Wednesday, May 6, 2009

More Lingerie Pics Could Cost Prejean Pageant Crown

She would worry less about what she looks like in her lingerie/swimsuits and more about what's coming out of her mouth.

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has assured pageant officials that a lingerie modeling photo published online this week is the only one she posed for, the state pageant director said.

But the Web site that published the first picture said it has several more that it will "slowly roll out" starting Wednesday afternoon.

The possibility that racier images could emerge prompted "closed-door meetings" Tuesday to consider stripping Prejean of her beauty queen title, pageant spokesman Ron Neal said.

Although Neal said Prejean "breached her contract" by keeping the semi-nude photo or photos a secret, the only picture published so far appears about as revealing as the bikini Prejean wore in the pageant's swimsuit competition.

"We have been told by Carrie Prejean there are no other photos other than the one circulating in existence. She should know better than anyone," Miss California USA Director Keith Lewis said Wednesday.

The 21-year-old Miss USA contestant has been the center of controversy since she declared her opposition to same-sex marriage in a response to a question on the national pageant stage last month. She finished as runner-up to Miss USA.

In a statement given to CNN Tuesday, Prejean said the photos -- and she did use the plural -- were being used in a "vicious and mean-spirited" effort to silence her for "defending traditional marriage."

While she vowed to "continue to support and defend marriage as the honorable institution it is," Prejean may be doing so without the Miss California USA title.

State pageant officials met Tuesday with lawyers and representatives of Donald Trump, who owns the international competition, to consider if they had grounds to take the crown away from Prejean, according to Neal.

"When you compete for Miss California, you're supposed to disclose whether you posed for nude or semi-nude photos because it's grounds for disqualification," he said.

CNN obtained a copy of the pageant contract Prejean signed last year in which she agreed that the discovery of semi-nude photos could mean disqualification.

The only photo made public shows Prejean -- who said she was 17 at the time -- wearing pink panties and no top. She is turned away from the camera, with her arm hiding most of her breast.

It was unclear if pageant officials would consider this a semi-nude photo, in light of their standard requirement that contestants parade across stage wearing a bikini that arguably shows more bare skin.

But the other shoe -- or other garment -- may be yet to drop.

Nik Richie -- of TheDirty.com -- said he has waited for an upgrade of his Web site's servers to handle the flood of traffic he expects will come after he posts the additional photos.

"I will slowly roll these out," Richie said.

The next image will likely be published Wednesday afternoon, he said.

"We'll see what happens with those and we want to know who's releasing them," Neal said.

Shanna Moakler, the co-executive director of the Miss California USA organization, will meet with Tami Farrell, the runner-up for the title, "to discuss the possible next steps," Neal said.

Prejean defended the photos, which she said were taken when she was a teenager aspiring to be a Victoria's Secret model.

"I am a Christian, and I am a model," she said. "Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos."

She said the photos "have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith."

"I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be," she said. "But these attacks on me and others who speak in defense of traditional marriage are intolerant and offensive. While we may not agree on every issue, we should show respect for others' opinions and not try to silence them through vicious and mean-spirited attacks."

Her publicist, Melany Ethridge, confirmed a comment she gave to celebrity Web site TMZ in which she said Prejean was just 17 when she posed for the photos, hoping they would land her a modeling job.

"In her naivete, an agent convinced her to pose for this photo to submit to a lingerie company, claiming they could make her the next Victoria's Secret model," Ethridge told TMZ. "She has since learned what a lie that was, and what a mistake it was to have the photo taken."

Prejean announced last week that she would star in a new $1.5 million ad campaign supporting what she termed "opposite marriage" (marriage between a man and a woman) funded by the National Organization for Marriage.

"Marriage is good," Prejean said at a news conference announcing the ad campaign. "There is something special about unions of husband and wife. Unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers."

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm so sick of all the libs whining about someone voicing their opinion....BFD! Get over it, leaver her alone and move the F on....

Anonymous said...

I'm just a good christian girl....that poses for lingerie photos with my top off....yeah what ever!! I'm sure most of us have seen that at church, all those christian women running around in panties with no top, I though so...anyway there is a time and a place for expressing your opinions and according to her "In her country" it must have been the time, when you are representing a state you need to represent everyone and that includes gays and lesbians. So in conclusion I think she gets what she deserves....

Anonymous said...

She is a patriot and a true role model who stood up for christian beliefs. Of course, liberal atheist and the anti American news media will do what ever it takes to destroy her for it. As the second poster on here who has no interest in the rule of law or freedom of speech in which 'in this country' idiot, the majority agrees with her!
IN GOD WE TRUST!!..DEAL WITH THAT!!

Anonymous said...

To mr anonymous @ 2:08am, what you just said is purely dumb. You are in a democratic nation where everyone has a right to express their opinions. I have been supportive of the gay activists because I have a few friends who are descreet gays and even one relative as well. When prop 8 was passed I told myself, hey.. you know what? at least our voices were heard. I am a heterosexual person and the more I hear about this nonsense about "GAYS" who cannot and will not respect Ms California's opinion the more I become a nonsupporter with their cause. Sad to say that even those friends of mine who are gay and my one relative who is gay as well are disappointed at what is happening.

