An honorable institution – topless photos of beauty queens

By now everyone is aware that Miss California and runner-up to Miss USA Carrie Prejean has spoken out to defend marriage as being between a man and woman only. Some say she would have had the Miss USA title but for her answer to that damning question.

And then the first topless photo appeared. A lingerie shot, topless, with breasts tastefully half concealed. Pageant officials were understandably worried, but she assured them it was the only one. Besides that, she tells them, she was a naive teenager when the photo was taken. Besides that, she says, it’s a lingerie shot and not a topless photo (well it really is both). BUT, it is the ONLY ONE.

Until the second photo appeared. Another shot apparently from the same photo session. Now she says these photos are being publicized just to mock her religious beliefs.

In a statement given to CNN on Tuesday, Prejean said the photos — and she did use the plural — were being used in a “vicious and mean-spirited” effort to silence her for “defending traditional marriage.”

While she vowed to “continue to support and defend marriage as the honorable institution it is,”

So pageant officials are huddling to discuss damage control, and the web site that revealed the first two photos promises there are more to come. And Miss California could just lose her crown.

“When you compete for Miss California, you’re supposed to disclose whether you posed for nude or semi-nude photos, because it’s grounds for disqualification,” he said.

CNN obtained a copy of the pageant contract Prejean signed last year, in which she agreed that the discovery of semi-nude photos could mean disqualification.

And the whole story would be a yawner for most of us except that Miss Prejean has tapped into the most polarizing political issue of the moment. And while I could care less about the photos (they really aren’t much different from the Victoria’s Secret ads on television), or even about her hypocritical statements for that matter. But using her platform to publicly campaign against gay marriage does get my attention. And for that reason, I hope the pageant officials enforce the contract and remove her.

Sorry, but I won’t link you to the site with the photos. You’ll have to do your own Googling for that.

, , ,

  1. #1 by Obama the Paul [MERlOt] on May 7, 2009 - 11:14 am

    It just warms my heart when a morals crusader goes down in flames for a lapse of morals. Screw the photos – TheDirty.com – she lied to the pageant, and that is a lapse of morals. Can the high and mighty bitch!

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on May 7, 2009 - 12:04 pm

    As I recall, what Prejean said at Miss USA was an attempt to come across as tolerant of same sex marriage. But in the aftermath, she became a spokesperson for some intolerant groups (also a violation of the terms of her Miss California contract).

  3. #3 by HappyHeathen on May 7, 2009 - 3:26 pm

    Let me say this about that:

    I think the question about gay marriage to Miss California was completely inappropriate. It shouldn’t have been asked in the first place. I think it was a set up by the little queen who asked it to further his agenda.

    That being said, I agree Miss California has some hypocrisy issues going on there.

    But the real hypocrisy comes from those elected to public office under the guise of being conservative, family values, save the family from gays politicians who are out there busting their chops to derail any gay friendly legislation while cursing bathrooms and dancing their butts off at gay clubs.

    Washington is bracing for the release Friday of the documentary “Outrage.” The film outs several politicians who campaign against gay rights but are allegedly gay themselves.

    http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/04/29/kirby-dicks-outrage-trailer/

    Now this is going to be interesting.

  4. #4 by Ken on May 7, 2009 - 4:03 pm

    To be intolerant of intolerance is the definition of hypocrisy.

  5. #5 by James Farmer on May 7, 2009 - 4:03 pm

    Happy Heathen:

    You are right, the film IS going to be interesting.

  6. #6 by James Farmer on May 7, 2009 - 4:06 pm

    Ken:

    Was that just a cute little mo joke?

    Indeed, I guess from your perspective, Bush’s warring with Iraq because of Iraq’s warring with everyone else (or desire to war) is the very definition of hypocrisy. Thanks for pointing that out to us all!

  7. #7 by SomeoneElse on May 7, 2009 - 7:46 pm

    The way Miss California is being treated is pathetic. Perez Hilton is the disgusting one. What a pathetic excuse for tolerance in our country he is. It’s beyond me why someone doesn’t address how the JUDGE of a pageant is allowed to badmouth a contestant after the fact! Unebelievable.

  8. #8 by Cliff on May 7, 2009 - 8:40 pm

    Good logic Ken, but still wrong. Clever, but wrong.

