Presumably – at least it wouldn’t have been in the Miss Universe pageant in 2001. (Ask Elodie Gossuin why.)
As for post-job boobs? Well, apparently the only concern – if you can even call it that – is over who pays for them.
Shanna Moakler, Co-Executive Director of the Miss California Organization, has confirmed the group behind the pageant paid for Miss California Carrie Prejean’s breast implants, weeks before she competed in Miss USA.
In a new interview with Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush, Shanna confirmed the news.
“Did you guys pay for it?” Billy asked Shanna directly.
“Yes,” Shanna said. “We did.”
The organization paid for Carrie’s breast enhancement prior to her competing in the Miss USA pageant, which was held in Las Vegas, almost two weeks ago.
“It was something that we all spoke about together,” Shanna said referring to herself, Carrie and Keith Lewis, Shanna’s co-executive director. “It was an option and she wanted it. And we supported that decision.”
Shanna, a former Miss USA herself, defended the Miss California Organization’s decision to pay for the elective surgery.
“Breast implants in pageants is not a rarity. It’s definitely not taboo. It’s very common. Breast implants today among young women today is very common. I don’t personally have them, but you know — they are,” she added.
Well why is it not taboo?
And, perhaps and even bigger question: Where exactly is the focus on what seems to be a bigger matter than her stance on “opposite marriage.”
If I’m reading this right, she is a right-wing nutjob (and, yes, I actually think she has a bit of a legit gripe over being singled out for a really controversial question from someone who, in reality, is probably even more of a waste of DNA than she is; even bigoted morons who view themselves to be superior to the less-perfectly-pretty merely by virtue of even thinking about entering a beauty contest deserve to be treated fairly) who seems to think that marriage being defined as between a man and a woman is unchangeable because its a concept that came from her deity, but that the breasts on her body – which, one has to assume, she believes were created by her preferred deity – are okay to be changed.
If it gets her a tiara.
Her stance on marriage, by itself, would not appear to make her a hypocrite. A bigot? Yes, but not a hypocrite per se.
But why does she think she has the right to alter the work of the deity that one must presume she believes to be her creator?
Pretty girls with bibles and the right chromosome patterns don’t have to be consistent when they preach to the less-pretty and the less-chromosomally-correct.
And, speaking of the trans issue: Presumably, a woman with a non-surgically-created vagina but with a surgically manufactured bust would be an acceptable contestant, yet a woman with a surgically manufactured bust and a surgically created vagina (or, perhaps, even a vestigal penis) would not be?