It is strange, I know, but I found myself drawn towards a story about the newly crowned Miss France 2008. At this time of year, with the blood pressure higher than normal because of change of diet and lack of exercise, it would have been wise to have chosen something less exciting, but then, if you are a serious blogger, occasionally sacrifices have to be made.
Apparently the French take their beauty contests much more seriously than many other more superficially ‘correct’ nations. On December 8, in front of 9 million TV viewers, Valerie Begue, 22, from Reunion (the French Indian Ocean region) won the title.
Unfortunately her reign threatened to be short-lived after a row broke out over a series of supposedly risqué photographs were published in a magazine (Entrevue). The rules of the contest forbid participants from appearing in nude or provocative photographs and the head of the Miss France contest, Genevieve de Fontenay, called for Begue to renounce her title when the pictures emerged.
However:
-
The photographs were taken 3 years ago.
-
They were published without her consent.
-
There was no nudity.
-
How do you define provocative? Many were not offended or alarmed by them, though a few were. (She was photographed wearing a bikini in a crucifixion-like pose or licking condensed milk.)
In face of wide public support, (members of parliament, a bishop, and the minister for overseas territories all sprang to her defence) the competition organizers relented.
Whatever you think about beauty contests, the bigger issues for me were the notions of the past being allowed to control the present, and the paranoia about offending religion and about sexuality.
In this case, there was a clear break between the past and the present. If Valerie Begue had posed nude for Playboy the day after she won the title, the organizers would have a case, but she didn’t. I think they still wouldn’t have a case even if she had posed nude for Playboy 3 years ago. Surely, people are allowed to change their minds and adapt to different conventions if they choose to do so.
I have held moral, political, and religious views in the past (and performed actions consistent with those views) that I would prefer not to discuss now. I have changed, and go on changing. Who I am now is different to who I was 3 years ago, let alone 30 years ago. The fact that a politician may have taken drugs, may have been a member of the Communist party, and may have experimented sexually in the past, doesn’t mean that she or he cannot be an excellent Cabinet Minister now. The fact that Miss France 2008 posed in some allegedly risqué photographs 3 years ago doesn’t mean that she cannot agree to keep by the rules of the competition for 12 months.
Presumably part of the fuss about the photographs is down to an appallingly big irony - she is allowed to appear in a beauty contest in various states of dress and undress and display her feminine charms to 9 million viewers, but there must be no hint at all that she is a sexual being. The show makes money from advertising by attracting 9 million viewers, and at least 50 per cent of those watch, in part, at least, because of normal sexual attraction, but no-one is allowed to acknowledge sexuality. It is almost a literal case of the empress having no clothes and everyone else pretending that she has! To me, it would seem far more honest and healthier to acknowledge that contestants are sexual beings outside of the contest, even if the organisers wish to deny that aspect on the TV show itself.
As for the archbishop who said she had offended Christians because of a crucifix-like pose in a bikini - if some Christians chose to take offense at what she did, that is no reason to rob her of the title. Any belief, whether it be political or religious, should be strong enough to endure criticism and mockery and not need drastic action to protect it (and I seriously doubt that any deliberate or clear mockery was intended in this case). If there is a god, I am sure that she or he is quite capable of taking any necessary revenge, should she or he choose to do so.
See what the fuss is about yourself. The allegedly offensive pictures are HERE.
I detest beauty pageants. I’m not a fan of male body-building contests either. Your post explicates well the hypocrisy behind the whole beauty pageant thing. A question just popped into my head: assuming that body-building shows attract more men than women (I have no idea if that assumption is correct), is there a homoerotic element to that whole scene?
the chaplain Mmm … I’m not sure about the male body-building shows thing. I don’t think we have too many of them over here - I certainly haven’t come across them. Of course, as you accept, your assumption that they attract more men than women may just be an assumption.
If that assumption is correct, it may be more down to testosterone envy rather than homoeroticism, though the latter could be true for a percentage of the viewers.
Beauty competitions are merely the visible end of a huge business venture. The reigning Miss World becomes a pawn of the advertising industry.
Understandably, business is conservative and avoids any hint of scandal that can damage a brand. That is why Kate Moss was dropped instantaneously when her cocaine honking habits were publicized. We also remember how a careless remark by the company chairman caused the Ratner jewellery brand to collapse.
The furore over Miss France would not be about whether she had somehow behaved “immorally” in the past or whether she was “immoral” now but whether potential advertisers would take fright and not use her, wiping millions from her value to the owners of the Miss France competition.
Think of her as a race horse with a suspected broken leg.
Humane killer, anyone?
Your great post hits upon an aspect that troubles me about politics, including how the media covers politicians. People are dynamic. Our views change and evolve. Positions we hold at one point in our lives and actions taken from those positions may be radically different ten years later, or even three years later. New information and insights can dramatically alter one’s view point and life. Yet, when a politician says s/he holds B when they did something totally different five years before they are judged by their peers, the press and public as being inconsistent or as pandering for votes. Judges have been disqualified by their political for taskmasters or given a hard time over a paper written when they were in law school twenty-five years later even though their rulings on the bench have not reflected the views expressed in the paper.
We should be judged by who we are today, by recent actions, our hearts and sincerity not by a point in our past.
Isn’t this just about branding and profit? The French beauty pageant organisers don’t want their brand losing focus because the winner of the contest appeared in a more alluring way in another context.
Actually, although Kate Moss was dropped by some of her sponsors following drug stories in the media, she subsequently worked more and achieved higher earnings. Notoriety is good business for somebody who makes their living from media exposure.
The archbishop is a little confused. The Romans executed many thousands of men by crucifixion. The adoption by christians of an instrument of torture and killing to promote their organisations is obviously a matter for them, but it does not mean that they own it. An attractive woman adopting a posture of crucifixion could have erotic connotations related to submission, helplessness and much else. What a sexually charged image of a woman could have to do with the execution of Jesus is harder for me to fathom.
I wish the lady well in the exploitation of her charms to fullfil her wishes in life.
I can’t find one thing here that I would disagree with. All the points you have raised are totally valid.
Having looked at the pictures I, at first was a tad bit concerned about the crucfixion pose. It seemed in appropriate at first. However, having read the last comment I can see where Malpoet is coming from and I don’t have any problem with it now.
Societies are very pretentious and vague and subjective judgments are made to create the aura of the purity of the competition. I can’t see how these photographs makes her any less a worthy contestant than any other contestant. Long reign Valerie Begue!