Is Slut-Shaming Carrie Prejean Really Necessary?
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
news
9:30AM, Tuesday May 12th 2009
When Carrie Prejean lost last month’s Miss USA pageant because (some think) she opposed gay marriage, after which she did an ad for the National Organization for Marriage, rather than attending to her Miss California “duties,” she made it pretty clear where her loyalty lies. It makes sense strategically—her anti-gay marriage stance ruined her appeal for many, but it did increase her popularity with a powerful few. Prejean hedged her bets by distancing herself from the Miss California Organization and lining up with those who had her back. She wasn’t going to be a pageant queen forever, after all.
She should have handed over her crown to someone who was interested in fulfilling those Miss California duties—whatever they are—since she had better things to do. But she didn’t and because of that—and Perez Hilton’s relentless campaign against her—Prejean stayed in the spotlight and the inevitable happened. Topless photos! Of a beauty queen! Who believes in God! The hypocrisy! Let the slut-shaming begin!
It is, of course, contradictory and convenient that Prejean thinks her God will send the gays straight to hell but welcome her and her exposed titties into heaven. The Miss Universe Organization is clear on the matter—contestants can’t be photographed in a state of partial or complete nudity. At the very least, contestants are expected to be honest about any “skeletons” they may have, but Prejean has been busted lying. Donald Trump will decide if homegirl is losing her crown. Personally, I don’t exactly look to a beauty pageant to reinforce my beliefs about female empowerment.
The media has shifted its focus from an important, relevant issue—gay marriage and whether religion should play a part in how the laws on the matter are written—to something far more salacious. Look! The good Christian girl is a closet whore! Forget about what she actually said—check out her nipples! Gay marriage, what? Do you think there are any photos of her bush, too? What a tramp!
Yes, the photos are evidence of her hypocrisy, and ignoring their existence, once leaked, would be remiss, but some of those throwing stones should remember they’re perched in glass houses. Perez Hilton, Prejean’s biggest enemy, Photoshops semen and penises on photographs of Miley Cyrus, who is underage, and calls her a whore and a slut. His token issue—gay marriage—is personal: he’s gay. He’s moralistic when its his interests, which, in a way, is not so different from Prejean. When it’s Hilton versus Prejean on an issue like gay marriage, no one wins.
UPDATE: Our dream of seeing Prejean dethroned has been thwarted by Trump. He held a press conference this morning to announce his decision to let Carrie keep her crown as Miss California. Trump reasoned, “Carrie is a model, she’s a very successful model ... We have determined that the pictures taken are fine.” Prejean tearfully thanked Trump for “believing” in her and, “most importantly,” thanked God. The California pageant officials were prepared to replace Carrie, but Trump is the one with the power to strip a crown. We’re surprised he wasn’t insulted that she said God was more important than him. [US Weekly]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 09:42 am: [report]
Why do the stupid people always yell loudest?
Adam(aka)AP
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 09:43 am: [report]
I agree with you 100% Amelia.
becktasm
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 09:49 am: [report]
Implants extra scare me when they’re rounded at the top. Bolted on titties. They look like distended pecs. God help me.
retro chic
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 09:59 am: [report]
Amelia, I also agree this is media overkill. Her unfortunate pageant persona as an empty(headed) vessel for a certain agenda also makes her a lightening rod or target for others to hijack her with their own agenda. I think she’s lost… and Hilton’s a jerk. Both, as you said, are the wrong people to be associated with such an important and sensitive issue as gay marriage/rights. They both need to go away… and they will, as they are self-revealing enough and are their own undoing without any help. This is just temporary.
writergirl
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 10:05 am: [report]
It is a sad state of affairs when media attention is being controlled by Perez Hilton.
Jessica
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 12:05 pm: [report]
I love this post, Amelia. Great job.
hawaiianpeach
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 02:21 pm: [report]
Prejean is killing me! She is the textbook beauty queen. How predictable-
Tango
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 02:25 pm: [report]
While I personally am all for gay marriage as I see no reason to deny anyone such a basic right, to marry the one they love, I don’t see why Miss Prejean got slammed so hard for expressing an opinion.
