Pageant Organization Paid For Miss California’s Boobs

subpar
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 10:46 am: [report]

I guess loving your body, made in the image of God, doesn’t apply when you have small tits and a pageant to win.

stephoney22
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 11:21 am: [report]

ugh, what a chestload of bs. i’m pissed and officially bashing beauty pageants from now on.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 11:34 am: [report]

@subpar: Well played.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 11:55 am: [report]

I’m guessing her breasts weren’t tiny in the first place if her body conformed enough to the standard notions of ]beauty for her to win Miss California. Not that small breasts are a bad thing, anyway.

retro chic
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 12:35 pm: [report]

Seriously? When was a beauty pageant ever about role modeling? These and other “vexing” questions are answered with a simple: Follow the $$$. This is TV entertainment… not a “scholarship program.” If funding the surgery fits the formula for churning out better contestants to make Pageant night’s bottom-line bigger, then that’s what they’ll do.
And, regulations around plastic surgery, and even former substance abuse have been relaxed for years, otherwise, in this day and age, there would be no contestants. 
To subpar’s great insight—what a hypocrite! What’s a little silicone between her and god… So typical of her religious “persuasion,”... *not that I have anything against them.*
Jessica, her “breasts” were tiny, the giveaway fakes look like split coconut shells on a washboard.

KHilton152
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 01:53 pm: [report]

Wow! Check out all the Christian bashing! Bet you wouldn’t be doing that if she were a Muslim. Since when did opposing gay marriage for religious reasons mean that you had to be a saint in every other way? Since when is getting breast implants a sin anyway?
She’s a “beauty queen”, what do you expect? She’s probably been doing these things since she was a little girl. She only had two ways to go-arrogance or lack of self-confidence. This isn’t “big” news and the only reason it’s being reported is because she didn’t give a standard liberal response to a question asking her for HER OPINION.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 02:01 pm: [report]

@KHilton152: She is being a hypocrite. If she interprets the bible in meaning that gays are living in sin how can she in good conscious get implants which by definition modify the body that god gave her. That would make her a hypocrite, and that is why she is the target of our ire. She’s not exactly consistent.

honestysprotege
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 02:02 pm: [report]

she got implants. lol. wow. I don’t know of anyone (online or off) who hasn’t wanted to change something about him/herself, whether it was something like implants, using make-up or losing weight. maybe I’m desensitized or just don’t care anymore, but I can’t be mad if I buy into the fact that being thin with long hair is the way to go as an adult. as for little girls, we as individual people (parents, friends, aunts, cousins) need to help them learn to love self.

brandyalexander
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 02:08 pm: [report]

Um, I don’t know.  I am completely for gay marriage and I’m an atheist.  So, I totally disagree with Miss California on just about everything.  However, this is just her opinion and I see no problem with her expression of it.  Why ask a question when there is only one acceptable answer?  I definitly think she is mislead.  Maybe we should start examining the instutions that made her this way, and not the poor girl herself.  Wow.

brandyalexander
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 02:11 pm: [report]

I meant “misled.” 

subpar
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 02:40 pm: [report]

All I’m saying is, don’t be the fundamentalist that murders the abortion doctor. I’m no saint, but I don’t manipulate the Bible or religion for my own agenda.

KHilton152
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 04:09 pm: [report]

Hey Cheese, I think you might need a little education in what hypocrite means. Hypocrisy would be if she were asked what she thought of plastic surgery, said she didn’t believe in it and then we found out she had implants. Her belief in gay marriage however is not at all related to the fact that she got breast implants.
First of all let me say that I am a Christian and I am a conservative however I do not have a firm opinion one way or the other on gay marriage. I can see the good and the bad in both sides and since I’m straight I figure it doesn’t really involve me anyhow.
I’m not sure exactly where but it does say in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination (interesting choices of word eh?) so for most Christians that is as good a reason as any to oppose gay marriage. Carrie Prejean is just following her religious beliefs as they are stated in the Bible.
I am a singer and as an entertainer I have to keep myself in really good shape in order to get work. I have never had surgery but when I get older I’m not going to rule it out. This is my profession and like it or not the way I look matters. It’s the same with her. She wanted to be Miss USA someday which to her meant she needed breast implants. She’s playing the game by rules not made by her. It’s as simple as that.
At the end of the day the issue is this, you are holding this women to a higher standard than you probably hold yourself simply because she has a different political belief than you. THAT is hypocrisy!

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 04:21 pm: [report]

By saying gay marriage doesn’t involve you is much like saying the assault weapons ban doesn’t involve you because you don’t want an automatic weapon.

The Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Word of god doesn’t necessarily mean anything in todays society, unless you think you ought to be stoned, which if you do, please go ahead.

powplz
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 04:28 pm: [report]

@KHilton152 - This isn’t Christian bashing, it’s bashing of one woman in particular who made an a$$ out of herself by stating an unpopular opinion (which is totally her right to do) in an extremely public forum in perhaps the dumbest way possible.  And some of us just feel fake boobs are gross and shallow, so extra fuel for a fire, however unnecessary it is.

And as for the “choice of words” comment regarding homosexuality being an abomination - the Bible wasn’t written in English, so try again.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 05:07 pm: [report]

@joyy: I’m knocking it. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe and what you want to disregard, unless you go crazy carrying out those things I mentioned from scripture above.

A little story:
A young Jewish scholar asked Jesus, “What is the greatest commandment?” Quoting the prophets, Jesus replied, “The great commandment is this… to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and the second command is like it, to love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

Is love not respect for one another, including gay and lesbians?

Another tidbit:
In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word (arsenokoitai) into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.
In the past, people used Paul’s writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul’s writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.
Now we have to ask ourselves, “Is it happening again?” Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society’s prejudice and condemn God’s gay children?
We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.
Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

retro chic
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 06:13 pm: [report]

Look, I know maybe some criticism does sound harsh, and that’s a shame, ‘cause she is trying to do good in the world, and that shouldn’t be overlooked. There are really bad people out there—and she’s not one of them. Look on the bright side, she won’t go down *that* road again. She has already parlayed the debacle into more powerful forums where she could actually do some good (or harm, depending on your view).

For those who missed earlier pageant posts/vids: Recall that her original answer on pageant night—when it counted—didn’t mention god. If she was up to the task, and actually came clean about her views, she would have garnered more respect and would have made more sense. Judges score on delivery as well as content. The others’ answers were coherent and responsive—hers was not. She waited ‘til after she lost, then declared herself—too little, too late—as damage-control on morning-after, talk shows. She’s over 21, can vote, drive and drink. She is not a girl, but a seasoned contestant. If she missed her mark, better luck next time. Personally, I think her bumbled response was a result of trying to play it safe, whitewashing her answer, and it backfired. The judges made the right call.

In the big scheme, the 51/49 % split in Prop 8 voting last year—probably reflective of the divide nationally, any answer she gave would have pissed off half the judges and public anyway. It was a no-win situation that only the adroit could navigate. She was not, and could not.

So, for those reasons, I can take a more compassionate view of someone I don’t agree with—she will live and move on, as will we.

KHilton152
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 06:18 pm: [report]

@CheeeeEEEEse Gay marriage doesn’t involve me. The only reason it “has to” is because a lot of people in the gay community like to shove the issue down everyone’s throat! Do what you do and be happy. I don’t care! I am pro guns by the way. Does that bother you? I hope so.
You “quoting” the Bible to me is pretty funny since you strike me as someone who probably doesn’t believe in God (capital G which you have yet to use). Regardless, I’m not saying that there aren’t outdated things in the Bible. I was simply saying that homosexuality being a sin is in the Bible therefore Christians have a right to take it seriously and they do.
Lastly, I think it’s really inappropriate and not very tolerant (which I’m sure you think you are) to say someone ought to be stoned simply because they disagree with your infinite wisdom.

KHilton152
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 06:27 pm: [report]

@joyy Perfect example of a hypocrite right here! You say that she had a right to say what she said but you insult the way she said it solely because it conflicts with your views. If she had been pro gay marriage you would have no problem with her.
It’s not an “unpopular opinion” to not support gay marriage. That’s what the media would have you believe but if that were true then why did California, one of the most liberal and largest states in the US, vote against it?
And as for my “choice of words”, if you know the exact translation from your “extensive” study of the Bible in it’s original text then please enlighten us all! That may not be what was originally written but that’s what’s in millions of copies of the Bible all around the world.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 07:15 pm: [report]

This argument has been going on for thousands of years and it wont end on the internet. I’ve already made up my mind about everything I believe in, have fun wasting your Sundays. Oh and if there is actually is a god, he/she/it loves me, so when I die it doesn’t really matter, but if you are that scared of the future, please cling to what you believe, just don’t impede others with your beliefs. Also, have fun with your guns.

christophersays.jaysays.com
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 07:26 pm: [report]

@KHilton152

When are straight people going to stop shoving their beliefs down my throat? 

You marry and divorce and marry again and often times repeat the cycle, maybe even a couple of times.  All the while you repeat vows of marriage before your peers, your country and the very God you claim is damning me. 

I’ve actually been told by someone that seems to share the view you’ve outlined here that I will have to answer to God for my sins just as she will have to answer to God for her sins of multiple marriages and divorces.

