![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What is wrong with this picture?
The Miss California Pageant Organization paid for Miss California's breast implants.
And the co-director doesn't think it's a big deal at all.
Bad enough we've got this thing set up to ogle young women, judge them based on the minutia of their bodies, and promote unhealthy and unrealistic body images. But now it's that much worse. Because the body image isn't just unrealistic, it's artificial. And even more unhealthy. I mean, think about it. We're talking about surgically altering your body for the sake of a beauty pageant. Even if you accept the idea of the pageant at its most benevolent - the idea of celebrating beauty and... I don't know... promoting physical fitness - implants are perverse.
Elective cosmetic surgery is bad enough. But implants... false advertising, for one thing. "Look! I have the physical capacity to provide ample food for an infant, thus providing better chances of successfully passing on your genes to the next generation!" Except... no. They're fake. But it's more than that. Because the surgery takes that option away. And it damages the sensory nerves, so... less fun. And, on top of that, there's the (small but non-zero) chance of rupture, which can be toxic. All just for pure superficiality.
And instead of banning them, the pageant people are actively promoting them. Even paying for them.
That is almost as frakked-up as the lady in question's comments on gay marriage. (And man, her teeth are huge.)
The Miss California Pageant Organization paid for Miss California's breast implants.
And the co-director doesn't think it's a big deal at all.
Bad enough we've got this thing set up to ogle young women, judge them based on the minutia of their bodies, and promote unhealthy and unrealistic body images. But now it's that much worse. Because the body image isn't just unrealistic, it's artificial. And even more unhealthy. I mean, think about it. We're talking about surgically altering your body for the sake of a beauty pageant. Even if you accept the idea of the pageant at its most benevolent - the idea of celebrating beauty and... I don't know... promoting physical fitness - implants are perverse.
Elective cosmetic surgery is bad enough. But implants... false advertising, for one thing. "Look! I have the physical capacity to provide ample food for an infant, thus providing better chances of successfully passing on your genes to the next generation!" Except... no. They're fake. But it's more than that. Because the surgery takes that option away. And it damages the sensory nerves, so... less fun. And, on top of that, there's the (small but non-zero) chance of rupture, which can be toxic. All just for pure superficiality.
And instead of banning them, the pageant people are actively promoting them. Even paying for them.
That is almost as frakked-up as the lady in question's comments on gay marriage. (And man, her teeth are huge.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Re: Gay people and marriage: the religion aspect (part II)
You're welcome for the discussion, and thank you in return :) I'm happy as long as I'm talking to someone who can understand my train of thought, regardless whether they agree with it or not ;)
(On a side note, your three-line parenthesis hits way too close to home.)
Again, thank you :)
From:
Re: Gay people and marriage: the religion aspect (part II)
But now I'm curious... too close to home?
From:
Re:
But let's leave it there.
From:
no subject
Ooo, look. Pretty pink flower! :)