And to the Blogger, Ms Krystle... Ms. California's response does not make her dumb or homophobic. Out of all the people that I have seen answer questions, hers make sense the most. So congratulations for being so quick to judge.

According to statistics now.. people are getting less and less sympathetic towards gay right movements. I think they should get a convension together and talk about changing the way they portray themselves to other people... Kind of like the Republicans..

But yes, this is my opinion. You don't need to get butt hurt.

Thanks for the post. I'm sure other people would like to comment.

James said...

Hey Anonymous, put your money where you mouth is or turn the channel if you don't like what people have to say! This girl is the absolute MODEL spokesperson for the uptight, clueless, extreme right. All the fanatics that are afraid that they're "losing their America"! Why is Gay ANYTHING an issue anymore? Cause of the Bible? Have any of you of the faith read up on Premarital sex? Divorce? Well, I'm sure all you good people that aren't married are virginal and NONE of you have ever filed for divorce now right? Well, let's start props for those as well shall we? No? Uh huh! Ya HEARD ME! :)

Anonymous said...

It's not so much a case of "that's what you get for bashing . . ." There was a time when a beauty pageant was nothing more than that, just a beauty pageant. But over time, people have become convinced that if you're a celebrity, you're smart! Not so, as proven by Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan. For heaven sake, look at the Governor of Alaska! Beauty pageant contestant. And yesterday her daughter drags the new baby on the Today Show and talks about wanting to be the "poster girl" for abstinence among teens. Wow! So, if Ms. Prejean wants to spout off about the right and wrong of gay-marriage, then she deserves to have to listen to others spout off about her "now you see them, now you don't" morals.

Anonymous said...

Any young woman that poses for semi nude photos as a teen, then enters 'beauty' contests along with getting breast implants, is obviously an exhibitionist seeking attention. God bless our wondrous news media for giving her just that. If the news media had not made such a big issue out of this, who would really care?

Anonymous said...

If your opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, shaking your ass to win a pageant would be equally (religiously) immoral. Getting fake boobs and to win a pageant would be equally immoral. Posing in nude or simi-nude photographs...ever, would be immoral. I find it quite hypocritical for a person to say that something they want to do as perfectly acceptable while damming others and promoting the denial of their equal rites. Gay people aren’t trying to deny Ms. California from shaking her ass, why is Ms. California promoting prohibiting gay American’s equal treatment under the law?

Denial of equal rights to gay Americans is the last bastion of open, organized bigotry in America. A right or privilege held by one must be held by all. What is so amazing about the flawed argument; that it is acceptable to deny any American equal rights, for any reason; is that the same argument can be used against you some day to deny you equal rights. The only way to guarantee equal rights for you is to guarantee them for everyone.

It is wrong to promoting bigotry. I know that opposition to gay marriage is a (currently) socially acceptable form of bigotry…but it is bigotry and must be abolished. We overcome bigotry by identifying it when we see it and by refusing to accept it. You can’t “morally” think that bigotry is OK. Bigotry is never moral.

I agree that she has given her honest opinion and the attempt to muddy her name and image or to remove her title is unfair. I am sure that most of the other contestants have almost certainly posed in equally racy photos in their career as well.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that it is appropriate for a person who promotes bigotry to be Ms. California. Again, just because something is socially acceptable or legal does not make it right. Remember that slavery, denial of equal treatment for women, segregation, and the internment of Asian Americans during WWII were, at one time, socially acceptable and legal. They were never moral, just, or right.

Anonymous said...

If your opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, shaking your ass to win a pageant would be equally (religiously) immoral. Getting fake boobs and to win a pageant would be equally immoral. Posing in nude or simi-nude photographs...ever, would be immoral. I find it quite hypocritical for a person to say that something they want to do as perfectly acceptable while damming others and promoting the denial of their equal rites. Gay people aren’t trying to deny Ms. California from shaking her ass, why is Ms. California promoting prohibiting gay American’s equal treatment under the law?

Denial of equal rights to gay Americans is the last bastion of open, organized bigotry in America. A right or privilege held by one must be held by all. What is so amazing about the flawed argument; that it is acceptable to deny any American equal rights, for any reason; is that the same argument can be used against you some day to deny you equal rights. The only way to guarantee equal rights for you is to guarantee them for everyone.

There is something wrong with promoting bigotry. I know that opposition to gay marriage is a (currently) socially acceptable form of bigotry…but it is bigotry and must be abolished. We overcome bigotry by identifying it when we see it and by refusing to accept it. You can’t “morally” think that bigotry is OK. Bigotry is never moral.

I agree that she has given her honest opinion and the attempt to muddy her name and image or to remove her title is unfair. I am sure that most of the other contestants have almost certainly posed in equally racy photos in their career as well.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that it is appropriate for a person who promotes bigotry to be Ms. California. Again, just because something is socially acceptable or legal does not make it right. Remember that slavery, denial of equal treatment for women, segregation, and the internment of Asian Americans during WWII were, at one time, socially acceptable and legal. They were never moral, just, or right.

Anonymous said...

