Blogs and Stories
Who Owns Her Body?
Kabik / Retna Digital
First pageant organizers paid for Miss California’s breast implants. Now they could dethrone her for showing her breasts off. It all boils down to who controls Carrie Prejean’s body—and who profits from it.
Poor Miss California. No one ever told her the rules, and now she may lose her tiara. The Miss USA pageant is, in fact, confusing: Young college-age ladies (who may not be married or pregnant) parade in bathing suits for the nation's titillation, ostensibly to win scholarships and the opportunity to do things for charity (or whatever.)
If the competition uses them for ratings—the original 1952 competition was started as a product promotion—the women use it right back: They want to win money for school, get famous, or “grow their brand.” They're just as mercenary as the contest's owner, Donald Trump, who famously told told an ex-wife to “never ever look a day over 28.” (Contestants themselves are not allowed to be a day over 26. Coincidence?)
Click Image Below to View Our Gallery
The question-and-answer segment of the competition is basically a joke, a chance for those watching to feel smart and self-satisfied as a bevy of women used to trading on their looks stumble and silently scream as they're confronted with lite versions of public-policy questions. That's what got Miss California Carrie Prejean in trouble: blithely revealing herself to be anti-gay marriage during the proceedings.
Her remarks (“no offense, that's just how I was raised!”) caused a minor scandal—that is, until the next minor scandal arose, concerning a partially nude underwear photo of Prejean taken when she was a minor.
It's frankly surprising to see actual body parts underneath the ball gown—it would have made more sense to find smooth plastic lumps, like the sexless anatomy of a Barbie doll.
Pageant contestants' sexuality is kept in hock—or on ice—for the duration of the competition and its requisite duties. For example, Miss USA is expected to remain single for the year after she wins the crown. That's why the vaguely risque photos of Prejean pose such a problem: The competition wants to maintain a neutered, controlled vision of female sexuality among its contestant/concubines.
In viewing said photo—cute hair, she used to be a brunette!—it's frankly surprising to see actual body parts underneath the ball gown—it would have made more sense to find smooth plastic lumps, like the sexless anatomy of a Barbie doll.
The existence of the picture means that the pageant has lost control over Prejean's sexuality. Even worse, Prejean herself is shown as complicit in capitalizing on it—making money off her looks, either through modeling or, perhaps, the many opportunities that come from having breast implants. Strangely, the Miss California organization actually paid for those before she was to compete in the Miss USA competition.
That the organization behind Miss California sponsored the surgery seems strangely, uncomfortably paternal, like a Beverly Hills dad ponying up the cash for his daughter's 18th-birthday gift of implants. But perhaps the paternal aspect of the pageant's actions aren't so bizarre after all.
Here's the thing: Women—nice women—aren't supposed to be in control of their own bodies. The woman who is complicit in exploiting her own sexuality is crossing a hard line from giggly good girl into, well, a stripper, slut, hooker, or whore—members of a sexual sub-class of women that are kept separate from the rest of the society in order to avoid contaminating the others.
It's OK to go on television and let America ogle the swimsuit competition in the name of charity. But cutting out the paternal middleman of Daddy Trump and the Miss USA machine? Not civilized. It's not in the rules. No, not the 12-page contract of Miss California rules that Carrie Prejean violated with her past nude-posing, or the no-accepting-a-date-after-Wednesday rules, but the rules.
Is Miss California really the one without any clothes here?
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
" . . . blithely revealing herself to be anti-gay marriage during the proceedings."
What does "blithely" mean? Without thinking? Seems to me the woman had a pretty clear understanding of what she was saying in reply to a question from a fat homosexual who makes his living prying into the lives of other people. Her answer is the same that would come from the majority of Americans, despite what you're hearing from the well-oiled and increasingly gynephobic gay message machine.
Banjo1, yes you are right, blithely does mean "without thought or consideration".
Bigotry in all it's forms usually is demonstrated blithely, because bigots don't know or don't think they are bigots, until they demonstrate their bigotry and get called out for it.
If Carrie Prejean had any understanding of her own bigotry then she would not have blithely answered the question the way she did, because after all she was "in it to win it", and she would have understand the damage she would do by answering the way she did.
And if you are wondering about bigotry some more, check out the definition of the word, and then the letter to the editor that Maggie Gallagher, the president of NOM, sent to the New York Times in response to the column "The bigots last hurrah" by Frank Rich, where she explains that she had tried for 5 years to convince people that opposition to Gay marriage would be seen as bigotry. Very inciteful of her.
Banjo my friend-
I agree that she knew what she was saying. I don't think it was a blithe comment. However, I don't think it was a fair question to begin with. Her personal beliefs are her own, and shouldn't have been held against her. I don't necessarily think it makes her a bigot.