Afterall, this is supposed to be a free country (it’s not, but it should be)she was asked for her opinion and she gave it. Should have never made the news.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 04:15 pm: [report]
@Tango: Because she did it stupidly and insensitively. She could of at least went the church route and said all the buzz-words, but she said “Opposite Marriage” and thus proved she is a dumbass.
Audi
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 04:22 pm: [report]
Totally agree with you, Tango. The girl’s entitled to her opinion whether anyone agrees with it or not. I’m pretty confident that there aren’t millions of potential votes out there hanging in the balance, waiting for guidance from Miss California. What a ridiculous non-story this is, exposed fake breasts and all.
rsncrntz
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 04:41 pm: [report]
She’s entitled to speak her opinion, but so am I, and I think she’s an idiot. You get the right to speak, not the right to respect. That one still needs to be earned.
Audi
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 04:49 pm: [report]
OK, agreed; she’s completely inarticulate and quite possibly a complete moron. But c’mon, did anyone really expect otherwise? No one competes in a beauty contest to win respect and admiration for her intellect.
sam04
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 06:04 pm: [report]
Bah. Free speech is such a crutch for the people who have something derogatory to say. If she had said that non-whites or women shouldn’t be granted equal rights, would anyone be standing up for her rights to state her opinion? I think not. For some reason being anti-gay is still surprisingly acceptable.
My personal favourite is that somehow the gay community being “allowed” to marry is damaging to straight marriages. Yeah. The divorce rate has been through the roof for ages. That’s not the fault of a section of marginalized society.
pennybadday
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 06:36 pm: [report]
I agree that the media shouldn’t be slut shaming her. Even if you disagree with her politics (as I happen to), there is no reason to attack her on her perceived sexuality (in this case, “sluttiness”). Unless we all want to be judged solely on the sex we are having/not having, we shouldn’t judge other women on that either.
duckie
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 06:51 pm: [report]
How does the pageant define semi-nude anyway? From what I’ve heard that the photos weren’t in fact topless as in she was wearing a “top” but you could (intentionally) see a nipple is some of the photos
aries3_04
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 07:00 pm: [report]
Eh, she can say what she wants, but she came off as unintelligent when she said it.
Which simply reinforces my opinion that beauty pageants are shallow and really only crowned her because of her exterior. Ick, judging people based on their looks? Plus throw Trump and Perez Hilton in the mix and false breasts? I’m sick to my stomach and getting dim-witted by the minute.
Where’s an Inner-Beauty pageant for the US when you need it?
bislane
wrote on May 12 2009 @ 07:30 pm: [report]
i was all for her voicing her opinion, until i realized that she also wants to force it on the rest of us(she was in some advert for the National Organization for Marriage)
retro chic
wrote on May 13 2009 @ 07:27 am: [report]
Amelia, thanks for the calm center—I agree. Re article: Donald insulted? — Ha! Is *insult* possible for a side-combing megalomaniac with a name like Trump? Also, do we know his views on gay marriage?
No, Prejean shouldn’t be trashed… any more than the normal fodder her silly pageant status would provide. And, what were once momentary TV calamities are now epic national catastrophes with all the religious fervor and hypocrisy they/we claim to denounce—for other parts of the world.
Imo, these events are our mirrors and actually say more about us than the Prejeans or the Hiltons of the world—“Opposite Perceptions,” not “Opposite Marriage.” Prejean/Hilton strangely are bedfellows—each wants to take the other’s rights away, neither one positively represents their views, both undermining their own causes.
I think we latch on to these media-pimped non-events as a way to fill voids created by other unaddressed collective “wrongs.” And, ironically, are looking for “religion”—the spiritual nourishment we are so lacking in the world we live in, or it wouldn’t strike such a nerve. But that would make *us* responsible, forcing a look in the mirror—so on it goes.
BTW, Prop 8 in CA probs will be upheld by the Supreme Court, thanks in part to the backfiring attention given to Prejean, ignited by Hilton.
wawmama
wrote on May 13 2009 @ 07:48 am: [report]
Wow! Really well said retro chic!
