Breast augmentation, performance-enhancing drugs, and same-sex marriage

[scrappy]

A triple contradiction seems evident in Carrie Prejean’s failed attempt to become Miss USA:

 

1. She had her boobs artificially altered to enhance her sex appeal and performance in beauty pageants. Is that fair?

 

2. A-Rod (apparently) took steroids to enhance his baseball performance. Why isn’t a boob job equivalent to an athlete’s use of performance-enhancing drugs?

 

3. She disdains same-sex marriage on the principle that it offends the natural order of things. Natural?

 

Is this surgically bosomed woman caught up in a web of contradiction?

[ParanoiA]

I think you might be on to something there scrappy.

 

(Incidentally, Larry the Cable Guy uses artificial breast augmentation to justify using monopoly money at the strip club... )

[Mokele]

As for #1 and #2, part of the issue isn't just "natural" vs. "non-natural", but rather whether it's fair to give advantages to competitors who will risk their health (steroids have famously bad side effects, and any surgery, even as routine as breast enhancement, has risk). Of course, there are also health risk due to expected aspects of training for either competition (anorexia/bullimia and intense training), but there's also a historical aspect: when the rules were made, the risks of both were *much* worse, particularly in the case of steroids (early forms had *horrific* effects, including massively increased cancer risk).

 

Plus, the rules of any game (pageant or sport) are, to some degree, arbitray. Does it make sense to allow athletes with inherent genetic advantages while banning steroids? Not by any deductive logic, but there's also not deductively logical reason why soccer players shouldn't be able to use their hands. They're games with a series of essentially arbitrary rules, and playing the game means agreeing to the rules, even ones as bizarre and seemingly illogical as "offsides".

[D H]

A-Rod (apparently) took steroids to enhance his baseball performance. Why isn’t a boob job equivalent to an athlete’s use of performance-enhancing drugs?

Baseball has rules against performance enhancing drugs. Beauty pageants don't have rules against beauty-enhancing operations. How could they? The pageant paid for her boob job. Those botox/latex/thioglycolate laden "beauties" are about as natural the Golden Gate Bridge.

Edited May 2, 2009 by D H
Put "beauties" in scare quotes

[ParanoiA]

I don't know that I'd call them "beauties". Breast augmentation looks ridiculous. I had no idea they paid for that though. Should have known.

[D H]

I don't know that I'd call them "beauties".

The use of scare quotes in my post was implied. I made that use explicit. Thanks.

[scrappy]

Baseball has rules against performance enhancing drugs. Beauty pageants don't have rules against beauty-enhancing operations. How could they? The pageant paid for her boob job. Those botox/latex/thioglycolate laden "beauties" are about as natural the Golden Gate Bridge.

Well, beauty pageants aren't my thing, but if I were a judge of one I would score down all evidence of artificiality. And I wouldn't hold her opinion on same-sex marriage against her if she didn't have fake tits. She's saying to me: 'I'm not entirely natural and that's OK, but homosexuality is not entirely natural, which makes same-sex marriage not OK.'

[Pangloss]

Seems a bit harsh to say she can't have an opinion that same sex marriage is natural just because she has breast implants. Is she barred from using artificial sweetener as well?

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't think being natural is a good indicator of whether something is good or not. Case in point, this completely unnatural discussion board. But given the choice between something natural and something artificial that are essentially the same, I guess the natural choice would be better.

 

It's all moot anyways since homosexuality exists in nature as well. On that note, is it natural to ban homosexuality?

[JohnB]

I'm not a fan of these things myself, but if you're going to castigate the girl at least get what she said right;

I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman.

 

I see nothing there about;

3. She disdains same-sex marriage on the principle that it offends the natural order of things.

or

She's saying to me: 'I'm not entirely natural and that's OK, but homosexuality is not entirely natural, which makes same-sex marriage not OK.'

 

She is saying that that is how she was raised. That's what she said, and all she said, "natural" didn't come into it.

 

I note that the "judge" involved called her a "dumb b*tch" for her answer. I also note that by following the links from the original one and reading the comments, most people are supporting her. (Although many do point out that she didn't directly answer the question.)

 

Many do not agree with her opinion, but they support her right to have that opinion, without penalty.

 

I came across this youtube vid that shows Barack Obama giving exactly the same definition of marraige;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5tZbga2Iz8

 

So why is the girl copping all the flak?

[Mokele]

Honestly, a lot of people on the left have given Obama a lot of flak for his marriage crap too, so it's hardly hypocritical.

[iNow]

Many do not agree with her opinion, but they support her right to have that opinion, without penalty.

 

Everybody has a right to their opinion, and to hold that opinion without penalty. However, the moment you openly express that opinion, especially when you do so in a public arena, then the reaction to that opinion, regardless of what it is, is also allowed. Once the opinion is made public, then it now becomes time to recognize the right of others to have an opinion about the one you've just expressed. If you don't want a reaction to your opinion, or if you cannot handle the negative feedback the sharing of that opinion might bring, then keep it to yourself... keep your mouth shut.

 

She's hardly being prosecuted in anything more than the court of public opinion, so penalty seems a rather inaccurate word to describe this.

 

She can believe any damned thing she wants to without issue.

The moment she shares it openly, however, it becomes fair game for others to react.

[scrappy]

Seems a bit harsh to say she can't have an opinion that same sex marriage is natural just because she has breast implants. Is she barred from using artificial sweetener as well?