Maybe my perspective is a little off (I'm a black man that grew up in the south with a white wife who was my high school sweetheart, so I know a little something about bigotry). But just because she doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean that she hates gay people. When she starts spouting the gay people are sick people and should be treated like some disease (see my favorite whacko Michelle Bachmann), then I'll call her a hateful bigot. For now, she's just a woman with a differeing opinion from me that I feel somewhat sorry for.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
hey, just because you said that black people shouldn't be allowed to marry doesn't mean you actually hate them
I don't think she spoke without thinking. If you look at the video, she takes a minute and composes herself before speaking. She knew exactly what the result would be, and she spoke out anyway.
I am in support of gays and lesbians having the same marital rights as everyone else. I think that opposing that means that you are standing in the way of another persons' pursuit of happiness.
I don't care whether or not the union is called 'marriage' or not though. Its a semantic difference to me, as long as they have exactly the same rights and enforcement. Maybe we need to make up a word that means exactly the same thing?
While I don't disagree that her answer is the same that would come from a majority of Americans, the fact of the matter is that it's no longer coming from the "vast majority" or even the "great majority." The numbers against gay marriage are growing smaller, and at a rate that few would have expected.
Now that we've seen that states like Massachusetts and Connecticut haven't turned into a modern day version of Sodom & Gomorrah, many are coming to the simple conclusion that life goes on as usual. Gay marriage is no big deal. There's really nothing to defend...the sanctity of traditional marriage between heterosexuals is just as likely to result in divorce just as much as it used to be.
What gets me about Prejean and Hilton is that we're giving an awful lot of sway to a couple of immature kids who's opinions don't actually count for a heck of a lot. I mean...who actually listens to what a 23 year old has to say? When they're in their mid-30's and have actually had some life experience, MAYBE I'll pay some real attention to them, but right now they're just a lot of annoying static.
By my watch, it looks as though Prejean's 15 minutes of fame should be just about over. Hilton, previously nothing more than a creepy gossip columnist, might have hit the big time with this, but it's about time for him to fade back into semi-obscurity, too.
Banjo1 always manages to rant. Leaving his point about her homophobia aside, let's focus on the fact that Prejean is a manufactured entity who won a state contest. She's brunette, not blonde; her real boobs are smaller than the ones that the pageant bought for her; and she posed for nudie photos. What a role model for young women!
We are asked to take seriously the opinions of a Barbie doll who isn't what she seems? Trump's pageant has serious credibility issues and she along with it.
dude very true. I think its wrong the sell such images of fake beauty. Seriously lots of girls are sexier with tons less makeup, as a guy I find it insane how much time and money gets spent on cosmetics.
Seriously girls eyelashes are enough for most of you, if you want to look better, go jogging, play volleyball or something.
I used to tell all the young girls I would meet with too much makeup on that they were good looking enough as it is and didn't need it. A few years ago I decided I was too old and it was starting to qualify as creepy (I'm 27). So young guys, your turn now ;)
totally agree. Studies even show that men are more attracted to women who don't necessarily fit the stereotype of beauty we advertise today. We keep brainwashing young girls (and women) to look a certain way. It's deplorable.
Since you
Forgot to mention it
I'll just add-
Banjo never posts
Without using
The word
Homosexual.
Here is a pared down version of Banjo's post:
"Pretty... homosexual... well-oiled... gay... machine"
I think that captures the heart of it.
Banjo,
TDB commenters got your number. Busted baby!
Why don't gay people start a church that declares marriage to be the joining together in God's sight and under His or Her guidance and protection of two people who love each other and want to share the rights of civil unions, and thus make gay marriage a religious rights issue? No one could argue this is not a valid belief. Any state prohibiting such marriage would be in violation of the First Amendment. I'm not gay myself, but I could get behind a church that was more about the heart and spirit than who has what parts.
(I think they're called Unitarian Universalists)
Sure that's all well and good but what about the benefits that heterosexuals get from the state for being married. I'm sure gays want that and to keep that away from them infringes on their civil rights.
it's called Metropolitan Community Church in many communities.
Sippewissett fails to address the real issue here. It is not that a woman did or didn't have a picture taken partially nude (check the cell phones of Jr. High and High School boys and you'll find most have them of their girlfriends), or that she answered a question totally inappropriate for the competition she was in. The issue is that she is getting attacked and humiliated publicly for her free speech. Think about it folks, a activist judge with a strong personal bias publicly attacks a contestent who lost a pagent the day after the event was over. Think about that when you make a comment that your piers may not agree with, are you next for character assassination?.
