Carrie Prejean defends photos

This morning Carrie Prejean issued a statement via her publicist about naughty photos of her circulating on the internet.

SAN DIEGO, May 5 /PRNewswire/ — “On April 19, I chose to answer a question during the 2009 Miss USA pageant in an honest and personal manner that expressed my views of the long-established definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. That answer, and my commitment to stand by my beliefs, has since resulted in attacks on me and my integrity as a woman. We live in a great country; a nation that was built on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Yet my comments defending traditional marriage have led to intimidation tactics that seek to undermine my reputation and somehow silence me and my beliefs, as if opinion is only a one-way street.
“I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be. But these attacks on me and others who speak in defense of traditional marriage are intolerant and offensive. While we may not agree on every issue, we should show respect for others’ opinions and not try to silence them through vicious and mean-spirited attacks.
“With that in mind, I will continue to support and defend marriage as the honorable institution it is. I will continue to stand with the overwhelming majority of the American people and the voters of my home state of California. If this whole experience has taught me anything, it is our precious right to speak freely, and how we as Americans can never allow anyone or any group to intimidate or threaten us to keep silent.”
FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Melany Ethridge 214.912.8934
[email protected]
Kristin Cole 615.289.6701
[email protected]

I don’t know who really wrote the statement but either she or her handlers should do a focus group or take a poll or something. I don’t think they understand the disconnect between Christian role model and model.
The AP “covers” this story. As with Vanessa Williams, they may provoke the loss of her title. And now she has been invited to the Values Voters Summit…
Here is a previous post on the matter and some commentary from Christianity Today. Katelyn Beaty sums it well:

In an interview with the SBC-affiliated San Diego Christian College, where she attends, Prejean talks about the wonderful things she is already doing for Christ: serving women in the adult entertainment industry, volunteering at the local International Ministry Center to help refugees learn English, and working with a mentoring program to foster-care children. She says, “I especially have a heart for helping young girls with low self-esteem.” At this point, I would encourage Prejean to skip the beauty pageants, which set up the very standards of beauty that lead many young girls to devalue themselves, and focus on the far more lasting work she is already doing in the kingdom.

111 thoughts on “Carrie Prejean defends photos”

  1. She was asked for an honest opinion and she gave it . Now she is being tore down , ridiculed and humiliated for it . Gotta love the human race , makes me proud .

  2. Eddy,

    Rather than address this discrepancy that I brought to your attention from your comments to me (I suspect that your first comment was total sarcasm but it is improper blog etiquette to assume that a person’s words mean the opposite of what they actually say…so I pointed out in the above paragraph that the two posts were contradictory (hence leading to a convoluted dialog). Rather than address that I was clearly referring to two back ot back posts from you, you counter me with the notion that ‘it was only one sentence’.

    If you had read one post above this one that you found problems with, you would have seen I did indeed address the discrepancy! I stated very clearly that it was Maggie I was talking about. I hope we can put this issue to rest now

  3. Thanks, Timothy. I’ve just completed a cross-country move…purging 30 years of my life in Minnesota to move back to my family. I was pretty much out of touch with the news for the past two months. For the last few weeks, I didn’t even have a television (LOL. or a toaster, microwave, stereo…) So, all of my comments and/or questions on this matter were limited by what I was gleaning from the main blog, the comments and any links therein.
    From what you’ve just revealed, I do believe she deserves to feel the heat of public scrutiny and/or criticism for the double-standards she embodies.

  4. Someone who wants to tell me how to live but who isn’t willing to live that way themself.

    Yep – couldn’t be more accurate. Before I was a Christian that was the biggest turn off. It still is the biggest turn off.
    Okay – back to focusing on my own log. What a mess to clean up.

  5. Ahhh
    I thought you were talking about the longer discussion about perceptions in which I suggested that she was presented as such.
    This bit of verbal shorthand may have confused you about my intent so I’ll change the wording:
    Yep. After she
    1) said that she supported “Biblical correctess” rather than political correctness, and
    2) appeared for five services at her church where she said she “stayed true to her beliefs” which were “how she was brought up to believe” and where she and her pastor referenced 2 Timothy 3:12-13 – “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” thereby implying that she was living a godly life, and
    3) held a press conference to promote the National Organization for Marriage ad which starred her, and
    4) announced to the press that she’d tell Perez Hilton that he needs Jesus, and
    5) went on numerious news shows wherein she was presented – without objection or correction – as an example of a young woman willing to give up her dream to live out her faith, and
    6) promised to defend marriage however she could
    her behavior is fair game. Her parents are not.

  6. Timothy–
    I read it again. Here it is in it’s entirety:
    <

    em>Yep. After she set herself up as a defender of virtue, her behavior is fair game. Her parents are not.

    Content: She set herself up as a defender of virtue therefore her behavior is fair game. Her parents did not set themselves up as defenders of virtue therefore they are not.
    (Observations: If it’s the pageant answer, she didn’t set herself up, her questioner did. And she only spoke honestly to her political viewpoint on the question. To my knowledge, she didn’t elaborate; she didn’t bring the issue of moral or immoral into the answer. When people hear things that aren’t really said, it always gives me pause.)
    I went back to the original post before commenting to see if there were any clues that Miss Prejean was indeed doing anything that could be construed as being a ‘defender of virtue’ and I found nothing. 1) She answered the question during the pageant. 2) She made the public statement that is the subject of this post. 3) Info about her volunteer work was also included.
    I was clueless about Maggie and now I wonder if there’s a part of Miss Prejean’s story that I’m missing. If she has been ‘defending virtue’, then she deserves all the heat she’s getting and then some. But, if it’s her answer during the pageant that’s viewed by you and others as her being a ‘defender of virtue’, that speaks to your own bias and propensity for hyperbolic rhetoric. (Characterizing her as a ‘defender of virtue’ justifies the ongoing attacks against her…it makes ‘hypocrite’ ring true.)
    My first entanglement in this discussion was after Brady made the global statement that the Christian right was calling foul and playing the victim card. Duh, Maggie said that the abuse that Carrie Prejean has been receiving is astonishing. I’m trying to stick with the facts and avoid the spin and value-charged word choices that are being used to advance a political cause at the expense of Miss Prejean.