The difference is however, although she and many others have broken their vow to God, Gays and Lesbians are not working to deny anyone’s Civil Equality based on religious ideology.

If you can’t practice what you preach, ban all marriage.  Straight people everywhere are going to be in hell with us.  Yippie!

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 07:46 pm: [report]

I find this laughable, because the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual” didn’t enter our lexicon until right before the turn of the 20th century.  Even then, doctors in America and Europe disagreed on how to even define them… Interesting how this only started to piss people off when we attached labels to it.

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 07:48 pm: [report]

@christopersays.jaysays.com - Exactly.  “Preach” is more than perfect.

powplz
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 08:33 pm: [report]

@KHilton: try reading.  I didn’t judge her opinion at all in my comment (though I do disagree with it).  If she had expressed that opinion in a way that didn’t make her sound like an inarticulate moron, I wouldn’t have cared so much myself.

If she had answered from a pro-gay marriage standpoint in a similarly incompetent manner I would have had the same reaction: what a dumb pagent bimbo, why would anyone want to hear what she has to say.

@cheese - no offense, but I didn’t read most of your post.  know why?  cause you’re preaching to the choir.  don’t waste your energy!

duckie
wrote on April 30 2009 @ 09:12 pm: [report]

Lets all take a deep breath. Ahhhhhhh.

While theological debates are interesting and arguably important, did anyone stop and think that she identifies herself as Christian because most of America is? And gay marriage isn’t really popular so it would be smart to say you’re against it if you’re looking for vote.  Just like its smart to get implants (not to mention fake tan, caps for your teeth, a heavy work out schedule….) if that’s the body image people are looking for.

lawngnome
wrote on May 1 2009 @ 07:41 pm: [report]

CheeeeEEEEse you are extremely well read, much respect.

Perceptible
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 10:51 am: [report]

Wow, CheeeeEEEEse, you really know your New/Old Testament. Impressive.

I do find it interesting that some people seem to “cherry pick” their bible verses while ignoring others. It’s hard to get on board with any belief system that promotes any of those passages CheeeeEEEEse highlighted. Although I’d kind of like to see the adultery one enforced. Can you imagine the widow one? Oh lordy!

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 11:07 am: [report]

@Perceptible: Not really, I am an atheist, a very observant/intelligent atheist, as well as being VERY good with Google. I see the ridiculousness as well as where they aren’t consistent in their message.

Enjoy the Old Testament, fun reading.

cougiex
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 12:10 pm: [report]

@Perceptible, Cheeeese, and whoever else cares:

One thing to remember about the Bible is that there is a crapload of context for every line.  Cheese, you’re dead on about Sodom being more about rape than about homosexuality.  Most of what is being described in Leviticus/Deuteronomy is the Law being set out.  The Law was designed so that the Hebrew people would be different, and so that they wouldn’t fall back into worshiping other “gods”, much of that worship was involving, well, dirty deeds!  And pointing to passages like that while eating your cheeseburger… that’s hypocritical too.  The Law says you can’t have milk and meat together too, duh! 

At least the second passage in Mark (brother’s widow) is referencing the Law too.  The whole marrying your brother’s widow is odd… but the whole point is so that there would be someone around to take care of the poor woman.  Back then it’s not like she could have gone to Walmart to be a cashier to support herself. 

And well… some people still care about a couple of those, even if society doesn’t: remarriage and abstinence.  Not that they see death as the right punishment usually though… 

Personally, as much as I see wrong with “gay marriage” I’d rather pick my battles elsewhere.  Don’t we have more important things to worry about than if Jane and Jill or Bob and Bill want to be united under the law as they already are in their hearts… as I’m getting ready to face the real world in a couple weeks.  Brand new Chemical Engineering Diploma.  Off to… Unemployment?

And I do enjoy reading the Old Testament.  I even took a semester long class on it (and stilllll haven’t read it all yet!)  Speaking of does anyone want to write a 10 page paper for me on it by Friday?

PinkRanger
wrote on May 5 2009 @ 01:46 pm: [report]

To that commenter that insists gay marriage has nothing to do with heterosexuals and gay people are “shoving down” everyones throats. As a heterosexual, you don’t have to figtht for those rights, homosexuals unfortunately need the straight vote as well as the gay vote to get what they want. Its not “shoving” its raising awareness. And if thats shoving things down peoples throats, whats evangelism? I have no issues with christians in general *I was raised christian, and my family is very devoted to the church* but you are kidding yourself if you think that christians don’t try and impose their beliefs on the whole world. and so many of them seem to think they’re the victims. If you truly believe live and let live like you said, than how could you be opposed to gay marriage?