Our Constitution gives us the right to free speech. It does not mandate reactions to speech given. If what you say has merit and substance you should be prepared to defend it. People will either agree or not. If you don't want to be publicly humiliated-don't humiliate yourself.
It seems ironic that you post as "ConstitutionalRights", yet you seem to want some big daddy government to protect your precious little feelings. Allow me to pull out the world's smallest violin...
..."your piers"? lol
Yes. Apparently ships will be docked there :p
Um, "exploitation" does not apply to individuals who voluntarily enter "beauty" contests. She revealed herself to be an ignoramus with her endorsement of "opposite marriage". Nobody did this TO her,....she did it to herself. That she is being embraced and touted about by more politically active, opportunistic ignoramuses should come as no surprise.
I disagree that one cannot enter voluntarily enter into a situation in which they are being exploited. One of the ways people psychologically survive exploitation and abuse is to redefine it as something they are complicit in. It's sort of like in the old looney tunes episode where Pete the puma grabs the mallet from bugs bunny and hits himeself in the head because he is tired of Bugs hitting him in the head.
That being said, I do agree that, in this case, portraying her as some sort of victim is misguided. I don't know what went into making such a self hating woman, but at some point she made the decision to sell out and become the artificial woman that she is today.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Are you against steroid use in sports? I see no difference in fake tits in beauty a pageant than blood doping in cycling or any other type of steroid that runs rampant in MLB or NFL.
I agree. I'm getting a little sick of the groupthink on bth sides of the aisle.
For the record, I'm Black, Gay and very politically active in the center of the Dem party.
"What a role model for young women!" What an oleaginous hypocrite, smitisan! As if you care about good role models for women. Ladies are your rivals for men, and the better looking they are the more you hate them. This explains why gays infest beauty pageants and punish those women who don't conform to the gay agenda.
Now you're an expert on beauty pageants? To the point that you know that they're "infested" with gays? Keep those comments coming, stud.
You're an idiot. Honestly, I think we all believe you went to idiot school.
"Ladies are your rivals for men and the better looking they are the more you hate them."...Sorry banjo, your wrong on this one, the gays love the beautiful females...Upper tier beauty contestants all have professional beauty consultants who are mostly gay guys...Gay men don't feel threatened by hot women because hot women just don't go for guys on the out gay team...They might sigh with an "if only..." but thats about it...As far as the attack on Miss California goes, it's an ugly and probably counter productive move by gay marriage advocates.
Oh Look,
Bathhouse-Banjo seems to know exactly where the gay men can be found. Success in your research, eh? Good for you, you've found more than a few target rich areas - places where gay men hang out.
Now. Would you please just make a connection and get on with it. This public self-loathing phase of your coming out process is getting a bit icky.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Ms. Prejean is responsible for her own choices - all of them. It is she who chose to expose herself and her opinions. The only thing being exploited is the "villiage" who raised her, as it was to them that she attributed her (narrow minded) point of view.
Listen, this is not about nude photos or fake breasts or even about hair color. This is about one gay man or actually a gay community that is intolerant of anyone not conforming to their way of life. Perez Hilton knew exactly what he wanted to accomplish. He wasn't concerned about anything else except his own perverted way of life. His actions afterwards and the actions of a lot of gay activists have been for the most part terroristic. She did not ask for the question. If political charge subjects have nothing to do with beauty pageants then they should not be allowed to be asked. Perez Hilton again is a person of no morals and no ethics. He should have been reprimanded for his comments afterwards. But I live in a real world and I know that if you are gay then you have a special right to speak in vulgarities and hateful ways. But if you hold to traditional values and disagree with the thought of the day then you are labeled a racist, intolerant, and hateful person. If you want to be gay that is your American right and I will not disagree with you. But if I believe that being gay is wrong then that is my right as well. Don't condemn this young woman for her convictions any more than you can condemn Perez Hilton for his lifestyle.
PASTORDAVID - While your point is a good one - everyone has a right to his or her own opinion - it is too bad that you could not convey it without the use of pejortives. How, exactly, are you different from Perez Hilton?
PastorDavid
There was a time when other groups found themselves in this situation. At one point inter-racial marriages were illegal becasue people believed it would pervert marriage. Clearly it hasn't. The way of life is not ours to judge. And regardless of what you think, God isn't steaming mad at us because we're thinking of giving our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay the right to marry. God is ticked because we are tearing each other apart over it. BOTH sides.
I don't like Perez Hilton, not because he's gay, but because he is, in my opinion, a generally mean person. He's made his living by saying mean things to and about people. He is not the figure head of the gay-marriage movement. He's just one loud motuh with a microphone...just like Rush.