  7. Warren, I don’t think I’d be bothering to read the LA Times blogs for any reliable information. Also, Liberty University is not a “Christian group.” It is a rather sizable Christian university, like its name says. We might as well call Grove City a Christian group by this definition.
    Timothy, what you are saying has been covered in the book, “unChristian.” Sad but true to a great degree. Except that it’s not just conservative Christians. It’s also others. But the other point you didn’t make is that the media and certain activist groups have helped to proliferate the hypocritical view of Christians without trying very hard to tell the rest of the story. Their sin of omission is to gloss over the many churches and ministries that are doing it right.
    I highly recommend Andrew Marin’s book, “Love Is an Orientation” for a look at how to be reconciling, loving and truthful all at the same time. In fact, Warren, didn’t you promise us your assessment of it? I got my review copy, so I presume you also got yours. Maybe you can navigate your blog readers away from Carrie Prejean. How about it?

  8. When did Carrie Prejean set herself up as a ‘defender of virtue’? My impression has been that she answered a question about her views on marriage and she said she believes in the long-standing traditional view. Is that now being translated as ‘defender of virtue’ or has she been making other public statements that actually go to the issue of ‘virtue’?

  9. David,
    Yes. She is also the head of the National Organization for Marriage, the organization who put out those campy ads that said “A storm is coming and I’m afraid”.
    When a news story comes up about gay marriage, she’s currently the go-to girl for the anti-gay marriage position.

  10. This discussion has highlighted for me a failing in the conservative Christian movement. I hope I can say this without implying hostility or inviting defensive response. And I hope that this can be seen as constructive criticism rather than an attack.
    The problem that people have with Conservative Christianity has nothing to do with theology. It has to do with perception.
    Those outside the fold object to two related perceptions about conservative Christians: that they are hateful interfering busibodies and that they are blatant hypocrits.
    I’m not going to debate whether either of these are true, but rather state with absolute certainty that these are the perceptions that are out there. And – though this will not sit well with some – those percepetions are entirely the result of the image that conservative Christians (CCs) have sold of themselves.
    The secular world is laughing at CCs over Carrie Prejean. It’s not that they object to her pictures, they don’t. It’s not that she supports opposite marriage, plenty of folks oppose same-sex marriage. It’s that she was put forward to be the image of good moral values while topless pictures of her were on the internet.
    No one cares about her volunteerism. No one cares that she might be a lovely person. All they see is that the same folks who want to tell them that pornography is bad, that girls should dress modestly, those who insist on abstinance only, are now championing and defending a skank.
    Time after time CCs set themselves up for ridicule.
    The perception of the world is that they talk about love but show nothing but hate. Really, does anyone think that standing outside a school with a bullhorn on the Day of Silence (Ken Hutchinson) looks like love to anyone at all other than CCs? Does anyone think that posting obvious lies about gays and HIV on a church website (the Rock, Carrie’s church) looks like anything other than vile bigotry?
    CCs say they care but when it comes to even things like hospital visitation they look like ogres who want to deny someone the right to visit their partner in the hospital.
    Today CCs are protesting a partner registry in Cincinnati that does nothing whatsoever and requires nothing of anyone but simply lets people register with the city in hope that it will make it easier for those hospitals or employers that may be inclined to recognize them. How do you think that looks to anyone who isn’t CC? It looks hateful and spiteful and downright mean.
    And it isn’t even being balanced by what Christianity has been known for, good works. Currently to outsiders it looks like the only source for charity is the government.
    CC aid organizations far too often require a trade off. If you want a meal you have to listen to a sermon. If you want shelter you have to be heterosexual. If you want anything more than that, don’t ask the church. And now, with faith-based initiatives, Christians want the government to pay them for being charitable AND they want to be able to still have strings attached.
    The problem isn’t conservative theology. No one has any complaint with the Amish or the Mennonites. If anything, they have respect for applying their restrictions to themselves and not expecting others to submit to their rules.
    Conservative Christians appear to the world to behave exactly the opposite.
    The problem is that the perception of the world is that conservative Christian is defined as: Someone who wants to tell me how to live but who isn’t willing to live that way themself.
    If CCs want to change that perception it is going to require some hard work and some self control. They are going to have to visibly love the sinner as much as they hate the sin.
    They are going to have to publicly put as much time into drug rehabilitation as they do in opposing needle-exchange. They are going to have to put as much money into adoption services as they do into fighting abortion rights. They are going to spend as much money and time in finding and actively support solutions for the inequities experienced by same-sex couples as they do in funding anti-gay marriage amendments.
    Christ said that the world would know his disciples because the world would be able to see the love that they had. If the world isn’t seeing the love, then the church is WAY off base.
    CCs like to say that they have real love, the kind that condemns sin and demands TRUTH and holds the world to account. Over and over they say “speak the truth in love”. But ya know, if the world doesn’t recognize your truth as being spoken in love then you’ve failed. And it isn’t the fault of the world.
    The current perception of conservative Christians is a joke. And it simply doesn’t matter if rushing to Carrie Prejean’s defense is “the right thing to do”; the world is laughing.

  11. @ Warren…
    Of course it is over the top…there are no rules.
    Regarding her pics…from what I have seen, pretty tame.
    @ Timothy,
    Do you mean Maggie Gallagher, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy?

  12. Ok, now things have gotten over the top.
    Dragging the family into the public eye is unnecessary; speculating on Miss Prejean’s family dynamics in this way bears no important relationship to either her views on marriage or the decision by conservative groups to put her in the spotlight.

    yes, this attacks the person (via family) rather than the subject and that is unfair but not unexpected. I think she was put in the spotlight by liberal voices right after she answered Perez Hilton’s question though.

  13. Eddy,

    Please tell us what you know of Maggie the blogger and how she might be ‘the anti-gay voice when it comes to marriage’ as you just ‘informed’ me.

