Miss America ends swimsuit competition

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: InTheLight
There is something wrong with your comprehension.

No, the only thing wrong here is you constantly diverting, deflecting, backtracking, and selectively omitting what you said.

originally posted by: InTheLight
Carlson states the pageant is for women

Carlson did not follow that up with, "Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?". That's all you, all sexist, and entirely regressive as a followup to "Carlson's" statement even though you were not quoting her when you said it (like you're now attempting to attribute).

Instead of acknowledging what you said, and addressing it when questioned, you simply keep deflecting and pretending that your own words don't exist while blaming everything from the pageant to Carlson herself.

It was not Carlson's sentiment that, "the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant.".

Stating facts is not being regressive or sexist, it is just stating facts. Get over it.

a reply to: InTheLight

If you want to see women in bikinis then keep going to the beach where the women have chosen to show their bodies. In the meantime, women involved in this issue can and will define and redefine what beauty is within a beauty pageant, not you or anyone else.

I seem to have hit a nerve.

Might I remind you that a beauty pageant contestant has already chosen to display their beauty by entering a beauty pageant. It appears it is you who seems to prefer that these women comply to your standards, not the women themselves.

I stand by my previous post.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

If you want to see women in bikinis then keep going to the beach where the women have chosen to show their bodies. In the meantime, women involved in this issue can and will define and redefine what beauty is within a beauty pageant, not you or anyone else.

I seem to have hit a nerve.

Might I remind you that a beauty pageant contestant has already chosen to display their beauty by entering a beauty pageant. It appears it is you who seems to prefer that these women comply to your standards, not the women themselves.

I stand by my previous post.

TheRedneck

Yes, a debate nerve - just another interesting topic to discuss.

I seemed to have hit a nerve with you though. Want them to comply to your standards?

originally posted by: InTheLight
Stating facts is not being regressive or sexist, it is just stating facts. Get over it.

Progressives disagree with you, and arguments exactly mirroring yours were absolutely and repeatedly labeled sexist and regressive in regards to the Boy Scouts being "for boys".

Perhaps you should come to terms with the fact that you're either not as progressive as you might wish to believe, or that you simply think progressives need to "get over it" when they try to promote ideas of sexual egalitarianism.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero
a reply to: introvert

Stupid move. The swimsuit edition was to show how tight the girls' bodies were. Staying in shape was a goal to keep. But, eh, who cares now. Anyways, no quicker way to kill the show than to end the part a lot of people watched it for.

I am sure they will come up with a new T&A show where all contestants need is a tight body...it's coming. In the meantime, a woman's beauty will be expanded beyond T&A.

Unless you're getting to know them personally, who cares about their "inner beauty"? I'm not a fan, but when I watch Miss America, I root for the one I think looks best. The swim suit plays a bit of a role in that, and I highly doubt I'm the only guy that judges from home that way.

a reply to: introvert

The entire premise of the beauty pageant and swim suit contests are completely lame.

That is your opinion. That being your opinion, I suggest you choose to watch something else. To demand that others live by your opinion is the same technique used by several different religions and in that context is considered amoral and irritating by many, probably even yourself.

Hell, spend a few bucks and hit a strip club. You can see it live in person and those greasy women will even rub up on you for a buck, after she rubs up against the sweaty trucker sitting next to you, of course.

It is possible to appreciate the female form without having it "rubbed up on you." Some of us have outgrown that narrow-minded viewpoint and realize that, while there might be a sexual aspect to the admiration, it does not all have to be about sexual contact.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero
a reply to: introvert

Stupid move. The swimsuit edition was to show how tight the girls' bodies were. Staying in shape was a goal to keep. But, eh, who cares now. Anyways, no quicker way to kill the show than to end the part a lot of people watched it for.

I am sure they will come up with a new T&A show where all contestants need is a tight body...it's coming. In the meantime, a woman's beauty will be expanded beyond T&A.

Unless you're getting to know them personally, who cares about their "inner beauty"? I'm not a fan, but when I watch Miss America, I root for the one I think looks best. The swim suit plays a bit of a role in that, and I highly doubt I'm the only guy that judges from home that way.

Well, we will have to see who cares about women's inner beauty and who will not. I don't really think they will take out the beauty part, only because they have not changed the age requirements nor the name 'beauty' pageant (yet?).

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero
a reply to: introvert

Stupid move. The swimsuit edition was to show how tight the girls' bodies were. Staying in shape was a goal to keep. But, eh, who cares now. Anyways, no quicker way to kill the show than to end the part a lot of people watched it for.

That does not seem logical. Why would someone watch a tv show just to see one section of the swimsuit competition, when you can see whatever you want, with or without swim suits, at the click of a mouse, without the need to watch the entirety of a lame beauty show?

I didn't say they only watched that section. When you see next year's pageant and wanna see Miss Louisiana in a swim suit, chances are you won't find it because you can normally only find those pictures from pageant highlights.