Ms. California's belief is her own just as Perez' is his own. This is not about any one group being censored. Certainly people who oppose gay marriage are not victims here. We should stop trying to make that argument. Instead talk it out and let cooler heads prevail.
This user is no longer registered.
PASTORDAVID,
DO YOU ALWAYS SHOUT YOUR NAME?
BTW - "God Hates Shrimp - Lev. 11:9-12, Deu. 14:9-10"
Actually pastordavid, this article is really about the objectification of women, and the stripping away of their humanity for the sake of perpetuating false and oppressive stereotypes. The whole gay marriage discussion is really off topic, and is distracting from a conversation about a different social injustice.
Banjo: You must have me confused with somebody else; I didn't say nothing about no role models. Ain't the first time you've been confused, though.
smitisan,
You've got that right :)
All comments on this story are fair and equal, but seem to miss the biggest point of all.
The first point is that Carrie Prejean broke the rules of the Miss USA pagaent, as stupid and narcisistic as they are she broke the rules.
The second point is she KNEW she broke the rules and still competed in the pageant. This isn't about civil disobedience, it's about integrity and honesty.
And still no apology for breaking the rules.
This whole controversy is silly. The pageant should not have employed an idiot with an agenda like Perez Hilton, but at the same time, Ms. Prejean should understand that her attempts to capitalize on her new-found fame by becoming an anti-gay marriage spokesperson would come under scrutiny.
I know that conservatives like to shout about her being denied her free speech, but no one is saying she can't say what she's saying. They are just criticizing what looks like hypocrisy from where I'm sitting. She's espousing these Christian values at the same time she's had breast implants, posed for nude modeling photos, and is the acknowledged "booty call" of Michael Phelps.
So not only is the pageant exploiting Ms. Prejean for publicity, the Christian right is exploiting her for their anti-gay marriage cause, Perez Hilton, TMZ, and theDirty.com are exploiting her for page hits, and she is exploiting herself in her quest for fame.
Your column is worthless. The one and only reason Miss California will probably lose her crown is her answer to Hilton's question. Tell me, does Perez handle power well?
Aw, jeeze, people, it's a stupid beauty pagent. Cogent thought processes are not a requirement.
It is interesting, though, how many people are in favor of free speech until somebody says something they don't like.
Political correctness aside, your speech is as free as mine. No more, and certainly no less.
It's all so hilarious how a beauty pageant
turned into a gay gossipy hissy fit.
Based on all the excessive reaction to,
and coverage of Miss California,
you'd think the woman was a war criminal.
She's a beauty queen and believes in traditional marriage,
and she posed nude a few years ago.
Big " F - ING " deal.
Talk about overreaction.
Send her off to Guantanamo.
This user is no longer registered.
@wanting
Please say you're kidding.
Do you not understand the concept of sarcasm?
I was defending the woman.
The "war criminal" and "Guantanamo"
references were exaggerations to
illustrate the excessive unnecessary
coverage and criticism of the woman,
because there are more pressing issues
facing this country than some trivial beauty queen.
Where do you make such a leap that you would go
into some overly serious rant?
You have to be kidding.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were
a humorless liberal, who dresses in black,
has body piercings, and you have social
commentary bumper stickers plastered
all over your car.
Chill out, take a deep breath, and hug a loved one.
This user is no longer registered.
Dear Ms. Prejean: You're a real babe. And regal at the same time. And if the misguided actions of those malicious hetrophobes cost you your crown, well there are plenty of real men out there who will want to marry you and treat you like the princess you truly are! George Patton
Please tell me this was a joke! PLEASE!!! A real babe & regal at the same time? Really??? Are u one of those "real" men out there that want to treat her fake ass boobs & bleach blonde hair as a princess?! Just remember you get what you pay for GPatton... If it is all fake on the outside, then it is all fake on the inside! I mean seriously. I have met a lot of b/s Christians in my time, but she really takes the cake on this one! Nude photos & Phelps booty call considers herself a Christian woman worthy of speaking for that community! Why not do it from the Playboy mansion next time. That would go over just about as well. And, then maybe she will have all the guys in the world treating her like she wants! An idiot & a stupid slut! And, I didn't even give my opinion on her views of gay marriage. She has a right to think how she wants.
The issue here is, I believe that she signed a contract, that she now claims to have not been familiar with its content, which was mostly agreeing to follow the rules of the contest.
And the issue is not whether the rules are fair or not, contract law clearly states that contracts signed by competent persons are valid, regardless of how fair the rules are.
Competency implies if you don't feel the contract is fair, and you can't live with it, you understand that you have the choice not to sign it and the duty to abide by the contract when signing it..
