![[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:
no subject
And no, don't censor yourself with me.
And no, her comments weren't as bad as I'd heard. But I have to take exception with this:
But considering that the majority of people around the world do NOT support it (and note that the audience definitely applauded her comments--enough people there felt the same way), it's not an unreasonable view to hold, nor outlandish statements to make, and I wish people wouldn't freak out when someone does say it.
Just because everyone thinks that way doesn't make it okay. It wasn't so long ago that the majority of people thought Blacks were an inferior race. Or that Jews were uncanny and evil.
As for her specific comments... Saying she's against gay marriage doesn't make her homophobic, exactly, no. I still fundamentally disagree with it, and think it's a discriminatory position to hold (even if it does stem from common religious belief). But her description of it as "opposite marriage" - that smacks of homophobia to me.
As for the audience reaction... It's hard to tell. Yes, there was some applause. But the guy who was there said he heard booing, too, and the audio isn't good enough for me to be sure. Not to mention that the audience always applauds at the end of an interview. It's a matter of politeness. So, really, it's hard to take that mash-up of sound and determine from it what people actually think, either way.
Finally, it's true that there are those who overreact to these things. That's always going to be the case when you have an argument of this scale. But especially when you're dealing with a suppressed minority finally being granted recognition and at least a start at equal treatment. When they're first given a voice. And that's only happened within our lifetimes. There's going to be backlash.
(Actually, I'm reminded of this post. From a reasonable and kind person who had a night where she just snapped. Just for the night.)
Anyway... enough of that.
Implants. How the heck did they become so common?