From where I stand I see a couple of coconut implants that do nothing but make her look like a porn queen. I judge her for that choice, which she must have thought was necessary because her "god-given" body wasn't good enough for the beauty-pageant judges. I fault myself for such bias irrationality. Furthermore, I don't care a twit about beauty pageants anyway. I wouldn't even go out on a date with a woman who had her breasts augmented, unless she was a cancer or accident victim. (I think there ought to be a Dolly Parton beauty pageant exclusively for augmented women, but I wouldn't watch it.)

[Pangloss]

Why do we need to judge the people who hold opinions on this issue?

 

Does this give us some sort of insight on the issue of gay marriage?

[iNow]

Why do we need to judge the people who hold opinions on this issue?

 

Does this give us some sort of insight on the issue of gay marriage?

 

I don't know. Why do we need to judge the people who hold opinions that black people are inferior to white people?

 

Does this give us some sort of insight on the issue of preventing black men from marrying white women?

[Pangloss]

Another great question.

 

Does it?

[padren]

From where I stand I see a couple of coconut implants that do nothing but make her look like a porn queen. I judge her for that choice, which she must have thought was necessary because her "god-given" body wasn't good enough for the beauty-pageant judges. I fault myself for such bias irrationality. Furthermore, I don't care a twit about beauty pageants anyway. I wouldn't even go out on a date with a woman who had her breasts augmented, unless she was a cancer or accident victim. (I think there ought to be a Dolly Parton beauty pageant exclusively for augmented women, but I wouldn't watch it.)

 

If that was the context of the beauty pageant, then that would be the right way to judge it. Since the pageant in question doesn't seem to put any emphasis on whether someone is artificially augmented, it appears the proper context for that pageant is purely the aesthetics - if a boob job makes her look worse then it counts against, if you can't even tell they are fake then it probably doesn't.

 

But out of curiosity, when it comes to "artificial augmentation" does it make you a hypocrite to judge her for getting a breast implants, when you yourself are willing to get a hair cut instead of letting it all grow naturally?

Everyone sees in shades of gray - you do, she does - we all do. I don't think you or her are hypocritical... I think everyone has different "judgments" about what the word "natural" means, and where within that definition various lines are drawn.

[john5746]

I note that the "judge" involved called her a "dumb b*tch" for her answer. I also note that by following the links from the original one and reading the comments, most people are supporting her. (Although many do point out that she didn't directly answer the question.)

 

Here is a much better example of not answering the question.

 

Dodging the question

 

I'm not sure why the need to ask questions like this for such a shallow pagent, but Miss California did start off with people having the choice for same-sex marriage, which is false. That is the whole point of the question.

 

I guess if you are looking for someone who can provide a politically correct answer, then she doesn't fit the bill.

[JohnB]

She can believe any damned thing she wants to without issue.

The moment she shares it openly' date=' however, it becomes fair game for others to react.[/quote']

Believe what you want, but don't say it where people with agendas will hear. It's hard to have a debate if only one side is allowed to speak, don't you think?

 

But I guess it's par for the course these days.

[SH3RL0CK]

Honestly, a lot of people on the left have given Obama a lot of flak for his marriage crap too, so it's hardly hypocritical.

 

 

I haven't seen any of this. Can you show me several examples?

[Mokele]

I haven't seen any of this. Can you show me several examples?

 

From a very large and well-known feminist blog I frequent, from several different contributors:

 

Link 1

 

Link 2

 

Link 3

 

And one from a blog I'm less familiar with:

link 4

 

If you dig up posts from the primaries, you'll see a lot of folks pissed off because neither Hillary nor Obama would support gay rights, and a lot of talk about being 'thrown under the bus' for the sake of getting elected. These issues never made it to the mainstream media, because, let's face it, the primary was a total circus and they were too busy playing 'Fantasy Football' matchups between various potential candidates.

[Severian]

I might not like breast implants myself, but I wouldn't judge anyone for having them, and wouldn't call them 'unnatural'. Are they any more unnatural than dental veneers, peirced ears or shaving her armpits?

 

I note that the "judge" involved called her a "dumb b*tch" for her answer.

 

I think this is particularly ironic. Her answer was rather nicely put I thought, and showed that she was able of holding an opinion of her own and, more importantly, not bowing to the temptation to lie just to win the competition.

 

I suspect she is brighter and more principled than the judge who made that comment.

 

And for the record, I am also opposed to gay "marriage". Does that make me a "dumb bitch" too?

Edited May 4, 2009 by Severian
To address iNow's complaint.

[Mokele]

It makes you an opponent to equality, fairness, and basic human rights and decency. It makes you no better than those who tried to deny equality to any other minority group for no reason.

 

And frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[iNow]

Believe what you want, but don't say it where people with agendas will hear. It's hard to have a debate if only one side is allowed to speak, don't you think?

 

But I guess it's par for the course these days.

 

I would be equally intolerant if she were up there stating that blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry. You only see a difference with the gay marriage issue because you happen to agree with her misguided and bigoted mindset, despite your otherwise intelligent and equitable approach to rights and people in other arenas.

 

 

If being intolerant of bigotry is "par for the course," then I'm quite happy to do my part in furthering that intolerance.

[Severian]

It makes you an opponent to equality, fairness, and basic human rights and decency.

 

That's a matter of opinion. One should never be ashamed of opinion.