    Maggie is the head of the National Organization for Marriage and is pretty much considered the current point person in opposition to same-sex marriage.

  14. Just where does nudity not lead to lust and sinful thoughts?

    When I’m walking from the bedroom to the shower.

    Do you normally have an audience when you do so? Otherwise, what’s your point, Phil? We’re all naked in the shower.
    I do not see any occasion where it is appropriate for a professing Christian to take his/her clothes off for money, which is what “for professional purposes” means.

  15. Warren,
    If this was your daughter. And she did do those poses and she was a model and a Christian. How would you feel to read this blog about her? And what would you say to her and those who write about her?

  16. And Ann, not all of the photos are of “awhile” ago. See this link: http://www.ottomodels.com/women/models/carrie_prejean.html
    Dr. Throckmorton,
    Did you give them permission to display all those pics of me on this site?
    I do understand your concern about the image she projects in the pics and how it could affect how other people would think of her. My own wordly view is that I hope these are for professional purposes only and that we can distinguish them from all the goodness that she and others profess she does.

  17. Debbie,

    Just where does nudity not lead to lust and sinful thoughts?

    When I’m walking from the bedroom to the shower.

  18. I guess you didn’t read my earlier post. In it, I said I have no problem with Christians becoming models, or competing in beauty pageants, or even posing nude (providing it is done tastefully). I shouldn’t have to point this out to Christians, but LUST is the sin, not nudity (which is, after all, the natural state in which God created us).

    Nice try, Phil, but it ain’t working. Just where does nudity not lead to lust and sinful thoughts? Maybe if the naked one is Jabba the Hut. Christians posing nude? Are you joking?
    A little skin here, a little more skin there. Pretty soon, that camel’s in the tent. Tasteful Christian nudity makes about as much sense as Jody Blume asking people to make Mother’s Day contributions to Planned Parenthood. This is a fallen world, lest we forget. We’re not going back to the Garden.

  19. Ok, now things have gotten over the top.
    Dragging the family into the public eye is unnecessary; speculating on Miss Prejean’s family dynamics in this way bears no important relationship to either her views on marriage or the decision by conservative groups to put her in the spotlight.

  20. But hey – why can’t we loan each other our burdens? It might give us some perspective.
    Yes, I agree – I think that is something similar to what Jesus says too. Thanks Mary!

  21. Michael Phelps is another example as is so many others – I think the reconciliation, like every other perplexing situation, probably comes with who admits the contradiction and how it affects others and who doesn’t. I don’t like it that groups are globbing onto Carrie Prejean to advance their cause but I also don’t think it is much different from what any other group would do with anyone else who endorsed what they were promoting. I find her appealing and applaud any and all work she does for women, especially young ones. She wears a bathing suit on stage – other people wear them around the pool or at the beach.
    She posed for some pictures that are questionable – ok, that awhile ago and I am not sure if she would do the same now. She presents herself as intelligent with a certitude in her beliefs – many of us do that without the barrage of criticism she is getting. She seems dignified in the face of it all – I am not too sure how many would do the same.

  22. But hey – why can’t we loan each other our burdens? It might give us some perspective.

  23. Take the load off Manny and put the loan on me.
    Geez. I’m going to go work on my own sins for awhile.

  24. I just heard the news about Manny Rodriguez and see how his public image to little boys will probably be compromised now by his unfortunate choice to take steroids. It is a contradiction and I see it.

  25. My point is this: there are plenty of areas where Christians have been inconsistent, so why is he focusing on their inconsequential support for a 21-year-old girl whose only sin, if that’s what it is, is showing a little skin? I could just as easily have used Christians’ inconsistency in supporting the death penalty while (correctly) opposing abortion.

    Phil- Warren can probably answer this himself, but this is a blog about sexuality, so it makes sense that he would take note of this issue rather than one about the death penalty.
    As for her “only sins”–everyone sins, that’s not the issue. But why would these groups cling to Carrie without knowing anything about her, simply because she opposed gay marriage? Seems a bit short-sighted.

  26. Debbie,

    Whoa! Where did that come from? Can’t blame you for trying to totally change the tiresome topic, but this is more than just OT. It’s out of line. And you did it twice.

    Actually, since, according to Dr. Throckmorton the topic is mostly about Christian groups’ embrace of Carrie Prejean, and their inconsistency in doing so, I do not see this as an attempt to change the topic. My point is this: there are plenty of areas where Christians have been inconsistent, so why is he focusing on their inconsequential support for a 21-year-old girl whose only sin, if that’s what it is, is showing a little skin? I could just as easily have used Christians’ inconsistency in supporting the death penalty while (correctly) opposing abortion.

    I do not believe all models have to pose semi-nude to make it in that career, just like all actors don’t have to do nude scenes to be successful.

    I guess you didn’t read my earlier post. In it, I said I have no problem with Christians becoming models, or competing in beauty pageants, or even posing nude (providing it is done tastefully). I shouldn’t have to point this out to Christians, but LUST is the sin, not nudity (which is, after all, the natural state in which God created us).

  27. Are your statements about Miss Prejean’s volunteer work a speculation on your part or do you know something factual? All I know comes from her account of it. What do you know for sure?
    I can only tell you about my actual knowledge of volunteer work and the celebrities and entertainers I work with in that field. Some of them have questionalble morals outside of their volunteer work with young people, however, their work with them is exemplary with very positive and long lasting results. If Carrie is doing volunteer work as Katelyn states in her article, then I think those efforts should be acknowledged for what they are and not compromised or confused by an opinion about her day job.

  28. I am the first to agree that Christian groups are often inconsistent. But why not focus on areas where their inconsistency has done real harm — as they did when acting as the enablers for the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq?

