SexPosFemme Journal

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Miss Universe Against the Law in Toronto

Miss Universe Against Law
"CANADIAN Miss Universe Natalie Glebova was forced to take off her official sash at a local festival celebrating Thailand when Toronto authorities invoked a law against sexual stereotyping.

The winner of the international beauty competition held in Bangkok in May, Glebova was to open the festival last weekend sporting her official beauty queen's regalia. However, city employees invoked a regulation against activities which degrade men and women through sexual stereotypes or exploit their bodies to attract attention.",10117,15990178-13762,00.html

Toronto, a capital where public toplessness is legal, is also one of the hubs for legal sex prostitution. But pageant queens in sashes and tiaras are banned. From a US perspective, it seems hypocritical. Unless the lines are drawn on image. The problem they have isn't sexuality itself but sexual image versus natural sexual expression. Only, how do they define what's an stereotypical image and what's more natural? Would they check to see if the publicly topless girl had breast implants? Would it matter if she were also pageant queen? Or if Miss Universe were a transman?

In the US, we have it even more backwards. Here, beauty pageants are as old hat as debutant balls and bridal showers. But imagine what would happen to a participant who was either seen topless or had done sex work in Toronto. She's as good as dead. So pageant queen, good, porn star, toast. But are most acceptable of such sexual displays, then why have major networks now pulled the plug on Miss America pageants based on lack of sex appeal? Because they don't know whether they're coming or going, and we don't know when we should. In American society, the problem isn't even image versus reality, much less legality. Instead it's just the narrow, constantly shifting degree of sexuality--just as arbitrary, if not moreso. Image isn't at odds with reality. Image lords over it like a militant vanguard. So you not only are you not supposed be sexual, but you're supposed to imagine you are, and figure you would be if you were on TV. Naturally, that would mean you had a packaged look and persona, were white, straight, and preferably Christian, were goaded on by producers, and had embarassingly knawing insecurities surrounding your looks. Then you'd be en vogue.

In either society, it doesn't matter if the person is championing important social causes like AIDS awareness, it just matters if they seem somehow annoying. It's as though not feeling offended is the antivirus. In Toronto, the face of AIDS has to be your average "unstereotypically sexual" joe. That's at least proportionally more people. Here, worse again, the face of AIDS has be a pageant queen or a crisp politician. If a random citizen goes into depth about AIDS beyond, "AIDS, how awful", then it means she's probably some dirtbag surrounded by bunch of other dirtbags. In either situation she can't be some "anybody" who just does.


  • At 11:42 PM, Blogger xinag zhong said…

    Hi, wonderful blog. I am glad that you have however some individuals which are not uneasy
    Cheapest Diablo 3 gold relating to sex, it's very fresh new, especially with the younger generation.


Post a Comment

<< Home