you're reading...
Christianity, Culture, current events, Dating Mating Sex and Reproduction

Oops… I Diddled Again

This is Carrie Prejean, who has recently been dethroned as Miss California.   She sued over the dethroning, but has since dropped the suit.  The whole mess started when she made drama for herself in answering a question about gay marriage:

Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

Meh.

Anyway, Carrie’s been something of a poster-child for the conservative right, and has gone out of her way to make sure everybody knows she’s a good Christian girl.  When she was dethroned, she sued, alleging that it was her Christian beliefs that caused officials to turn on her.  She said they told her she couldn’t mention Jesus at appearances.  Pageant officials had a different story, claiming that she had missed multiple appearances and was becoming increasingly difficult to work with.   (It’s worth noting that Donald Trump publicly defended her after she made the anti-gay remark.)

Anyway…

The whole thing was getting really messy.  Prejean had already racked up well in excess of a hundred thousand in legal fees, and both sides were hunkering down for a multi-year high profile case, and suddenly, the whole thing went away.  Carrie dropped her suit, and the pageant dropped its countersuit, which included money the pageant apparently paid to get bigger boobs for her.

Sheknows.com reports that the reason for this sudden change of tactic was that pageant officials had dug up a video of Carrie masturbating.

Picture this meeting… Prejean enters the conference room with her legal team and her mother. Pageant lawyers start the video, showing a totally nude woman from the waist down having a little private party, if you know what we mean wink wink.

Carrie said the video was disgusting and denied it was her… Until the camera panned up to her face. Busted! The holier-than-thou poster child for the conservative Christian right was caught red-handed in the most compromising of anti-Christian situations.

Whoops.

Carrie says the video was something she made for her boyfriend when she was seventeen.  This isn’t the first time she’s had to defend herself, either.  She also took some heat for a few old modeling photos showing her in less than a Conservative Christian state of dress.  Those photos were attributed to “youthful indiscretions.”  Nevertheless, the legal eagles advised her well.  Pageant contestants are required to sign statements to the effect that they haven’t been photographed nude.  This video counts as being photographed nude.  End of lawsuit.

I imagine there will be a few atheist bloggers who will cite this as another example of right wing hypocrisy, and I suppose they’ll be right.  Rush is a druggie.  Haggard likes cock.   Every Republican congressman has probably had a hooker, or at least an intern.

The thing is, I’m not ok with that approach.  Yes, the conservative Christians are hypocrites.  They like sex, drugs, and rock and roll as much as the rest of us.   The thing is, when we point fingers at them and call them out for hypocrisy, we’re actually validating their absurd moral standards.   You know what? Other than her absurd bigotry towards gays, I’m on Carrie’s side.  I’m sure her boyfriend had a damn fine time masturbating to the video she made for him — and that’s awesome! Yeah… I know… she was seventeen.  But we’re not talking about laws here.  We’re talking about a late teenager who was enjoying her emerging sexuality with a guy.  That’s the way things are supposed to work.

The pageant, however…   That’s another story.  They bought Carrie boobs.  Why?  Because men like to wank off while looking at girls with great boobs. But, it was really important to the pageant that they not promote the idea of women as sex objects, so they made her sign a piece of paper saying she’d never been a bad girl on film.  Even though they paraded her around on stage in front of everybody in this:

So, yeah.  I’m not ok with the pageant’s absurd double standard of enforcing the “good girl” image while simultaneously parading fifty one pieces of sexy meat across the stage.  At the risk of offending my feminist friends (I see you reading, GF…)  I’m perfectly fine with parading pieces of sexy meat across stages.  I just don’t like it when they pretend like they’re not doing what they’re obviously doing, which is selling sex.

Prejean has a book about her trials and tribulations, and I’m sure it’ll read like any one of a dozen in Sarah Palin’s Book of the Month club.  She’s sure she’s being silenced and harassed for her religious beliefs.   In briefly perusing the blogosphere, it appears that a lot of Christians agree.  I honestly don’t know if her ill-advised remarks were the cause of her dethroning.  Maybe so.  I suspect not, though.  I mean, didn’t we just try to elect a woman with exactly the same views to the vice presidency, and didn’t almost half of the country vote for her?

