Thursday, May 7, 2009

Because two tiny triangles of fabric mark the line between sexy and slutty

Womanist Musings has a great summary of why the new development in the Miss California controversy sucks. If you desperately try to avoid tabloid style news, let me fill you in on what has happened. Miss California says she's against gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant to Perez Hilton, of all people. She loses, scandal ensues saying she lost because of her views, yadda yadda. Miss C claims she's just a good Christian girls with strong morals and all that jazz. Photos are released of a topless Miss C that she took when she was trying to become a Victoria's secret model. Both sides freak out. Conservative pageant people are pissed because you're not allowed to have any nude or semi-nude photographs. Liberal people are gleefully chuckling at her hypocrisy and are glad she'll probably lose her title.

...

There is so much Wrong floating around that I don't even know where to start. Pageants are such patriarchal stereotypical sexist bullshit to begin with that ranting about them is a waste of time, but one thing really bugs me. Let's compare the two photos, shall we?















What the hell is the big flipping difference here? It's okay for girls to parade around in skimpy bikinis so we can judge them on their sex appeal, but remove two tiny pieces of fabric and it instantly becomes slutty and bad? It's not like the right photo is hard core porn (which still shouldn't matter, but whatever, I have to fight the small battles first). I'd even say it's a pretty tasteful nude if you removed all the Dirty watermarks. It really makes me wonder what's going to happen when my generation is the politicians and businessmen of the world. There will probably be so many "scandalous" photos floating around that they won't be scandalous anymore.

"Ms. President, another topless photo has surfaced. The elderly members of the press want a statement."
"Oooh, I remember that one! That was some good tequila. Man, look how nice my boobs looked."
"Uh, they're great, Ms. President."

But you know what, okay. She signed a contract saying she didn't have any nude or semi-nude problems, and the pageant people get to make their own dumb rules. So fine, punish away. But to all the liberal people who think these rules are stupid and don't have a problem with boobies, but are just glad to get revenge on a conservative girl...shame on you. She's not the freaking Westboro Baptist Church. She said she doesn't support gay marriage, not "all fags should die in a fire" or something. People say she's a hypocrite because she's claiming to have conservative values yet has posed topless...but seriously, so what? Why are liberals forcing anti-toplessness to be a conservative value? If we want people to stop freaking out about women's boobs, we need to stop treating it like it matters. Why can't we all be accepting of teh boobies?

Maybe I'm just a softie, but I don't wish bad things upon people even if I fervently disagree with their political viewpoints. I also think boob scandals are about the most stupid thing ever (the Janet Jackson incident made my head nearly explode), so I just wish we'd stop making such a big deal out of them. Pro-boobs people unite!

13 comments:

  1. What would Jesus do?

    Nothing...he liked guys.

    ReplyDelete
  2. you just say this because you want to see women walking around shirtless like men do ;P

    But really it is kind of ridiculous that the second picture causes an outrage but the first doesn't. I mean, it should either be okay to pose semi-nude, or we should stop parading women around in bikinis...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll admit. I chuckled a little when I found out that she'd had topless photos. I don't feel bad that she's getting screwed over for something stupid; if you agree to rules and lie, DON'T GET CAUGHT.

    Just because I don't agree with the stupid outrage over bags of fat doesn't mean that I can't engage in schadenfreude.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Normally I don't care who wears what. It's their personal choice after all. But then most people who look like that aren't pretending to be wholesome Christians and simultaneously trying to eradicate the rights of others on a "moral values" platform.

    My problem is that is actively campaigning against same-sex marriage because she want's to be "Biblically correct". In other words she's trying to deny rights she has to another group claiming it's because we don't live up to her Bible. Yet she struts around/poses for photos in skin tight cocktail dresses, skimpy bikinies, and even nude. That's in direct violation of 1 Timothy 2:9 . Of course that's only her most blatant violation.

    She has no right to demand others (follow her Bible (including people of other faiths and of no faith), and even work to enact discriminatory laws against them to *force* them to do so, when she so obviously does not follow it herself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Buffy, I agree with you to an extent. I don't know - I guess it just doesn't bode well with me calling people out like that. We're all hypocrites in some ways, I guess. For the lack of a secular equivalent, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow. Here in my town it's legal for women to be without tops, so it's hard to see Ms. CA's pics as a real problem, at all. Not that very many women here are removing their shirts, or anything ...

    Women's breasts are sexually attractive to men, but so are a lot of other things. That doesn't mean they should hide them away as if they're unacceptable. I wouldn't want to see them (breasts, not women) in the workplace because they'd be WAY too distracting, but otherwise, I don't see her topless pics in an unflattering or hypocritical light, at all. Bare away!

    And I'm probably the only one who thinks this way. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not really. I mean, I agree with you completely, Coogan. I just see no issue with how people bare themselves before others. If somebody wants to go clothes free, as long as they're not doing it in a food establishment (sanitary issues I'm fine with it. I honestly don't care. Part of that may be because I'm mostly blind anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What irritates me is the fact that she was so self-righteous when she lost and how she tried to tell anyone who would listen that losing was ok as long as her strong, conservative Christian moral were intact and in fact, that's why she lost. Her morals were too good and strong for the evil judges...

    And now it seems that she's just a sore loser trying to turn her views on gay marriage into a career in the limelight. Kind of like Sean Hannity's views on homosexuality and AIDS made him a right wing radio darling.

    That's what bugs me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hereby promise that I will always be accepting of Teh Boobies...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah for boobs! Although I agree that it's obnoxious of people to judge her based on a lack of cloth triangles I have to admit I did chuckle a bit at the irony of the situation.

    Where ever you be let your boobs go free!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Totally as an aside, you do realize it is a vanishingly small percentage of humans who can go around sans clothing without causing small children to burst into tears.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nice post on sexy and slutty..
    Really a very nice posts over the blog. For free dating services http://tringuladating.com/ Dating services site for free.

    ReplyDelete