Is it a requirement that these women be virgins and perfect? That is not a realistic expectation. It is one of the reasons women should think before entering these fake contests. Nobody's perfect and the rules are totally ridiculous. It just shows what a phony and fake world we are living in today. A world in which men are doing all sorts of things and getting away with them and occupying high positions with no reprecussions, it's like do as I say and not as I do or as long as no one sees me do it, it's okay.
She is sexy with that pole. Looks like a whoore in the lingerie shoot.
Regarding whether she should have won or not, she apparently muffed up her question and stumbled in the gown competition. I didn't see the show so I can't compare her to the other participants, but I can't imagine they performed with worse quality (other than sheer physical beauty). I can't help but wonder if her winning was a political statement.
Evrething has only one direction - to sell your body. From photos and poles trough Maxim and Playboy to adult movies and call girls! It is a men's dirty f...ing world with enormous competition.
[Evrething has only one direction - to sell your body. ]
well ... to be more accurate and generic about it ... it's really 'sell yourself' ... and that does include 'your body'.
in these extreme cases where it's 99% 'body' it's easy to criticize ... but in all cases of interaction with others people are judging you on how you look ... how you dress ... how you smell ... what kind of shoes are you wearing ... what hairstyle do you have ... does he/she have an accent ... and how much money do they have (just to name a few).
she was selling herself ... in this case using her body ... since it was the body that was the best measure of a winner for that comparison.
Please, can we stop this pretense that we are in the 1950's. Who cares if she did a pole dance? If anything that makes her MORE American than contestants who didn't. In fact let's just replace the "talent" portion of beauty pageants with a pole dance competition. It would definitely bring these antiquated shows up to date and make them more interesting.
This is actually a reply-to-a-reply, to mecury69's comment.
There is a reason we have rules and standards. They aren't there just to be there. When someone proposes changing a rule, specifically loosening or eliminating a rule, there is usually someone like you there to say, "Fine, let's just not have any standards, then."
But you need to show why THIS particular standard is so important. It isn't as if she was even a stripper. She just participated in a contest that involved pole dancing, but not nudity.
So, if a gymnast swings around a horizontal pole, that's fine. If a woman swings around a VERTICAL pole, that's immoral. If Jennifer Grey does some dirty dancing in Dirty Dancing, she's a great actress. If Rima Fakih dances in a contest for a radio station, she's bad.
What's the rule, here? What are you trying to ensure? Trying to prevent? Can you clearly state a rationale for it, or is it a good rule just because it's a rule?
Is it just protecting the boundaries of a certain social class from the "wrong" people getting in? Is it just about preserving the illusion that "Nice girls don't"?
Changing standards doesn't mean not having any, and there's a big difference between changing within how many feet you're allowed to park of a fire hydrant and legalizing murder. This is not the end of Western Civilization, and the sky is not falling.
Please, can we stop this pretense that we are in the 1950's. Who cares if she did a pole dance? If anything that makes her MORE American than contestants who didn't. In fact let's just replace the "talent" portion of beauty pageants with a pole dance competition. It would definitely bring these antiquated shows up to date and make them more interesting.
I hope you meant it sarcastically. Women arent sex objects. They are respectable. If you read many news articles you will find that today girls end up having sex too early because of the social pressure to be sexual sexy and have sex.
All of these ladies made a choice - the choice being that they would rather sell those bodies than sell their smarts, their personalities, their abilities, their talents. This is the way it works for so many of the young females in society today. Being sexy; being good looking; dressing "pretty"; all means the same thing - sell your body to get ahead. Its a shame.
Last years news, Blonde Christian Carrie didn't even get tossed because of the no-clothes 'self-gratification' video she made for her boyfriend. She got fired for not fulfilling her contract.
These are nothing! Suburban Moms take pole dancing classes, fully clothed for exercise. Motive???
Megan Alexander on CNN made a really important point on the racy photos of Rima Fakih. She had the choice of not doing something wrong. But she still did. Megan doesnt need to justify her comments. Its not whether photos will emerge later. Its about whether you do the right thing even when no one is watching. That is the mark of a human being who has control on themselves and who can be trusted to lead. At 21 you have a license to drive, the right to vote and determine the path of your nation. Are we to beleive that this person has suddenly become the example that young women should follow? She is the one to hold the torch of USA and represent the country? Has society got degraded so much that we couldnt find a decent moral good girl ... and that we had to send someone who doesnt have the background and wisdom to make good choices to represent USA at an international event? Its not even important if this girl is muslim or not... but I think this would really alienate her across multiple sections of society. I for one dont consider her to be one in whose hands I would put any issue of significance to handle or work on. Congratulations Megan on bringing up a good point despite the two men who obviously were salivating at these pictures. And for CBS... the question isnt which photos are racier... both are. This girl is a bad example for our daughters to follow.
The "something wrong" that you allude to is something that is also considered wrong among the Taliban and other restrictive sects. You are living in an age that passed long ago in Western societies. Elementary school children are using illegal drugs, high school teachers are engaging in sex with their students, teenage gangs are shooting people with illegal weapons. Star making some choices to do something about the crime in the streets instead of casting insults on an educated, attractive woman that engages in beauty contests and has a little fun at a bar.
What is wrong with what she did? She did something that women who sell themselves for money, who have sex for money do in strip clubs and red light districts. If you equate good morals with those who oppress people with guns like the taliban it shows that you dont have the knowledge and you are probably one of those who encourage this moral degradation. It is sad that today someone says that to not do something like that is a "1950s" thing. It is this lack of respect for good values that causes breakdowns of family, children indulging in illegal drugs, high school teachers engaging in sex with students, teenage gangs with weapons. If you call pole dancing "a little fun" at the bar I wonder what you or the women in your family do for something more than a little fun. Values have nothing to do with times. Values help us be a strong and growing society. Values help us be just and be progressive. And values are what really that help us be liberal.
What makes you or Megan Alexander think that Rima Fakih is not a decent, moral, good girl? I think you both owe her an apology and, frankly, are verging on defamation of character.
There are some people in this country who think that morals are about the length of your hemline and similar superficialities. These people represent themselves as moralists.
There are others who think that morals are about what you consider to be a casus belli for going to war, or whether we should torture people in our custody. These people are reviled as liberals, hippies, and moral degenerates.
A lot of people in this country have morality backwards.
No I dont think anything like what you are suggesting dconrad08. What I am debating about is not character or personality. What I am debating about is the acts and choices. That a person sought to acheive success and strive and work hard towards it is acheivable and admirable. Not once do I say that the crown isnt deserved. What I am concerned about is the actions of a person who has a position of significance doing things that can negatively influence the minds of young generations.
I'm tired of people acting like miss usa contestants should be nuns. They get voted based off their looks alone. The talent competition is based on how their "talent" accentuates their sexuality. The question session ends in airheaded displays of lack of brain cells, but it isn't the best answers that win, no, it's the girl that looks the best saying the stupidest stuff.
So, is it really shocking that these media w.h. or. e .s. might have taken topless pics or posed nude or even pole danced? NO, not at all. Why should we act like these contestants is Mother Theresa? Just by having the ambition to become miss usa shows they are no saint.
Mother Teresa was a human being. Who simply made choices. So was Gandhi. Both were neighter rich nor poor. Lets not, by elevating them to the status of saints, tell ourselves and those around us that we cannot also make good choices. Has our self esteem fallen so low that we think the characters/personalities of those people are unattainable?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Regarding whether she should have won or not, she apparently muffed up her question and stumbled in the gown competition. I didn't see the show so I can't compare her to the other participants, but I can't imagine they performed with worse quality (other than sheer physical beauty). I can't help but wonder if her winning was a political statement.
well ... to be more accurate and generic about it ... it's really 'sell yourself' ... and that does include 'your body'.
in these extreme cases where it's 99% 'body' it's easy to criticize ... but in all cases of interaction with others people are judging you on how you look ... how you dress ... how you smell ... what kind of shoes are you wearing ... what hairstyle do you have ... does he/she have an accent ... and how much money do they have (just to name a few).
she was selling herself ... in this case using her body ... since it was the body that was the best measure of a winner for that comparison.
It's America! Just follow whatever trend comes along and go with the flow.
That's what happened to the Roman Empire with citizens like you not withholding any standards for yourself or others.
well ... it's not like this is the only thing that led to the demise of rule.
There is a reason we have rules and standards. They aren't there just to be there. When someone proposes changing a rule, specifically loosening or eliminating a rule, there is usually someone like you there to say, "Fine, let's just not have any standards, then."
But you need to show why THIS particular standard is so important. It isn't as if she was even a stripper. She just participated in a contest that involved pole dancing, but not nudity.
So, if a gymnast swings around a horizontal pole, that's fine. If a woman swings around a VERTICAL pole, that's immoral. If Jennifer Grey does some dirty dancing in Dirty Dancing, she's a great actress. If Rima Fakih dances in a contest for a radio station, she's bad.
What's the rule, here? What are you trying to ensure? Trying to prevent? Can you clearly state a rationale for it, or is it a good rule just because it's a rule?
Is it just protecting the boundaries of a certain social class from the "wrong" people getting in? Is it just about preserving the illusion that "Nice girls don't"?
Changing standards doesn't mean not having any, and there's a big difference between changing within how many feet you're allowed to park of a fire hydrant and legalizing murder. This is not the end of Western Civilization, and the sky is not falling.
These are nothing! Suburban Moms take pole dancing classes, fully clothed for exercise. Motive???
There are some people in this country who think that morals are about the length of your hemline and similar superficialities. These people represent themselves as moralists.
There are others who think that morals are about what you consider to be a casus belli for going to war, or whether we should torture people in our custody. These people are reviled as liberals, hippies, and moral degenerates.
A lot of people in this country have morality backwards.
So, is it really shocking that these media w.h. or. e .s. might have taken topless pics or posed nude or even pole danced? NO, not at all. Why should we act like these contestants is Mother Theresa? Just by having the ambition to become miss usa shows they are no saint.