I think this whole situation is a great example of how incredibly screwy humans get when they pretend at Conservative Christian Morality.  The anti-gay remark really doesn’t have much to do with it.  The pageant is pretending like it’s not peddling sex, and the contestants are pretending like they’re not using their bodies to get ahead in the world, and all the guys watching are pretending they hate it, even though they’ll be thinking about Miss California while their slightly pudgy wives go down on them later, even though they don’t like giving oral sex anymore…

Couldn’t we just admit that pretty women get ahead by selling sex?  I think it would be ok if we just admitted that.   It’s almost comical how we dance around the obvious.   Does anybody anywhere actually believe these girls haven’t had lots of wild sex with men who aren’t their husbands?  Does anybody think pageants will be “wholesome” so long as we don’t have video proof that these girls have sex?  Everything in this entire situation comes directly from a bogus moral standard.  Prejean’s anti-gay bigotry, the pageant’s pretense at non-sexuality, the fact that anyone cares that she made a video or that she masturbates — all of this is just moral claptrap, and the whole damn issue would be moot if we as a culture just accepted human sexuality for what it is.

Advertisements

Discussion

4 thoughts on “Oops… I Diddled Again

  1. personally i think her ex BF is a real cad a.k.a. jerk!!!!
    i think that her video was obviously intended just to share with him, & at a young age when we’re learning about your sexuality its easy to make that mistake & trust too much & put that on video. it was meant to be private but lesson learned dont record it because people do judge & twist things!& unfortunately once your record its not private, its pornography because it can be viewed by other then who it was intended for. keeps sex private & between you & your partner UNRECORDED! enough with the voyerism, it just turns sex into an obsession & can lead to addiction & self defeating behaviors. its not wrong to masturbate with or without a partner, however it can become unhealthy i think if you depend on it but thats another topic.
    thats part of growing up, you learn from your mistakes & she views it now as a mistake, lets take her word for it, she didnt defend it saying yeah whatever & i’d do that again!
    but you know what now that im older i can look back & see mistakes i made, so once we grow & know more who we are & what we believe in, isnt it ok to say so!
    im a christian too, & ive made mistakes probably cause i didnt know who i was completely as a teen/young adult! but now i understand the values i was raised with, sex isnt bad, it a good thing, but i believe in monogomy & marriage, marriage is a christian belief not intended for gay couples. its not against the law to be gay but go think up your own dedications & call it what you want but it aint marriage. stick with gay union then or whatever, if you want to be faithful to your gay lover then thats admirable although slightly misguided & thats my opinion. if you think otherwise then you have your own freewill to choose! i think i was created by God & He has expectations but we are born with a free will & you have to choose. he didnt create zombies, but he created us i think he should know what he intended for us to be!
    i dont believe in beauty contests, why should people be rewarded because they have certain body types & that they parade it around, really, you’re beautiful for so many reasons besides what you look like, & beauty comes in all shapes & sizes, lets value people for what they do & how they treat people instead of just cause someone is “pretty” or “sexy” it doesnt mean they are better or they deserve more then others! thats biased in itself! as for her so called antigay comments, please, so what, i dont think same sex couples is ok, i can have my values & i have the freedom to say so, same as gays can say so, doesnt mean i have to agree!!!!! a man is made to be with a woman & visa versa, thats seems pretty basic & obvious to me, hello! people just dont realize how we get drawn into the media so much that we think that what we see on t.v. is realistic mentoring in life, media’s bottom line is to make money & exploiting sex/sexuality is the easist way to do it! im not a prude & understand their is the arts but im sick to death of being swamped with sex everytime i turn on the t.v.give it a rest already. cant we focus on anything else in life… the media & advancing technology leaves nothing private anymore, & i dont want to follow the croud aimlessly.

    Posted by juan | November 10, 2009, 11:18 pm
  2. We are entering an era where this kind of video footage will be increasingly common, and not just for beauty pageant types. I envision a time in the not-too-distant future where a high-level nominee for a political appointment, e.g. Secy. of State, will have to withdraw due to compromising photo evidence of one sort or another.