[Pageant spokesman Roger Neal said Tuesday that it appears Prejean has run afoul of several sections of the 12-page contract that all prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the November state contest.
The detailed document prohibits the titular Miss California from making personal appearances, giving interviews or making commercials without permission from pageant officials. In the last 10 days, Prejean has made televised appearances at her San Diego church and on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage.
The contact also contains a clause asking participants to say whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards." As an example, it asks if they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.
"As you can see from the contract, she violated multiple items," Neal said in an email to The Associated Press.
A photo of Prejean wearing only pink panties with her back turned to the camera appeared Monday on the gossip blog theDirty.com. She issued a statement early Tuesday saying she posed for the shot as a 17-year-old model and objected to its release as an attempt to belittle her religious faith: "I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos."
Prejean spokeswoman Melany Ethridge said she could not comment on the contract because she was unfamiliar with its contents. Ethridge said she had not heard the pageant directors were reviewing it. ] excerpted from http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090505/entertainment/miss_california.
I have a dream that one day women won't be judged by the beauty of their skin, but by the content of their character and men won't be judged by their bank account balance, but by the content of their character.
Thank you, solicitor :)
Apologies, smitisan. I confused you with one of the other butt boys who post here.
One of the other? You must have one hell of a backhand.
Bathhouse Banjo,
So many butt boys here, and yet you continue to hang around. Hmmmm. ;)
Perez Hilton's minions have described Prejean's underwear ad as "nude" photo. The reality is that the photo in question is less provocative than many billboard or magazine underwear photo ads that I've seen. Sorry, no nudity, just some cute undies and some back skin. I think Michelle Obama's inaugural gown revealed about as much back skin. Now, I'm not saying that I would allow my 17 year old daughter to pose in her underwear, but as far as I know that photo was never authorized for publication.
As far as the "bigotry" of her position against gay marriage, it should be noted that a majority of people of California rejected gay marriage at the ballot box last November--for at least the second time in recent years. Why don't those promoting such a ridiculous notion just come out and say it: our African-American president is a BIGOT (since he campaigned for president holding the same position as Miss California--that is against gay marriage). Now, since the good people of America elected Obama knowing of his "bigotry", should we also accuse them of the same bigotry?
What about former mayor Marion Barry of Wash. D.C. who last week voted against gay marriage. Is he a bigot as well?
This user is no longer registered.
I don't know how to discern what someone is actually thinking when they declare: "I believe marriage should be defined as
a relationship between a man and a woman". BO made this statement when asked the definition of marriage in a presidential
debate. Would BO have been willing to prevaricate to his "white trash" audience in order to get elected? And would he now be willing
to sign a gay marriage bill in order to curry favor with his radical left base? In answer to both I offer a big maybe. I really don't have any way to know. But it certainly wouldn't be the first time BO was deceitful to the American electorate. If what you're saying is true, BO should now come out in favor of gay marriage, since he no longer needs the "white trash" vote. But what if he doesn't? What would that tell you about BO? That he's a stinking liar or just a stinking bigot?
Is it acceptable, in your moral view, for BO to deliberately lie through his teeth to the American public but if a young woman poses in an underwear ad it's shameful, immoral and just plane wrong. What kind of bizarro world do you live in?
If someone told me earlier in my life that one day a person would be condemned, ridiculed, lied about and have their career systematically
destroyed simply because they declared their personal opinion that marriage should remain as it has been since the beginning of human civilization, a relationship between a man and a woman, I would have laughed in their face and said, 'Never! Not in this country'.
Wow, how far this country has fallen! This must be the last days. God help us!
This user is no longer registered.
I found Hilton's comments inappropriate and inflammatory. Yet, unless things have changed drastically in the recent past, Prejean's claim of "evangelical Christian values" is completely bogus. A 17-year old poses for semi-nude pictures? Where the hell are her parents? She allows someone else to pay for a boob job? Is that not prostitution in some form?
Look -- Prejean is a commodity. She willingly put herself out there for money and/or gratification. As a consumer, we have the right to know that her boobs are fake and she doesn't mind exposing them. Since she's looking for endorsements, doesn't her employer have a right to know what's in her closet?
Prejean has "jumped the shark." She needs to go away. She is just a further example of what's wrong with the Christian right -- "Do as I say, not as I do."
I am a Republican for gay-marriage! But I am also for Carrie Prejean in this instance, everyone is entitled to their opinion. And if she would have said the "politically correct" thing in the pageant then no one would have cared what photos there are of her. I totally support people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, even though I believe differently and this is just another instance where freedom of speech really has taken a backseat.
sheila so smart
The plastic surgeon who created it.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.