People are missing the whole gay marriage thing. The fact is that there have always been two sanctioning bodies for couples who wish to formalize their relationships: the church for marriage and the state for civil unions. As our society has become more socialistic with the accompanying bureaucratic constraints, there has emerged a need for these couples to have their legal rights defined with regard to property, insurance, child custody and other factors. Given the nature of our society today, these rights should absolutely be defined and protected by the state within the context of "civil unions".
"Marriage", on the other hand, is a term used by the church to describe the union between a man and a woman. I never cease to be amazed at the number of ignoramuses who confuse the two and who get their panties in a wad over a MIS-DEFINITION!
When Ms. Prejean stated that she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, she was probably technically correct with respect to how her church defines "marriage". She could also be technically correct if she were to say that she believes that the property rights of same-sex couples should be protected (through civil unions). Everybody needs to chill on this, get educated and be a little more practical and a little less emotional. Lord knows we have bigger problems than this.

Anonymous said...

I once believed in tolerance and was pro life, but if this is how all gay people act im going to have my unborn fetus tested for the Gay gene and abort it if there is any trace. I dont want my children to grow up to be mean,selfish, and discredit people if they do not get their way

Anonymous said...

Here's the deal if Prejean is so self righteous about her marriage views then why did she pose for these photos knowing darn well that perhaps MARRIED MEN (most likely to get a turn on with them) would think nasty thoughts while looking at them? Look I don't have a problem with her views on any subject there is but if you're going to play the part then stand by it and don't contradict yourself with your conduct. In other words practice what you preach!

Anonymous said...

Saw the pictures. Ho hum. "Nude or semi-nude," means nipples or pubic hair. Where are the damn nipples!
Had she responded to the question that she was gay or supported the gay marriage question, this would never have come out. If it had, Perez Hilton would be shoving his swine-like face and mean-girl-of-middle-school values all over the news to support her.
Now all gays are seen as Perez Hilton. How sad for the gay movement to have this ugly little vindictive man be seen as their leader.

Anonymous said...

Typical of how things work in this country now - Freedom of Speech, just as long as it doesn't offend anyone. And if it does, well then, off with your head.

Just because someone has an opinion that YOU do not agree with does not make them self-righteous. I am for gay marriage and I disagreed with what she said, but the treatment the media has given to this young woman is beyond the pale.

Give us all a break already. The "gotcha" on this story sickens me.

Anonymous said...

Hang in there Carrie!! The USA needs alot more people like you to stand up for what you believe in and not to pretend!!!! There alot of pretenders in te USA today which is one of the reason why it's in moral decline. And where there is moral decline, total complete decline soon follows!!

Moonbeam said...

This woman is not, to my knowledge a "gay basher"; she only answered a question as to what her opinion was on the subject of gay marriage. And she answered it the same way that Barack Obama and John McCain answered it during their Presidential debate. Perez Hilton has now inadvertently launched her to stardom, which she may never have achieved on her own, given that she does not come across as very intelligent or articulate. She's a lovely woman and seems like a sweet person, but I doubt this answer cost her the crown -- I assume that contestants are judged not just on the content of their answers, but also the manner: confidence, clarity, etc. It was not an articulate, concise answer, and neither have some of her subsequent comments been well-stated. But she now has more spotlight than the pageant winner (who even remembers the name of the winner)? I think Perez, in his almost militant effort to push his personal agenda, has accomplished the opposite of what he intended.

Moonbeam said...

Anonymous of May 7, 10:15 said it well in defining civil unions in contrast to marriage. Marriage is what it is, and cannot be redefined as a civil rights issue, and it certainly cannot be compared to interracial marriage. Interracial marriage is still just that -- legitimate marriage between a man and a woman, a union of physical, hormonal, geometric, and reproductive logic. The vast majority's reluctance to constitutionally redefine marriage (as if that could ever really change the nature or purpose of a God-given institution) is not tantamount to gay bashing.

Moonbeam said...

In thanking Anonymous above for defining the difference between civil union and marriage, I referred to the wrong posting -- I meant the posting of May 7 at 10:38 a.m., not the one at 10:15.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the wholesome pro-marriage, pro-family spokeswoman for the National Organization for Marriage. Classy, real classy.

Anonymous said...

Okay, do we KNOW for SURE that the photos of Ms Prejean have been released as payback for her comment on gay marriage, or is that what SHE is saying? I think that no matter who won the pagent, if someone had nude or semi-nude photos of that individual they would release them! It's not like this is the first time a pagent participant has been 'exposed' after winning the title. I think her comment has taken this whole thing off in a direction (gay bashing) that may have nothing to do with why Mr. Richie has decided to publish the photos. What ever happened to nice, wholesome girls competing? Now it seems like they all have some sort of 'past' that catches up with them when they become well known.

Socalstephen said...

The second photo has been altered, and that is obvious to the untrained eye, if you simply look at it with no bias.

Anonymous said...

The fourth post says "to mr anonymous @ 2:08am, what you said is purely dumb, you are in a democratic nation where every has a right to express their opinions" kinda funny....I invoked the right to state my opninion and was called "dumb" for it....If I were him or her I'd take a quick look in the mirror to see who the real idiot is....LOL