    Whoa! Where did that come from? Can’t blame you for trying to totally change the tiresome topic, but this is more than just OT. It’s out of line. And you did it twice.
    I will leave it at that as we do not need THAT discussion taking place here.
    You are right that Miley Cyrus is a well-known preteen/teen role model. That makes her offense (and her naive parents’) doubly offensive. The fact that beauty pageant winners are youthful “ambassadors” of good will also puts them in the role model category, though.
    Interestingly, there is actually a Christian modeling “ministry.” Whatever. I do not believe all models have to pose semi-nude to make it in that career, just like all actors don’t have to do nude scenes to be successful. If that is a requirement, I say get another job or stop calling yourself a Christian. That part of Prejean’s statement ought to fall on deaf ears
    Look at how sexuality is on parade in the TV news and talking head world. Check out the news babes. And personally, I don’t care for Ann Coulter’s low-cut, short, little black dresses every time she appears on the tube to hawk a book. She is also supposed to be a Christian. But sex sells, whether its books, music or movies.
    Sorry, but this Pandora’s Box can never be closed again. We’ve blown it. We’ve allowed the curse to infiltrate everything, and we are paying a dear price. But we have not yet learned to stop talking out of both sides of our mouths with false piety.

  29. @Ann: Are your statements about Miss Prejean’s volunteer work a speculation on your part or do you know something factual? All I know comes from her account of it. What do you know for sure?

  30. Dr. Throckmorton,
    Just thought of something – are you and others referring to her (Carrie’s)reputation rather then her actual volunteer work as being compromised?

  31. Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Values Voters Forum, Liberty University…

    Oh, ok – thanks for the clarification – I just never know and now understand. Focus on the Family is the only one I recognize in the list you just gave me.

  32. I do not know if Katelyn does volunteer work but that is not relevant to her advice to Prejean.

    I guess I just see it another way – Katelyn is giving advice to someone as only an observer can rather than a participant with actual knowledge, which IMHO would be more credible.

    Her point is that Prejean’s volunteer efforts are compromised by her public activities. The sexualization of girls takes place in her day job whilst her good works to undo it takes place on her free time.

    I think if you talked with the young girls and young women she actually works with they would not think her efforts with them were being compromised with her day job. In fact, I know you would hear a whole different perspective – one that would inspire you and others.

  33. However, I think it is wrong for Christian groups to ignore what they previously condemned.
    Dr. Throckmorton,
    Please forgive me for being tedious – can you clarify what a Christian group is?

  34. Dr. Throckmorton,
    I am the first to agree that Christian groups are often inconsistent. But why not focus on areas where their inconsistency has done real harm — as they did when acting as the enablers for the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq? To attack them for embracing a young girl who, in answer to a loaded question, expressed her true beliefs instead of giving the politically correct answer strikes me as disingenuous.
    If you have no problem commending Prejean for refusing to parrot the politically correct line, then why don’t you commend her instead of attacking her. (What else are we to make of “I don’t know who really wrote the statement…” other than an attempt to slyly suggest she is too dumb to express her own opinions?)
    And, in answer to your basic question: if I had a daughter who acted as Carrie Prejean has, I would be very proud of her.

  35. Ann – I do not know if Katelyn does volunteer work but that is not relevant to her advice to Prejean.
    Her point is that Prejean’s volunteer efforts are compromised by her public activities. The sexualization of girls takes place in her day job whilst her good works to undo it takes place on her free time.

  36. Jayhuck–
    It was two posts back to back that seemed to say entirely different things not ‘one sentence’ as you are suggesting. I indicated this in the paragraph preceding my statement:

    Your first comment of the latter two seems to indicate that I was right that you thought I was referring to Miss Prejean rather than Maggie.The latter suggests that you really were referring to this Maggie person in your comments to me.

    Rather than address this discrepancy that I brought to your attention from your comments to me (I suspect that your first comment was total sarcasm but it is improper blog etiquette to assume that a person’s words mean the opposite of what they actually say…so I pointed out in the above paragraph that the two posts were contradictory (hence leading to a convoluted dialog). Rather than address that I was clearly referring to two back ot back posts from you, you counter me with the notion that ‘it was only one sentence’. (Convoluted again…I was very clearly juxtaposing TWO of your comments yet somehow you conclude that ‘it was only ONE SENTENCE’.)
    And my name is Eddy. It ends with a ‘y’ not an ‘ie’.

  37. @Phil: To me, those seem like nonessential distinctions.
    A basic question is would you want your daughter to emulate Miss Prejean’s activities?
    I have no problem commending her for refusing to parrot what seems like a popular viewpoint if it is not her own. However, I think it is wrong for Christian groups to ignore what they previously condemned.

  38. Dr. Throckmorton,
    Well, for one thing, Miley Cyrus is not a model. She is the star of a children’s television program. Unlike Prejean, Cyrus is a role model, and, accordingly, should be held to a different standard.
    Like it or not, the job of a female model is to look sexually attractive, not so much for the benefit of men, but for other women. They are trying to subtly convey the notion to women that, if they buy the product the model is advertising, they can be sexually attractive, too. That’s why women’s magazines are full of racy photos of women. We may not like that fact, we may think these magazines objectify women, but it is women who buy these magazines and the products they advertise.
    Personally, I think beauty pageants are stupid, and I don’t watch them (I only saw Prejean’s answer to Perez Hilton’s question when it was posted on YouTube). But I understand why young women compete in them. They hope the exposure (pardon the pun) will result in modeling jobs. Last year, Miss South Carolina in the Miss Teen USA pageant landed a lucrative modeling contract after her unintelligable answer to a question was posted on YouTube.
    Frankly, I see nothing wrong or hypocritical with Christians choosing to be models, or participating in beauty pageants — or even in posing nude (provided it is done tastefully). I’m more concerned about people who loudly proclaim their Christianity and then turn around and support the invasion of a country that has not attacked us.

    1. Phil said:

      Like it or not, the job of a female model is to look sexually attractive, not so much for the benefit of men, but for other women. They are trying to subtly convey the notion to women that, if they buy the product the model is advertising, they can be sexually attractive, too. That’s why women’s magazines are full of racy photos of women. We may not like that fact, we may think these magazines objectify women, but it is women who buy these magazines and the products they advertise.

      You make the exact point that the APA Report on the Sexualization of Girls makes. The photos are of course designed to attract men but they also attract women. However, women are influenced to objectify themselves which influences them in a variety of negative ways. The negatives on men are that they elevate a standard of sensuality which does not often help them navigate equal relationships with real women in the real world.