I personally disagree with her, but I honestly say that any one has the right to shame her. (Doesn’t that stoop to some kind of childishness? Nah, nah, who cares what you say, you’re a slut anyway? Yeah, real mature.
)I think that I might be good as a national community if gay marriage was legalized. More potentially stable environments to go to (their friends houses) the healthier the children are going to be. But, that’s just my theory.
retro chic
wrote on May 13 2009 @ 12:15 pm: [report]
OMG! Beyond funny… Check out Keith Olbermann’s “WTF!?!” segment on Carrie Prejean. He’s not slut-shaming, but devil-flaming in a way that only Keith can hilariously do—we’ll call it “flaming-light”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FLloVykCF8
I respect and know this article/post is about being Fair and Balanced (Oh, wait, that’s another media outlet), but I cannot turn down a good laugh. I still embrace my position posted earlier.
bunnymatic
wrote on May 14 2009 @ 09:43 am: [report]
she’s not a slut, she’s a jack-ass. she is entitled to her opinion about marriage, but not entitled to cite biblical values as her driving force. these values also inspired her to take racy photos? she’s full of #&@$% and shouldn’t expect less from the skin eating media.
retro chic
wrote on May 14 2009 @ 10:33 am: [report]
bunnymatic, exactly. Check out Keith Olbermann’s “WTF!?! Moment” on some incorrect assumptions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FLloVykCF8
He’s not slut-shaming, but devil-flaming, making very good, funny points amidst the mushroom cloud over this thing, in line with this article/post’s plea for balance. The truth hurts only because it makes you laugh so hard first.
theoldman
wrote on May 14 2009 @ 12:21 pm: [report]
If Prejean is going to be attacked, she needs to be criticized for being another in the Bull Connor(a really great christian) school of bigotry not some petty boob job or inconsequential photos. Hilton should be criticized for adopting the non productive attitudes of the Black Panthers. Her comments contain the same code words of the racial Southern whites of the 60’s. Her quotes just as coded as “segregation now segregation forever”. Hilton sounds like Eldridge Cleaver attacking honkies. Both are a disgrace. Wonder why Trump didn’t have the guts to can her for being a bigot? It has happened before.
retro chic
wrote on May 14 2009 @ 12:58 pm: [report]
theoldman, This is Trump! She is a cash register for him and doesn’t want to get sued. The more PR, the better. You have to know it’s about money. That’s why Amorosa of The Apprentice kept getting invited back—her notoriety brought ratings/$$$. Also, I agree, and the bigotry was assumed. You can almost transport her back in time to the creepy chanting of all those slurs we only now hear in code—at least in public.
yinkus pinkus
wrote on May 16 2009 @ 05:33 pm: [report]
i totally agree with Tango. in this era of tolerance it seems as if opinions have been put aside in a bid to seem more tolerant and less like a bigot. however, i do believe that people are still entitled to their opinions, if she opposes gay marriage, then thats her opinion and Perez hilton should live with that. the only thing that is of importance is how this opinion is expressed.
DancerNinja
wrote on May 17 2009 @ 07:25 pm: [report]
When I saw the pics of her that causes the uproar, my first thought was “She looks way better with brown hair.” I still think that bleach job just makes her look weirder.
lfeld
wrote on June 20 2009 @ 01:00 am: [report]
She was asked a question, and honestly answered it. Free speech is a crutch it seems, if your answer isn’t what some people want to hear. I disagree with her, but that old phrase ‘tyranny of the left’ is cropping back up in my mind. Denigrate the big ‘O’ and you’re a racist, but draw cartoons in the editorial page of the Times showing Condoleeza Rice with big fat ****** lips, and the black caucus, NOW and Libs in general either don’t care, or they use the crutch of free speech. Somehow don’t seem right. Neither does bashing this girl for saying exactly what Obama parrotted at Notre Dame, all to a free pass because YOU like him more than you like Carrie. And how does the so called proudly liberal mind actually complain of the leaked picture with a straight face. There’s more flesh in K-Mart ads. This hypocrisy is what makes me wonder why I stay with what the democratic Party is becoming: the same small minded, authoritarian, arrogant crap that it used to stand against.