (or, as our status quo mentality might say, "looked after her well-being"). So, in other words, her older brothers (according to her) acted as enforcers for the parental and managerial overseers of her life and image under the pretense of "protecting" her out of a sense of admirable brotherly love for her honor. I must wonder whether the alleged truth of the matter or the possible alternative (that Chloe acted as a normal teen with normal desires outside her career while effectively concealing it) was creepier. I know what the public's answer to that would be; and I know how my answer would differ.

We have to consider that celebrities are actors first and foremost, and are acting even when they appear as themselves via interviews. Especially when under 18 they are under tremendous pressure to retain their status as role models for peers by pretending to adhere to an image that is not just mandated by our adult-controlled culture, but is sacrosanct to it. Their career, and possibly even its future post-18 trajectory, may depend on maintaining that image, much as homosexuals once had to pretend not to be homosexuals to maintain a career; and how nowadays an adult MAP must pretend not to be a MAP in order to maintain a career in any given field.