  39. Dr. Throckmorton,
    I’m still reeling in disbelief at your comments and those of some of the other posters here. I have seen Carrie Prejean’s “nude” photos (which you refuse to post). While she is topless, her back is to the camera. She is showing less skin than she and other Miss USA contestants displayed while parading across the stage in their swimsuits on national television. I’ve seen racier photos in the women’s magazines you can find in any supermarket checkout line — or in the waiting rooms of many Christian doctors and dentists.
    That Christians would join in the piling-on of a sister who took a public and costly stand for her faith is beyond disgusting. When my son, who was planning to major in psychology, was considering colleges, I had hoped he would choose Grove City. Now I’m glad he went elsewhere.

  40. How in the world did my one-sentence comment regarding Maggie turn into getting “entangled in a convoluted discussion”? You are making this far more difficult than it needs to be Eddie!

  41. No, even though I’ve been branded by some on this blog as one of the card carrying members of the religious right…I didn’t know who she was.
    Your first comment of the latter two seems to indicate that I was right that you thought I was referring to Miss Prejean rather than Maggie.The latter suggests that you really were referring to this Maggie person in your comments to me. (Although you still haven’t supported for the uninformed, such as myself, why her voice should be considered as representative of the religious right as a whole.)
    I’ve gotta go now. I thought I could return to blogging here and thought I found a topic where I could possibly avoid getting entangled in a convoluted conversation with you. I’ve learned my lesson. I can’t. You win. Goodbye.

  42. No worries Ann – I shouldn’t assume that everyone reads the same kind of stuff I do – there’s a good, albeit short article on her in Wikipedia – she is the President of the National Organization for marriage, that’s the group that put out the “campy” Gathering Storm ad 🙂

  43. Jayhuck,
    Oh, ok – I have never heard of her or the man you mentioned. And all this time I thought I was so well read and informed, not to mention all my other admirable qualities! 😉

  44. Ann,
    Some people are less anti-gay than others. Maggie Gallagher is a loud voice, campaigning strongly against anti-gay marriage – you don’t see people like Bill Clinton and Obama, both who support civil unions/civil marriage doing that. She and her organization are the ones who put out that Gay Storm ad that was mocked incessantly online. She and her organization have been in the news quite a bit lately, and – she is a syndicated columnist and author.

  45. Jayhuck,
    I had no idea who she was – at first I thought you meant Maggie Gyllenhaul. I still don’t know who she is except that you referred to her as being anti-gay because she is opposed to same gender marriage. Does that mean Bill Clinton is anti-gay as well?

  46. Jayhuck–
    Please be informed when you comment. I was responding to Brady who said ‘the religious right is crying foul and playing the victim card’. Timothy then responded to my response with a link to a blog from this Maggie person who was not Miss Prejean but agreed with her. (Miss Prejean’s name is Carrie.)
    If you had actually followed the conversation you would have seen where I said to Brady that I was aware of Miss Prejean’s cries of foul and victimization but wasn’t aware of ‘the religious right’ also crying foul. Timothy then linked to this Maggie person.
    Please tell us what you know of Maggie the blogger and how she might be ‘the anti-gay voice when it comes to marriage’ as you just ‘informed’ me.

  47. Eddie,
    I don’t think she’s the voice of the entire religious right, but she may very well be the anti-gay voice when it comes to marriage.

  48. Sorry, I had no idea that this Maggie person is THE voice of the entire religious right.

  49. David,

    But, to emphasize, we cannot pick the character of our spokespersons when popular media events bring them forward.

    But we can pick who will be spokespersons. You will notice that no gay groups whatsoever put Perez Hilton forward as a spokeman. Most made it clear that they think he’s a self-promoting ass.
    Pity that the National Organization for Marriage, World Net Daily, and a host of conservative organizations and talking heads all lack the discernment that most gay groups demonstrated.
    Debbie:

    When all is said and done, I would hope we could find some spokespersons for marriage who are, well, married. Successfully. For a long time.

    Very good point. I’d offer you some but the ones that come to mind are same-sex couples.
    😉
    Mary,

    Do you have privy to the scoring cards of the judges???

    The scores were posted online for a while but have now magically disappeared. However, officials from the Miss USA organization have said that she was not leading in points going into the final question round.
    Eddy,
    Maybe I’m wrong but I’d suspect that if the gossip blog had access to six pictures and only printed one, wouldn’t it be likely that they printed the raciest one?
    Those who have seen them all say that this is certainly NOT the raciest. They also say that the pictures, ahem, reveal that they were taken subsequent to the breast enhancement she got a couple months ago.
    Hilton suggested the same thing in his blog the next day.
    Yes. Perez Hilton is a self-promoter. He wants to claim that he had the power to steal her crown. Frankly, I think the two of them are interchangable; both are working this for ever second of attention they can get.
    Fortunately, the gay community is familiar enough with Perez to avoid using him as “the face of” anything or hosting press conference for him.
    Brady,
    Absolutely right on. As I said on my blog,

    I hope that some Christians will recognize the irrationality of rushing to embrace anyone, no matter who, so long as they espouse an anti-gay agenda. It’s time that conservative Christians do some soul searching and distinguish between a principled position based on their theological understanding of scripture and a knee-jerk homophobic endorsement of anything anti-gay.

    Eddy,

    I haven’t picked up on where the religious right is ‘calling foul and playing the victim card’

    Heeeeeeeeer’s Maggie:

    Because Carrie honestly said what she believed in answer to a question—marriage is the union of a man and a woman— she is now the subject of ongoing character assassination. The level of hatred directed at her is astonishing.

  50. Dr. Throckmorton/Warren,
    Do you know if the author of this article you cited (Katelyn) does any volunteer work herself and do we know what kind of example she is to young women? It would be more credible if she were to go with Carrie Prejean and do volunteer work with her to see if there is a benefit or harm to the young women she works with and see if she promotes “the sexualization of girls” to them or if, in fact, if it is sharing her faith as in Bible studies, mentoring, tutoring, listening, sharing, etc.

  51. One last point, something that, it seems to me, just adds to the comedic absurdity of all this.
    Until this hit the news, I had never seen nor heard of one one P. Hilton. After catching him on the news, I laughed. Does anyone in the world believe this person capable of appreciating anything, real or fake, about the female form?
    What a joke. All of it–enough hypocrisy for a lot of parodies and satires, that’s for sure.

  52. Brady,
    With all due respect for the POV that you emphasized (why the religious right has adopted her as a poster child for their cause), suggesting that the discussion has gotten off track is a bit extreme. Most of the comments seem to go directly to the issues raised in the original posting…Miss Prejean’s defense of her previous modeling (over)exposure and the personal attacks that her anti gay marriage statement have garnered.
    This issue, like so many others, seems like just one issue on the surface but closer inspection leads us to a host of other issues: misogyny, sexualization, double standards, hypocrisy, conservative bashing, the blurred definition between ‘Christian’ and ‘conservative’ and self-serving exploitation of an individual or event for ’cause advancement’..from both sides.
    I haven’t picked up on where the religious right is ‘calling foul and playing the victim card’. I can see the validity of that statement as it applies to Miss Prejean but haven’t heard that the religious right is doing so…do you have any links?

  53. testing (I guess the spam filter lost the other one)
    1. I wonder: might events have progressed differently had Prejean (or any other contestants) answered that she opposed gay marriage, but then offered a secular reason rather than a faith-based one? Think of how the debate might now involve different players.
    2. Or, what if Prejean (or any of the others) responded with a faith-based answer of “No” to gay marriage, but what if her faith had been, say, Islam?
    3. She is very young, but I think we are being naive in not reminding ourselves that she is old enough to have learned a biological truism, something all young women learn very early in life: sex and physical attractiveness have great currency. There IS power in that. Weilding the power takes some learning.

  54. I think this discussion has gotten off track. The issue (as I see it) really isn’t, or shouldn’t be, about Carrie Prejean’s flaws as a human, it should be about why so many on the religious right are so quick to pick her up as a spokesperson (officially or unofficially) for the their cause.
    Based only on the fact that she said she was against gay marriage, and without any background research at all, Ms. Prejean is all of the sudden the poster girl for Christianity for some groups. It just seems a bit odd that as soon as she said she was against gay marriage, the far right ran to her side to put her on a pedestal. Now, when people start to question whether or not she is the right person to cling on to, based on her life and her past, the religious right is calling foul and playing the victim card.
    I wonder if Ms. Prejean had showed herself as a Christian, not had the nude photos, talked about her faith during the pageant, etc. etc., but had said she does favor gay marriage, not religiously, but because of her understanding of US law and rights, would the religious right have been so quick to jump to her side?

  55. Why this is even a news story is beyond me. Must be a slow news day.

    This kind of thing will always being a news story in a sex-crazed world. Remember Dr. Laura? She also had a take-down by gay activists. And, if there is any “dirt” floating around on a Miss USA, you an bet it will surface at some point, regardless of whether she is controversial or not. And regardless of how hypocritical the scandal is. One must know when it’s proper to ogle and when it’s not.
    And anything related to gay rights will be news from now to as far as we can see over the horizon. That cat ain’t going back in that bag.

  56. Warren: Maybe I’m wrong but I’d suspect that if the gossip blog had access to six pictures and only printed one, wouldn’t it be likely that they printed the raciest one? I think if her lacy pink bottoms were exchanged for a bikini bottom with the same or even less coverage, no one would have thought twice about the picture. Side glimpses of breasts are even featured on magazine covers these days. There was no nipple, no aureola (lol…I don’t talk about boobs much, is that the right word?), no cleavage (either front or rear 🙂 ). I’m sorry but I still think that the pictures surfaced primarily as a retaliation effort.
    I’m simply revelling in the obvious hypocrisy that shadows the whole affair. On one hand, offended and scandalized by her partially nude photos while, on the other, funding her breast augmentation! Let’s see now: we increased the size of her breasts for what reason?
    Timothy: I can’t really blame her for thinking that her honest response to Hilton’s question cost her the crown; Hilton suggested the same thing in his blog the next day.
    Mary: You’re welcome!

  57. Timothy,
    She did sacrifice or she is a better gambler than most. What has come from her comments – well – it just does not seem like someone who sits around and designs their career on such comments. Regardless of her chances for winning – since she was a finalist – which is still a person who is in the running – she made a decision to speak her mind. I don’t see her comments as a deliberate ploy to garner publicity for when she LOST the pageant.

  58. I forgot to say I find it difficult to respect her, or her defenders, or her accusers. What a mess. Anyone can be for or against anything.

  59. @Eddy: I think the pics would have surfaced anyway for other reasons and if there is a consequence from them, my suspicion is that some Christians would have been in the front of the line calling for her to be dismissed from her position.

  60. When all is said and done, I would hope we could find some spokespersons for marriage who are, well, married. Successfully. For a long time. Why is that so difficult? Because vast numbers of marriages end up on the trash heap. I think everybody is missing the boat. I can’t sanction gay marriage. But I’d sure like to see strong, godly husbands and wives investing in mentoring other couples. We have plenty of work to do just within the Church.

  61. @ Tim…I am not sure losing a beauty contest is a form of being victimized
    But, to emphasize, we cannot pick the character of our spokespersons when popular media events bring them forward.
    Elevating the quality of the discussion and the quality of our marriages is possible when such public events trigger the discussion.

  62. One misconception to clear up:
    Mary “the thing she sacrificed by giving a truthful answer”
    Evan “she blew her chances to win the contest”
    Although Miss Prejean has been claiming that she lost the crown because of her answer, this is not true. According to pageant officials, she was trailing in points going into the question round and while her answer might have been graded higher had she been more eloquent, she would not have won Miss USA in either case.
    Her “sacrifice” exists only in hype and her own self-promotion.

  63. I agree that the sexualization of women and girls is one aspect of misogyny (a hatred or contempt for women) but it seems that what Mary was trying to point out is that the attacks against this woman and the inconsistency of her message seems like another expression of contempt for women since the inconsistent messages of Christian men and their participation in violent sport is rarely, if ever, addressed.
    However, I don’t think they are attacking her because she’s a woman; they are attacking her because of her public statement opposing gay marriage. Let’s face it. If she hadn’t angered people by her stance on that issue, no one would have bothered to dig up this ‘dirt’ or to even call it ‘dirt’.

  64. @Byron
    You know, the argument can be made the other way around too: if a girl like her can support traditional values, then what about someone who is less of a “mixed bag”? I mean, she blew her chances to win the contest, which shows that it’s very likely she spoke her mind. She probably had to do lots of things people wouldn’t agree with to get there and then she blew it all with that answer. Isn’t it ironic that some appreciate her for her answer but reject her past that propelled her in that spot?

  65. @Timothy Kincaid
    I’m in favour of gay marriage and I find nothing’s wrong with her.
    I think the problem is with people “looking for role models” among people they see in the media instead of focusing on being good parents themselves and providing the closest role models their children could find. Also, it’s one thing to agree with her opinion on marriage and quite another to jump to the “is she a good role model” question. It’s a big step from one thing to another.

  66. Carrie Prejean, unfortunately, has found herself in the crossfire of the culture wars. She didn’t go to Miss USA looking for this kind of controversy. She had it thrown at her. She is who she is, warts and all. I don’t feel the need to jump on any bandwagons. Both sides need to be taken to the woodshed in this case. She is being both assaulted and exploited. Unfortunate.

  67. Timothy,
    No I would not hold her up as an example because I think the whole beauty pageant industry is horrible. It is akin to walking your wares out on the auction table – only we don’t sell the bride anymore.
    The idea that we as a culture hold someone up because of their beauty is so contradictory to my values that I am speechless.
    I do not blame Miss Prejean. I blame her parents and those around her who encouraged this activity. As an ex lesbian I am not one of those that thinks all women ought to go around without concern for their appearances. But to parade in front of a nation in little to no clothing, to spend money on breast augmentation and other beauty enhancment treatments for the sake of pleasing others is not a good description of Christian – in my book. I’m not against these procedures but when it becomes the only definition of a woman then I am. And that is what grooming for a beauty pageant is all about.
    What makes Miss Prejean extraordinary is that the thing she worked very hard to acheive , is the thing she sacrificed by giving a truthful answer. And that I commend. And that is worth following.

  68. Byron,
    I’m not sure who the Christian community is and if they would differ in their opinion than people of other faiths/beliefs. My concern is that the concentration seems to be on some pictures that have surfaced from her past and her personal opinion about how marriage is defined. This has brought up questions as to whether she is a good example for young women and seems to have gone downhill from there. I am interested in her volunteer work and how it is making a difference in other people’s lives and yet this part of her is being overlooked or discounted. Britney Spears goes to visit children in hospitals and is lauded for doing so – Carrie Prejean is involved in volunteer work as well and is being criticized for being a bad example.

  69. Amidst the rush to defend Carrie Prejean, ask yourselves the following two questions:
    1. Is your defense based on anything other than the “side” she has taken in a cultural debate? If she were in favor of gay marriage would you be as equally in her defense?
    2. Would you hold her up as an example for your own daughters to emulate?

  70. Dead-right on this one, Warren. I might add, perhaps to help answer some of the objections raised here, that while I certainly have concerns with her actions–the semi-nudity adding to what was already disconcerting and a double standard–it is with the Christian community, much of which has seemingly gone gaga over Miss Prejean, that I find the fault. Yes, she’s a young lady who like all of us is a “mixed bag”, but her answer–which when analyzed wasn’t nearly as impressive in the first place as some have made it out to be–has made her into an overnight sensation with people who (yes, like myself) oppose the redefinition of marriage, despite the fact that there are such inconsistencies. And thus, with Warren, I wonder what some of my “religious conservative” brethren are thinking in their rush to hold her up as this shining example!

  71. Can the author of the article (Katelyn) verify that her (Carrie’s) volunteer work with young girls include Carrie endorsing partially nude photographs when she was a teenager or “any” other sexualization of young women as the APA Task Force cites in general? Before all these assumptions are made about what she should do as a “Christian”, shouldn’t we actually know what it is about her interaction with these young women that we find hypocritical or offensive and want to criticize?

  72. Debbie gets it…
    @ Tim and Warren.
    Find the flaw, drive a wedge in between the topic and the person, devalue the person, dismiss the topic.
    There is no one capable of meeting all ideals; only people who have competed and made a name for themselves and then are asked to have an opinion…
    Would I consult Koby Bryant about marriage…probably not. If he were to use his platform as an athlete to discuss the importance of marriage, would I listen, sure.
    Would I consult Gavin Newsome about marriage…probably not. If he were to use his political platform to discuss his views on marriage would I listen, sure.

  73. Let me see if I’ve got this straight. Carrie Prejean is photographed as a teen model with her unclothed back facing the camera much as Miley Cyrus was not long ago. Both portrayals created a bit of a flap. The difference? One (Cyrus) was taken for a major magazine spread and portrayed a gay-marriage supporter. She said a few mea culpas and whined about being vicitmized by the magazine. Like she didn’t know she was half nekkid or something. The other opposes gay marriage and no one knew the photos of her even existed until after the other scantily clad little girl had piled on with the Perez Hilton fan club and dissed Miss California. And which one did the media and bloggers rush to excoriate? Did I miss something?