  9. #9 by Ben M on May 7, 2009 - 11:33 pm

    Isn’t there some law against all this vicious attacks that have been directed at Miss Prejean? I think people who are attacking her have a serious problem. In a society where celebrities flaunt their nudity or semi-nudity on widely circulated magazines, why should her posing for a lingerie shot constitute a misdemeanor? Doesn’t the beauty pageant itself expose as much skin? What is really wrong with a lady standing up for what is right and natural: marriage between a man and a woman? Isn’t what Perez Hilton and the operators of the website releasing her photos are doing blackmail? Is blackmail not a crime? Who leaked the photos and doesn’t it amount to a breach of confidentiality? Do the people attacking her really have a conscience?
    Please, think about these things!

  10. #10 by Uncle Rico on May 8, 2009 - 5:29 am

    Much ado about NOTHING.
    So she posed for a lingerie shot. BFD.
    So she supports tradition marrigage. BFD.
    The pageant is stupid anyway.

  11. #11 by Becky on May 8, 2009 - 6:38 am

    Amen, Rico, but please, I must respond to Ben anyway.

    Ben,

    A. She signed a contract that said she had never posed nude or semi-nude.. It’s not a misdemeanor, but it is lying and cheating and she should lose her crown.

    B. Nothing wrong with a ‘lady’ standing up for what she believes in.

    C. It isn’t blackmail. No-one demanded any payment to withhold the photos. There was no extortion involved.

    D. The photos were not ‘leaked’. The photographer had the rights to the photos. Ms Prejean has no recourse against the photographer.

    Sure people stand to gain from exposing (no pun intended) Ms. Prejean’s lies. But she knew those photos were out there and she signed that contract freely. She has no-one to blame but herself.

    Please think about these things.

  12. #12 by Whoa Nelly! on May 8, 2009 - 10:44 pm

    Is that James Farmer the lawyer? If it is, this gal knows how long it takes for you to collect and mutter your thoughts, could you at least try to be a little interesting?

    Your statements to Ken are like a 4th grader pickin ‘on an unpopular kid at school, which isn’t allowed anymore if you weren’t aware.

    Are you still lawyerin’? You sure aren’t a Perry Mason if this is what stands as your debating skills.

  13. #13 by Federal Farmer on May 12, 2009 - 3:13 pm

    I can’t believe this.

    Becky, you must admit, you wouldn’t bother blogging about Ms. Prejean if she hadn’t answered that question from Perez Hilton. Who cares if she posed for some “scandalous” photos… it seems a little ironic that the OneUtah crowd would be so swift to attack Prejean for the photos on account of their questionable nature.

    Second, maybe I am just unaware, but how is Ms. Prejean “campaigning” against gay marriage? Apparently answering a question from a vitriolic chump like Perez Hilton is a deliberate political stunt to some… Where is the outrage over Hilton’s sexist remarks? Or does Prejean not deserve your sympathy because of her controversial political opinions?

  14. #14 by Ken on May 12, 2009 - 4:24 pm

    Like her opinion or Not, Miss California, Carrie Prejean does represent the majority opinion of California voters as reflected by the peoples voice in November regarding Prop 8. It also, as Donald Trump pointed out, is the same opinion as the “African Prince” President Barack Obama.

    The real villain in this is the vile jerk and idiot Perez Hilton who asked the inappropriate question in the first place.

  15. #15 by jasonthe on May 12, 2009 - 4:55 pm

    Marc (Fed), this is how she is campaigning against gay marriage. By being a part of a campaign, in short.

    And people care because she’s campaigning on a “protect the American Family and all that is holy and decent” diatribe often used by such campaigns after posing for a photo shoot most of these same religious hand-wringers would (at least in public) call “indecent.”

    It’s ironic. And hypocritical. And also pretty damn funny to watch her stumble all over herself.

  16. #16 by Becky on May 12, 2009 - 5:01 pm

    FedFarm,

    You’re right, it was her answer to the question that caught my attention. Unlike you, though, I don’t give her credit for a ‘stunt’ — she’s not that bright. And she has repeated her opinion many times since.

    I’ll admit I smiled a little at the fact she was trapped in her own lies about the photos. It seemed rather poetic. And even now, every time she opens her mouth, I am further amused. Now she tells us the question was “Satan” tempting her.

    I’m surprised that you are defending the photos and the fact that she lied about them. However, you can rest assured that all is well as she has been excused for that little infraction because she is a ‘model’ and that makes it okay and she will retain her crown.

    I don’t know who the Perez person is, but anything he did right or wrong should be considered on its own and should not mitigate the lies Miss California told on her application form.

    Ken,

    That opinion is changing all over the country, and trust me, Prop 8 will eventually be overturned and the people of California will support that. Mark my words.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: