Both Oars In Beauty, Truth and Opposites

May 1, 2009

Much has already been written and said about the recent controversy surrounding Miss California Carrie Prejean’s confrontation with gossip blogger and pageant judge, Perez Hilton—maybe too much. However, as over-televised as it has been, the fact that this year’s Miss USA competition ended up like an episode of "The Apprentice" without the business attire is an uncomfortable reminder that common decency is just not that common. While Mr. Hilton’s post-competition web soliloquy was the most notable display of vulgarity, the pageant itself raises a lot of questions about our collective morality. Forget marriage, I am not sure that we are ready for un-chaperoned dating.

When Fox broke the story, they showed Miss Prejean cascading down a set of steps in a scant bikini. I first thought, "Didn’t they take the swimsuit competition out of the pageant?" To Miss Prejean’s defense, bikinis always look a bit scant when there are no beaches in sight and you’re a father of a fourteen-year old daughter. But, I was still a bit shocked by the lack of cloth and the abundance of skin. I thought pageants had moved to higher ground.

It turns out, I am not only behind the times; I am confused. This, of course, is no surprise to my "bikini-denied" teen daughter. It was the Miss America pageant, not the Miss USA pageant, which considered dumping the swimsuit portion of the competition in favor of something that required a little more refined talent. Unfortunately, this change was voted down by popular acclaim in 1996. I wonder if that was a one man, one vote election.

Embarrassed that I did not even know that there are two pageants, let alone why, I did a little research. Ironically, the Miss USA competition was created in part because Yolande Betbeze, Miss America 1951, refused to make ongoing public appearances in a swimsuit as requested by the pageant’s swimsuit sponsor. Unhappy, the swimsuit maker, Catalina, started Miss USA to make sure its wares would be worn by the newly crowned on her year-long victory lap. The source on this is worth checking out: http://encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1879. I guess it is no surprise that commercial exploitation is the reason talented women are still asked to walk down a flight of stairs in high heels wearing four squares of cloth.

To her credit, Miss Betbeze, raised in a Catholic family of Basque heritage, went on to be a fully clothed U.S. ambassador to France. She is credited with shifting the focus of the Miss America pageant, ostensibly a scholarship competition, away from bone structure to talent. Sadly for us, six decades later, both pageants showcase a skimpy swimsuit competition and the number one selling single issue of a magazine in the world is Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Edition. Sorry Ms. Betbeze, we lost that cultural battle.

Not so ironic, Donald Trump, king of everything bravado, bought the Miss USA franchise in 1996. Clearly, his decision to invest in the pageant was a business decision, not a desire to advance the cause of women. Asked if he would have Mr. Hilton back next year after Mr. Hilton used the most unacceptable language possible to describe Miss California, he said everything but "No." Sadly, Mr. Trump, who glibly remarked that the PR generated by Mr. Hilton’s vitriol was good for the ratings, seems to have learned little from his first, second and third wife about how to respect women, not just value them.

The Donald was nice enough to defend Miss Prejean’s right to speak her mind—as we all should. It is part of our national character to be forthright, no matter how political the issue. Miss Prejean showed commendable courage and honesty under the intense heat of the spotlight. She knew who was asking the question. But, after a few words, she seemed more concerned by who was listening. Bravo, Miss Prejean. Nothing is more beautiful than the truth. I would gladly introduce you to my daughters, even if I wouldn’t let you take them shopping for beach wear.

I know millions of people are not on the edge of their seat waiting for my answer, but I also believe marriage requires two people of "opposite" sexes. The unitive and procreative purpose of marriage requires the biological, anatomical, mental and spiritual complementarity uniquely present in the union of a man and a woman. It is self-evident that no other coupling of humans can make a marriage. Two like things put together make two, not one. As Pope John Paul II pointed out in his well-received theology of the body, this truth is written in our bodies. "Opposites" not only attract, they belong together.