Showing posts with label beauty pageants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beauty pageants. Show all posts

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Miss California Pageant Eliminates Swimsuit Competition



They're taking the beauty out of beauty pageants.

Apparently the organizers of the Miss California Pageant want to turn the event into the style of a "runway show during fashion week."

I really have mixed feelings about this development. Yes, beauty pageants objectify women, they reek of phoniness, and they are hopelessly politically incorrect and dated. As far as I'm concerned, they should scrap them altogether.

And turning them into promotional vehicles for the fashion industry could be even worse than parading around women in swimsuits. At least the women are being judged by their actual bodies when they are mostly bare, instead of being judged by how well some designer's cloth looks on them.

No doubt that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the Carrie Prejean fiasco, which made the pageant industry look even more backwards in its neanderthal values. Surely there must be some other way for society to reward women for their achievements, rather than pitting themselves against each other in a false display of silicone-enhanced bodies and Cliff's notes prepared responses to judges' questions.

For all her bigoted views, at least Carrie Prejean had the courage to break with tradition and speak her mind. Her "opposite marriage" remark will likely go down as the most memorable line ever uttered at one of these events.

Pageant officials hate controversy. They prefer that their "winners" fit nicely into a mold which can be marketed to family values organizations. Mainstream America just loves a plastic Barbie doll.

So while the demise of the pageant industry isn't going to keep me awake at nights, I am a bit concerned over other ramifications of the removal of swimsuits by the California organizers. To me it's just another sign that we tend to perceive any displays of human flesh as something sexual. There's no doubt that putting women in bikinis on a stage isn't sexy, or appealing, but it's not sexual. If it is perceived as such, then are public pools and beaches next to be attacked for displaying too much skin?

As outdated as they now are perceived to be, at least nudist beauty pageants were honest. They were all about having the best bodies. No phoniness, no pretense, no politics, no talent competitions - just flesh. With the dawn of the feminist movement, these nudist pageants disappeared quickly, while mainstream public pageants have been dying a slow, painful death over the past three decades. The rise of child beauty pageants has been an odd development in this societal shift, raising the objectification of little girls, while at the same time attempting to reduce the objectification of grown women.

While people should never stop admiring beauty, there's something perverse about making nature's gift of sex appeal into a competition. Such obsession with mere physical appearance reminds me of Jack Nicholson's character Jonathan in "Carnal Knowledge", when his friend Sandy tells him "looks aren't everything, you know", and he responds with "believe me, looks are everything." Jonathan's obsession with looks eventually leads him to become a misogynist, never satisfied with any women he meets, until his only source of sexual arousal comes when his ego is stroked.

In a way, American Society has become Jonathan, constantly looking for the Utopian woman even in ways he could not imagine. Today he would be a plastic surgeon, trying in vain to create the perfect women to satisfy his own perverse visions. It's an endless stream of magazines, movies, books, internet sites and television shows which contribute to the media pageant of women's bodies, airbrushed and Photoshopped in wrongheaded efforts to sell this unattainable image to an insatiable public.

Even Carrie Prejean was not natural - the California pageant organization paid for her breast enlargement surgery. As despicably phony as this is, a recent pageant in Hungary required that contestants be surgically enhanced in order to make the cut. One young woman even had surgically adjusted toes.

So from my point of view, the banning of the swimsuit competition takes away the essence of what beauty pageants were originally designed to do - to honor natural beauty. As wrongheaded as it was in making beauty into a competitive event, especially in hindsight, at least it was honest. Adding talent competition, evening gowns, and scholarships to these pageants failed to obscure the fact that these pageants were really just all about a pretty face and a good figure.

Why do people watch pageants? A 1996 poll revealed that 87% of respondents voted to keep the swimsuit portion of the Miss America pageant when officials considered dropping it from the show. We are a voyeuristic society, no doubt.

We tend to turn everything into a competition, from ladies' garden clubs judging the best grown rose, to the American Kennel Club's dog shows. Movies, plays, television shows, books - they all have their awards. Even President Obama got a Nobel prize. Everybody remembers the gold medal winner, and nobody remembers who won the silver. Every college sells one of those "we're number one" foam fingers for sports teams, even though only one can make it to the top.

At least with beauty pageants, we are beginning to understand that that making physical attractiveness into a competitive sport is not only demeaning to the contestants, it's damaging to the perceptions of the viewers, the same way false images in magazines destroy women's self-esteem.

The more we drift from natural beauty into the distorted phoniness of the fashion industry, the more we lose contact with our own humanity. I fear this sanitizing of the pageant industry into an even more packaged product for mass consumption is even further dehumanizing the contestants, eventually to the point where we will no longer even need actual humans to compete, only a fashion designer's virtual fantasy.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Is Nudity Now a Family Value?

Here's one of the photos TMZ posted today of a topless Carrie Prejean, complete with obscured nipple. Prejean claimed in a press conference today that it was the wind which must have blown open her top. Does her hair look windblown in this photo?

Again, I don't care that she posed nude, or made a sex tape. And I don't care that she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. As she points out, our President shares the same view.

What irks me to no end is that she is turning this personal belief into a political cause in a attempt to deny civil rights to American citizens seeking merely to marry the person of his or her choice. You can believe what you want, but stay out of my face and the faces of other citizens.

Prejean turned into such a spectacular train wreck that Donald Trump and the sexist pageant industry decided to keep her on as Miss California, undoubtedly due to all the publicity which has piqued new interest in the manufacturing and selling of American beauty.