    Perhaps the result of that will be the lessening of the stigma for participating in such romps. However, I for one am not looking forward to seeing more of these lurid photos. CJ is mostly guilty here of poor judgment – I did find it interesting that her bf did not film her. She filmed it and sent it to him. Hussy!

    Sex must be the nation’s best-selling product by now. From kids’ Halloween costumes, to fake “half grapefruit”boobs like the ones shown here, to the ever-expanding porn industry, it’s hard to get away from our baser instincts. It’s all accompanied by skyrocketing sexual dysfunction – the fastest growing group of Viagra poppers is men aged 18-30. It’s a wonder anyone gets any work done!

    Posted by Susan Walsh | November 11, 2009, 8:15 pm
  3. I’m really torn on the whole nudie movie issue, Susan. I really can’t decide if everyone’s over-reacting to them, or if they really are a violation of some kind of ingrained human instinct. Maybe it’s just me, but I honestly don’t give a damn if someone has made a movie. Well… that’s not entirely true. Someone once sent me a movie — a lot like Carrie’s, from the description of it — and all things considered, I’d say my life is a little happier for it. But I digress…

    I’m reminded of the Clinton “affair.” Taking out all the obvious political maneuvering by the Republicans, can we honestly say that the president getting a blow job would have been a big deal if we didn’t have this pretense at repressive Christian morality? If the public honestly didn’t care, there would have been no case to press. It’s not illegal for the president to get a blow job. Hell, there have been presidents, prime ministers, and other heads of state all over the world who have openly kept mistresses. I just don’t think our American sexual mores represent a baseline, functional societal attitude towards sex.

    I’ve made an argument before, and I think it’s a valid one: I’ve probably seen ten thousand women naked on the internet. Most men with a computer have seen at least that many. (Apropos of nothing, Louisville, KY watches the most porn of any U.S. city. I just heard that yesterday.) With the exception of celebrities, I probably wouldn’t recognize a single one of them if I saw them on a bus. The fact is, there are six billion people on the planet, and if you’re not a celebrity, there probably aren’t more than ten of those six billion people who would lose a minute of sleep if they saw you diddling or fucking on film. We think we are much more important than we are.

    Having said that, there’s still the reality that a single naked photo can ruin the career of a high profile person. From a practical point of view, it’s important for people to take this fact into consideration. However, I think there’s a certain inevitable shift in perception coming. EVERYBODY has video on their cell phones now. It may not be pleasant to hear, but I’ll bet I’ve seen half of my friends’ girlfriends in some state of undress on either their or their boyfriend’s IPhone. It’s just not that big a deal anymore, and somebody is going to have the balls to say that from a political podium at some point.

    So yeah… I think I lean towards the dysfunction being our obsession with condemning our own and our neighbor’s sexual practices, not in the practices themselves.

    Posted by hambydammit | November 12, 2009, 2:28 pm
  4. Haha, I cracked up when I read that you have fond memories of getting that movie….I was actually just kidding when I said “hussy”, btw. I’m all for sex + technology. It’s actually a must in long-distance relationships.

    I agree with everything you’re saying here. If we didn’t have such a repressive view of sex, this kind of footage would be far less titillating. Although I’m willing to bet that even the enlightened French would go crazy for sexy footage of Carla Bruni….the difference is that they’d be less scandalized.

    I remember the argument you made re anonymity online, and I think it’s a comforting one. It is important not to overreact if it should happen, it will all be lost in the shuffle quickly. Having said that, I would be mortified if I came across my daughter on one of those sites. I think it’s the sense of accidental voyeurism that makes me so uncomfortable.

    I recently had my “BU crew” over for brunch – about 8 women students. At one point, a cell phone was being passed around. When it got to me, I saw a photo of an erect penis, taken by the proud owner himself from above. All the women exclaimed with laughter and delight at this pic of Julie’s boyfriend. I laughed too, but I confess I was not tempted to have another waffle.

    P.S. You’ve probably already seen it, but the Globe has an interesting article today about the economic effects of religion:

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/15/the_curious_economic_effects_of_religion/

    I thought of you when I read it – seems right up your alley.

    Posted by susanawalsh | November 15, 2009, 11:51 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: