Thanks to facebook, I knew about the Miss USA photos long before Matt Lauer.  A close friend of mine is dating one of the contestants, and during my weekly facebook run down I stumbled upon his profile, and clicked through to his girlfriend’s where it read, “vote me for most photogenic!” or something to that extent.  Naturally curious, I re-directed myself to missusa.com to check out his beauty queen.  Five minutes later I was on the phone with a friend telling her to quickly get online and make sure that what I thought was an outrage was not me just overreacting.  She agreed.  These pictures rendered her just as dumbfounded as I was and she thought I should write something on it.  So I did.  But since my job does not allow me to work 24/7 on any of my projects, the folks at NBC beat me to the punch; they even used choice lines such as“come-hither eyes” just like me.  Damnit.  But after reading what various media sources reported, I decided that there was much more to say on the subject. 

 During the interview with Lauer, Miss USA president Paula Shugart defended the pictures saying that it was part marketing, and that these girls aren’t concerned about world peace (like the cutesy Miss America scholarship pageant is), these girls want to be Victoria Secret models, and that this particular photo shoot was good practice.  Fair enough, honesty is always the best policy.  Donald Trump, the owner of the Miss USA pageant agreed that the pictures are in fact, sexy, but doesn’t care because everyone is watching…par for the course.  But just because Miss USA officials are being honest about the situation, does that make it right?  Methinks no. 

Reason number one: Poor Carrie Prejean.  Once runner up to Miss USA, Prejean fell from grace when her controversial views on same-sex marriage caused a ruckus thanks to gossip-darling, Perez Hilton.  Trump stood by his gal, but the controversy snowballed when semi-nude photos of her surfaced.  Prejean was eventually dethroned but not for her so called legitimate modeling career, but because she was in breach of contract.  Might I add that Prejean did take this to court, libel came up, so did her $5,200 loan for a breast augmentation, but it was quickly settled when a tape of sexual orientation was found.  Was it a coincidence that Prejean’s “modeling” photos were discovered simultaneously with whatever it is she did that Miss California didn’t approve of?  Maybe.  Is that what the rest of the world thinks?  No.  Does it help that Shugart didn’t want to talk about Prejean at all in her interview?  Definitely not.  Last year, I found Prejean to be unashamedly hypocritical and deserved to be forced out of the spotlight.  But for Miss USA to have their girls pose and dress not unlike Prejean’s escapades, well they’re just, if not more, inappropriate as she was. 

Reason number two: What dictionary are they using?  Tamiko Nash, a pageant consultant and former Miss California was quoted saying that these girls were “classy women who just so happen to be sexy.”  If classy means looking like a high-class call girl, than yeah, real classy.  What I find most intriguing is that most beauty pageants, including Miss USA, demand a virginal like quality from their contestants.  They are to be single, never married, childless, and must plan to not marry and/or get pregnant while holding a title.  It goes without saying that the pictures in question are anything but virginal.  Again, Shugart uses ridiculous logic to defend the photos by saying the theme was “waking up in Vegas.”  She also added that the contestants are wearing more clothing than they do in the swimsuit competition. *Pause* Oh, silly me for thinking the contextualization and mis-en-place should have an impact on any photo. But I’m willing to bet if you wake up in a men’s oxford shirt á la Rielle Hunter, in Las Vegas, you were a perfect angel…for Victoria Secret that is.  Let me go ahead and make it clear that I am not attacking the moral fiber of these girls, I’m just pointing out what any well-educated person would see outside the protective envelop of Miss USA. 

Reason number three: Where do we go from here?  This year Miss USA has set the bar for what is acceptable, well, as long as they sanction it and America conforms.  Needless to say, I’m afraid to see what they come up with next year.  But maybe I’m wrong; they could learn something from the Superbowl folks and how they handled their big Janet Jackson whoopsie and ask the girls dress up like J.Crew models.  We have to be honest and admit that we have allowed pageants to define what beauty constitutes.  And when you allow them to do that, anything they post online or broadcast on TV is part of that definition. I don’t know how many little girls watch Miss USA, and I doubt that many of them will see these pictures.  But should we still not ask ourselves, “Is this how we want to define beauty in our culture?  Is this what we want our daughters to think beauty is?” 

 When it comes down to it, this is obviously a marketing scheme, a classic case of pushing boundaries.  Sorry Shugart if you thought your genius plot to garner more viewers was foiled.  In light of the situation, I challenge the women and men (I’m talking to you Perez) of America to not give in to their ploy and change the channel.   Don’t allow them to get away with not caring about world peace.