There is a strange upside to this all, since the Christianist right is embracing this girl as some sort of second coming of Christ. Appearing on Dr. James Dobson's radio show, Prejean said that she was being tempted by Satan, and that she believes herself to be a witness for God in her crusade against gay marriage.

Carrie Prejean looks and struts like a porn star, yet talks like Billy Graham. She's more than willing to expose her body to sell lingerie or to tempt men, but she calls herself a moral Christian.

None of this really makes any sense at all. It's like someone declaring that the human body is dirty and shameful, and then getting naked at a nudist resort. It's wacko talk.

Wait, I said there was an upside. The fact that Prejean posed nude, the fact that she had breast implants, and the fact that she is a beauty queen who struts near naked to be judged on her attractiveness to men, has not prevented her from becoming a role model for Christian women. The sexual side of this whole affair has been rendered moot, immaterial, inconsequential.

In an era where all type of nudity is taboo, when kids are being prosecuted for taking nude photos of themselves, along comes Carrie Prejean and her sexed-up image to make nudity a Christian value.

Now Prejean's nude photos are far from being nudist or naturist, but in comparison the family-friendly clothes-free experience seems pretty tame compared to what the right wing is willing to accept from the beauty queen. It's as if the Christianists decided that there was no way to win the culture wars, so they took on someone who looks like a porn star to help get the funds rolling back in.

The political battle over abortion is all but dead with Obama getting ready to make the first of what should be several appointments to The Supreme Court. Gay marriage is now the big demon, but the tide of states approving same-sex unions is likely too big to stop. The only hope for the Christianists is to maintain it as a political football throughout the south, the last bastion for dying conservative philosophies, and prevent a 50 state sweep. And what better person to lead that effort than the Anita Bryant of the 21st Century, Carrie Prejean.

This is the time for nudism and naturism. The economy is in shambles, the Moral Majority is tied to the hull of the Pequod and sinking, and the new spokesperson for the Christianists is a bimbo. It's a perfect storm for lobbying for more public land to be set aside for clothes-free use, not only as a benefit to naturists, but for local communities looking to fill their coffers with new found revenue.

If the moralists think that the sight of Carrie Prejean looks pretty good, then they have little to oppose when it comes to a few nude beaches here and there.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Prejudging Prejean

I have so many mixed emotions about these semi-nude photos of Miss California Carrie Prejean, exposed on TheDirty.com.

When asked about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant, Prejean said that it was great that Americans had a choice. The fact is that they don't have a choice except in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa (it will be legal in Vermont on 9/1), so Prejean is ignorant at best.

I also think that anyone who denies basic civil rights to any citizen is a bigot. All the arguments against gay marriage mirror the comments made during the civil rights struggle, when African-Americans were denied their equal rights under the law.

Then came word that the California state pageant paid for Prejean to get breast implants in order to put her "in the best possible light on a national stage" , thus making her a first class phony.

I applaud any woman who gets breast surgery to correct deformities, reduce excessive size, or for reconstruction after a mastectomy, but when an obviously attractive and healthy woman gets breast augmentation merely to win a contest, it puts her in the porn star category as someone just selling his or her body for money. It's objectifying the already objectified.

So when a bible-thumping ignorant bigoted phony is shown posing in sexy lingerie with a come-hither look on her face, she adds hypocrite to her rapidly expanding list of labels.

I really don't care if she posed totally nude, or topfree, or even made a sex tape - the problem here is that she has taken hypocrisy to a new stratospheric level by wearing her religion on the sleeve of one arm, while wearing her sexed-up phoniness on the other.

I don't know Carrie Prejean, she might well be a fine person and all of this is merely a public-relations disaster, or she might be a victim of the whole pageant industry which has gone from celebrating female beauty to manufacturing it.

Beauty pageants have disappeared from nudist resorts, and the Miss America Pageant, once the queen of them all, has trouble finding a basic cable channel to carry their event. Perhaps this Carrie Prejean fiasco will spell the end of this outdated, sexist and objectifying practice, or the old adage of "all publicity is good publicity" will actually generate more interest by a public hungry for tawdriness.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Redefining Child Pornography

More hysteria over images of nude children in art. Betsy Schneider, a tenured professor at ASU's School of Art in Tempe, is creating controversy by displaying nude photos of her children at a local art gallery.
"Putting your child's naked pictures up for the world to see, for any sex predator to see, is not art," said Mesa's Debra Ward. The Ward family drove to the exhibit from Mesa in order to protest what Debra called child pornography.

Her family made signs and stood proudly on a street corner..."We have received several complaints," said Barnett Lotstein, Special Assistant County Attorney.
Lotstein called the images disturbing.

He said determining whether it is child pornography takes into account a series of things such as whether the children were posed, or if their private parts were showing and to what extent.

He also pondered what the affect may be on Schneider's children.
So where does this end? If we, as a society, are to begin categorizing all nude images of children as being pornographic, then we are criminalizing every parent who ever took a nude photo of their child in the bath, or on the bearskin rug. Where does it end? Do we force little toddler girls to cover their nipples at the beach? Do we make it a crime for a parent to change a child's diaper or swimsuit in public? This irrational and hysterical fear of predators is blinding people to even the most innocent and natural instances of nudity.

Children are natural nudists. Given the opportunity, they will strip off their clothes and run free. It's the adults who are trying to take away this innocence and sexualize even the youngest of children. To me the real pornification of children comes in the form of these twisted little beauty pageants, where girls are painted up to look like little whores, and taught to wiggle and flirt on stage like strippers. It's apparently OK to sex them up and display them as objects, but it's not OK to show them as God designed them. Something's terribly wrong here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,