Is There A “Naked Beauty Pageant Queen” Principle?

Beauty queen above, secret twin below?

Beauty queen above, secret twin below?

We know that teachers who have performed in porn movies are toast, once their performances surface online, and that teachers whose images, showing them in their birthday suits, are easily accessible by post-pubescent students are not going to stay secondary school faculty members for long. But do similar rules apply for beauty pageant winners, whose physical assets are not only barely hidden anyway, but the primary, if not sole reasons for their “titles”? Should they?

Let’s look at the dilemma facing Melissa King, the newly crowned Miss Delaware Teen USA. A porn site featured a video with a, er, key performer that both looked and sounded exactly like her, apparently showing Miss Delaware Teen USA doing all sorts of fascinating things on, over, and around an unclothed male actor. King denied that she was the performer (who references her participation in beauty pageants on the video), but gave up her crown anyway. Looking at the photos, either she has also triggered the Lying Beauty Queen Principle, or has a twin sister in the porn trade.

One website covering the story polled its readers regarding whether it should matter if a beauty queen has done porn. Stated in that way, it is a reasonable question. If  beauty pageants were like dog shows, and all that was being awarded was a prize for the most perfect physical specimen, it shouldn’t matter if the winner is a Nazi, a terrorist, a serial killer or a werewolf. The problem arises because these pageants include titles. King was not crowned Miss Pulchritude, or anointed Best Curves Champion. She was named Miss Delaware Teen USA, and that links both King and pornography to four groups that may not appreciate the association and its implications: the State of Delaware, Delaware teenagers, Delaware women and American teenagers. It may be that King’s physical charms and not her conduct and character are what earned her the title, but to those who don’t follow beauty pageants (that is, sane people, who have a life), “Miss Delaware Teen USA” suggests that she is an exemplar in a more general way. When the woman chosen to represent the epitome of young Delaware  womanhood is a drug addict, a racist, a pick-pocket or a porn star, Delaware appears to be big trouble. It is an implied slur on a lot of people.

That website poll showed its readers voting 2-1 against holding an excursion into porn against a beauty queen, but in fairness and common sense, if a woman presumes to be called Miss anything, she has acquired the duty to represent that group with dignity and in a way that doesn’t embarrass its members. A porn star can be Miss Va-Va-Voom, Miss Porn America or reign as Miss Sexy 2013. When her title says she stands for a whole state and its young women, however, of course she can’t have a pornographic past.

Amazingly, an online poll was wrong!

Yes, Virginia, I mean, Delaware, there is a Naked Beauty Pageant Queen Principle—at least when the Naked Beauty Pageant Queen is on a video doing what Melissa King was doing.

________________________

Spark: Pop Blend

Facts: USA Today

Graphic: Starcasm

8 thoughts on “Is There A “Naked Beauty Pageant Queen” Principle?

  1. I highly doubt the online poll would pass any tests calling it a scientific survey.

    I imagine most respondents to the poll were heavily interested in the subject of beauty pageants and likely therefore divorce the necessary qualities of her titles mean to them from what her titles mean to everyone else (who didn’t partake in the poll simply because they don’t care).

    I wouldn’t necessarily fear for public opinion on this one based on a non-scientific poll.

    • I agree. But I wouldn’t bet against that result being representative of the public as a whole, either. We had a transcript of testimony about a U.S. President engaging illegally in similar acts, while on the job. The rest is history.

  2. Beauty Pageants are just like any other job, with qualifications and exceptions. When Miss Delaware to be applied to the pageant she had to have signed an agreement regarding pornography.

    So either Miss Delaware can’t read very well, which isn’t such a good trait for someone representing a state, or she decided to just violate the terms of her agreement, which is even worse since she cannot be trusted on her signature.

  3. I think the one thing that was left out was that these “beauty pageants” while heavily favored toward physical beauty, do have a component of “inner beauty” as well. You can’t just be cute, but you have to have things like poise, grace, and personality that don’t detract from the outward appearance.

    And what jj said.

  4. I am, for various reasons, not exactly an impartial commenter on this issue. While only tangentially related, my story does involve some of the issues involved (and tie into something I mentioned in another comment thread), so I may as well share it.

    Last summer, I had the… privilege, if you can call it that… of attending a four-or-five hour “conference” dedicated to glorifying something called “Miracle Mineral Solution” (“MMS”) as an autism treatment. For those of you who are uninformed, MMS is a 28% solution of sodium chlorite — a powerful industrial bleaching agent. Prior to use, parents mix this with citric acid to form chlorine dioxide (another powerful bleach, most commonly used to whiten wood pulp during the manufacture of paper). The parents then make their kids drink it, bathe in it, an take it… err… via enema.

    Yes, the “conference” was dedicated to promoting the practice of shoving an industrial bleach up the anal cavities of innocent children. Needless to say, I was not exactly happy with my experience there.

    The first “speaker” there was a literal beauty queen who had won a major international beauty pageant and spoke — while wearing her sash and crown — about the glories that bleach enemas had allegedly done for her son. I found the entire experience sickening; I hope I don’t have to explain why or go into detail.

    Afterwards, I took two notable actions: being a mandated reporter, I called her home state’s department of human services… and I followed up on the pageant connection.

    The less said about DHS, the better. Suffice it to say that I am now in possession of an official letter from the state government saying, in essence, that it’s perfectly legal to give your children bleach enemas under Michigan law.

    The beauty pageant, however…

    They confirmed that the queen in question was in fact representing the pageant by wearing her sash and crown as she glorified shoving bleach where, frankly, it doesn’t belong. They *also* stated that they supported her in doing this and that bleach enemas were a part of her platform.

    You see, beauty queens are supposed to do more than just sit there and look pretty. Part of the paper-thin veneer that separates the things from simply being shallow, self-absorbed celebrations of women’s ability to titillate a male audience is that the beauty queens are supposed to *use* their fame — and detail that during the contest. Predictably, these are usually the sort of shallow, feel-good “causes” which appeal to the vapid audiences these events attract while doing nothing to stir controversy or detract from the aforementioned titillation value.

    This cause is known as the queen’s “platform”, and part of the prize for winning is the right to use the contest’s name to promote it (and, “coincidentally,” raise the pageant’s visibility by doing so).

    Some essays from a somewhat less cynical perspective can be found at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080125190749AA2WGEj and http://www.shellythepageantcoach.com/tag/pageant-platform . Frankly, I think that my cynicism is justified… but that’s just me. On the other hand… “Think of the chiiildren!”

    In this case, Ms. Scheer had run on the “platform” of questionable, heroic (a term whose meaning in medicine is probably not what you think) “biomedical treatments” for children with atypical neurology — explicitly including bleach enemas.

    Now, I could spend hours detailing the problems with this ethics train wreck (including a number of points that I didn’t even touch on in my exposition)… but that’s neither here nor there. The issue here is a separate case entirely. Presumably, Ms. King’s platform didn’t involve child abuse.

    Despite this, the above exposition impacts on my point anyway — as it helps illustrate that a reigning beauty queen does have (shallow, vapid) duties and responsibilities. If the porn impacted her ability to fill them… or her ability to do so with the grace and dignity (ha!) expected of someone in her position (again, I’ll be cynical and say that said position is essentially “eye-candy”)…

    But I’m hardly an objective source here… and understandably (I hope) bitter and cynical. I just keep flashing back to that… woman’s… son and the video she showed us of him. Knowing that she’s getting away with what she’s doing to him leaves me with a very bitter taste in my mouth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.