  74. Warren,
    I am in agreement that women are too often portrayed in a sexual manner and that Prejean has fallen into this (probably totally unaware or in disagreement on that item) In fact, I believe she is totally unaware that she “buys” into the sexualization of herself through her “modeling” and “career”
    However, your posts have given this a lot of space w/o acknowledging that many Christian role models are incongruent in their behavior, actions and so called belief systems. She is an easy target and you have made that obvious and jumped on the bandwagon.
    My emphasising your alottment of space and time to her “downfall” as a role model ispointtin out that this is just more of the same trash throwing that Perez Hilton has done only on the otherside of the coin.
    People are caught up in their culture and worldy lives – all of us, Prejean included. God only knows what other forms of over sexualization she has experienced in her life. Or what kind of guidance she has recieved growing up – in the church no less!
    Her actions say more about the condition of the church, what men and women put with in that church and society, than it does about her. She is a young inexperienced woman with a bold statment that has brought attention to her. I applaud her for stating her beliefs albeit there are some inconsistencies – as with us all.
    I would rather see a focus being given to her maturation and guidance and growth than her obvious “over sexualized” self that is a by product of the church and this culture. Seems like a misogynistic attack on a young girl/ barely a woman who has neither the training nor the experience to understand everything that is going on around her.
    I wish your aim was as accurate with the silence that exudes from the church on the issue of women and the over sexualization that exists within it’s walls and how it effects the sexual development of women overall. Instead of picking on one young woman, I’d rather the attention be given to the whole issue at large.

  75. Frankly, I am at a loss and apparently do not understand what Ann and Mary are reacting to.
    Dr. Throckmorton,
    I am not reacting – I am responding to your post. I think it is fair to point out the things I have. Please let me know what it is that you don’t understand about my response and I will clarify it.

  76. Frankly, I am at a loss and apparently do not understand what Ann and Mary are reacting to. Mary you totally sidestepped how insulting your criticism of me is.
    From the APA Executive Summary:

    In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized.These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate.

    Parents may contribute to sexualization in a number of ways. For example, parents may convey the message that maintaining an attractive physical appearance is the most important goal for girls. Some may allow or encourage plastic surgery to help girls meet that goal.

    If girls purchase (or ask their parents to purchase) products and clothes designed to make them look physically appealing and sexy, and if they style their identities after the sexy celebrities who populate their cultural landscape, they are, in effect, sexualizing themselves. Girls also sexualize themselves when they think of themselves in objectified terms. Psychological researchers have identified self-objectification as a key process whereby girls learn to think of and treat their own bodies as objects of others’ desires (Frederickson & Roberts, 1997; McKinley & Hyde, 1996).

    Me and the APA Task Force on Sexualization of Girls: Mysogynists R Us

  77. The proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harming girls’ self-image and healthy development. This report explores the cognitive and emotional consequences, consequences for mental and physical health, and impact on development of a healthy sexual self-image.
    Yes, this is true when it is endorsed and encouraged – I am not sure Carrie Prejean fits into the same category as some of the other entertainers or models that do endorse this way of looking on a regular basis and as a way of life.

  78. She says, “I especially have a heart for helping young girls with low self-esteem.” At this point, I would encourage Prejean to skip the beauty pageants, which set up the very standards of beauty that lead many young girls to devalue themselves, and focus on the far more lasting work she is already doing in the kingdom.
    I just cannot agree with this. There needs to be some leeway here for what good does come from what she does that I don’t see published. Has the author of this article been to foster care facilities and do any volunteer work herself? We don’t know what kind of mentoring work Carrie Prejean does with these young woman. It could be Bible studies, exercise programs, teaching them to read, grooming lessons, or just going on outings with them. Until we know, how can we make these kind of assumptions?

  79. I am not sure but this sounds close to misogyny. We have football stars being called Christian role models and without any regard to their violent game.
    Sounds like a “disconnect” all over the place within this blog.
    Had this topic been limited to just one post or had the blog writer included in his remarks the other oxymorons of so called Christian role models then I would not have noticed the attention being given one person.

  80. Regret for violating the pageant rules about partial nudity; regret for promoting an impossible standard of appearance (see Katelyn’s commentary which I added to the post for more on that aspect) to young Christian girls.
    thanks – I do understand and agree with the first part, however, I see the other part in a different way. Do we actually know what kind of work she does with girls in foster care – is it promoting beauty as in a pagent or helping them with their development as young women, which can include many things to build self esteem because they have so few, if any, women role models?

  81. David,
    It isn’t a matter of finding her imperfections, it’s a matter of exposing the inconsistency and hypocrisy of her message.
    She says that she is defending tradtional marriage and that we should listen to her because she has Biblically correct values due to how she was raised. But it appears that she was raised to take her top off for the camera.
    It isn’t her critics who talked about how she was raised or about her Biblical correctness. But since she brought it up, folks are only right to point out that she has no credibility on those points.

  82. @Ann: Regret for violating the pageant rules about partial nudity; regret for promoting an impossible standard of appearance (see Katelyn’s commentary which I added to the post for more on that aspect) to young Christian girls.

  83. However, her statement did not sound like an apology or express any regret.
    Dr. Throckcmorton,
    Do you think her statement should offer an apology or express regret? If so, to whom and for what?

  84. David, I feel like this whole ordeal of exposing this old photos isn’t as much devaluing her message as it is people rightfully questioning why some on the religious right would hold her up as a spokesperson. I agree with Warren–it’s as if just because she agrees with them on gay marriage, she’s all of the sudden a perfect spokesperson for their causes, regardless of what any of her other views, actions, past may be.
    I can understand the lure of the spotlight for her, but it seems odd that she doesn’t see what’s going on here, and I find it to be a fairly expoitative situation towards her at this point, which is even sadder.

  85. Sometimes the spokesperson devalues the message.
    This is one of those current events that make me cringe. I wrote about it because I am still in disbelief that some religious conservatives seem to embrace anything as long as it is against gay marriage. I am also hopeful that someone near her will help her by getting her out of the public eye and helping her rethink things. I also hope young girls read blogs and hear messages like Katelyn’s at CT. Of course, Miss Prejean is correct, no one is perfect. However, her statement did not sound like an apology or express any regret.

  86. By finding the imperfections in “spokespersons” we can devalue their political position.

  87. Is it ok if I just forget about her and go on with my life. I’d rather not look at pictures of her modelling anyway.

  88. She said nothing about being a role model, so I fail to see what the last comment has to do with anything.

Comments are closed.