You might expect Bret Michaels, the 46-year-old star of VH1's "Rock of Love," to pen a song with the lyrics "we both know better than this/still we can't resist/Slowly get undressed." But news that 17-year-old Disney starlet Miley Cyrus sings backing vocals on the saucy track has raised eyebrows. Cyrus, beloved by millions of teens, tweens, and children as the star of "Hannah Montana," reportedly took a liking to the song, titled "Nothin' To Lose", and asked Michaels if she could provide harmonies. The hard-living Poison vocalist has denied improper motives: "It has no reference to her and I," he said. "I just thought it was a beautiful song." Is he justified, or is this just too creepy for words? (Listen to Miley Cyrus's "Nothing to Lose" duet with Bret Michaels)

Who let her do this song?
You always knew after the Vanity Fair scandal that "Slutty Cyrus" would be back, says Perez Hilton at his blog. But to say this is disturbing would be "the understatement of the millennium." This is "blatant creepiness," and it makes you wonder "who the eff is managing this girl's career."
"Brett Michaels and Miley Cyrus: Pedophile's Dream On Song"

This is not a big deal: We "get what Michaels is saying," says Susie Anderson at It would have been "even creepier" if he had apologized for doing the duet with Cyrus. After all, he wrote the song before he even met her. Why are we so "creeped out' by everything Cyrus does? "Maybe things will get better when she turns 18."
"Bret Michaels Isn't Apologising for Miley Cyrus Duet"

It's more dull than creepy:
Sure, this is "icky", says Ray Cummins in the Minneapolis St Paul City Pages. But it's "not creepy enough." This "mid-tempo...glutch of strummed acoustics and piped up strings" is "blasted boring." It needs to be "more explicit" if they want to "shock" 2010's "jaded public." This just "isn't cutting it."
"Bret Michaels/Miley Cyrus team-up isn't as scandalous and creepy as it needs to be"