This is the stuff you can expect when some women take over the show. They need to be replaced by some Conservative women that aren't intimidated by equally beautiful women.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: InTheLight
Well let's see if women who possess talents, accomplishments in humanitarian and other positive deeds in life and intelligence with beauty (inner and outer) in the new beauty pageants can sell it too.

Except for the fact that you're now displaying a sexist and regressive attitude by excluding male competitors from the equation.

I am not excluding them, the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?

They do have their own pageants.

Very few people care.

Really? I did not know that.

Because men don't complain about stuff like that. I didn't know, nor did I care, either. Now if only other groups could follow that lead.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: InTheLight
Stating facts is not being regressive or sexist, it is just stating facts. Get over it.

Progressives disagree with you, and arguments exactly mirroring yours were absolutely and repeatedly labeled sexist and regressive in regards to the Boy Scouts being "for boys".

Perhaps you should come to terms with the fact that you're either not as progressive as you might wish to believe, or that you simply think progressives need to "get over it" when they try to promote ideas of sexual egalitarianism.

You need to differentiate when people are repeating facts as opposed to taking a stance on an ideology.

You cannot compare a boy scout organization excluding girls with physical beauty competitions it doesn't make sense. You don't make sense. The women's and men's beauty pageants are exclusionary due to physicality issues, so of course, a woman or a man could not be admitted, therefore they are free to go to where they are admitted due to circumstances that could not be changed or be made inclusionary elsewhere.

This women's 'beauty' pageant will continue to exclude men due to the fact that it will remain a 'beauty' pageant in some form or another. This is my opinion at this time due to 'beauty' and 'Miss' not being changed at this time, and the age range remaining the same.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: InTheLight
I am not excluding them, the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?

Boy Scouts were for boys, and Girl Scouts were for girls. Such delineations are not acceptable to true progressives, and now girls are free to join the Boy Scouts.

Saying that, "the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?" is very sexist and regressive of you.

But obviously the guys don't complain. They compete and never look back. I was gonna bring up the Scouts as well. And it's not just girls they allowed in, they also allowed gays in. Why couldn't the gays start their own Gay Scout camp? Why infringe on something they were never openly invited to.

a reply to: InTheLight

Yes, a debate nerve - just another interesting topic to discuss.

If you say so. So you do find my points "interesting"?

I seemed to have hit a nerve with you though. Want them to comply to your standards?

I am not the one insisting that the standards these women have freely complied with are "my standards." I am not the one advocating the refusal to allow them to compete in a beauty contest. After all, one obvious aspect of beauty is being "pleasant to the eyes."

Your deflection and projection seem to be getting you into a logical quandary here. You want women to be free to comply to their own standards, yet you do not want those standards to be at odds with your own. You advocate the removal of an integral part of the pageant without consideration of the fact that the participants and viewers expect it, yet you try and blame those same participants and viewers for allowing it because they are not complying to your standards.

There was a time when people would simply change the TV channel if they didn't like what was on.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: InTheLight
I am not excluding them, the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?

Boy Scouts were for boys, and Girl Scouts were for girls. Such delineations are not acceptable to true progressives, and now girls are free to join the Boy Scouts.

Saying that, "the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?" is very sexist and regressive of you.

Nobody is buying your point of view here.

Why? It makes logical sense from what we're told about girls and gays joining the Boy Scouts. They couldn't find their own, and we were regressive and sexist for not wanting to allow it.

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: InTheLight
I am not excluding them, the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?

Boy Scouts were for boys, and Girl Scouts were for girls. Such delineations are not acceptable to true progressives, and now girls are free to join the Boy Scouts.

Saying that, "the pageant is for women. Men are free to start up their own pageant. What is stopping them?" is very sexist and regressive of you.

Nobody is buying your point of view here.

Why? It makes logical sense from what we're told about girls and gays joining the Boy Scouts. They couldn't find their own, and we were regressive and sexist for not wanting to allow it.

You can't compare a physical beauty competition to actual sexist and regressive boy scout organizational exclusions. I just explained that above.

a reply to: Thirty6BelowZero

This may sound odd, but I preferred the evening gown part--do they even do that anymore?? Left more to the imagination.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I too am not insisting any standards be imposed on these women - the beauty pageant organizers are. I am just discussing the topic and repeating information and facts.

My stance on this whole thing is that I like the fact that women's beauty criteria will be expanded, we are so much more than how we are judged in a beauty pageant as it stands now. And, if you must know, the contestants will be allowed to choose an outfit of their choice, as I understand. So, who knows, we still may see a bikini or two.

originally posted by: InTheLight
You cannot compare a boy scout organization excluding girls with physical beauty competitions it doesn't make sense.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. The Miss America Pageant is not a "physical beauty competition". That's what this entire thread is all about. You seem willing to repeatedly attribute your words to Carlson, yet still fail to grasp what she actually said.

Take a deep breath, and try reeeeeeeally hard!

"We will no longer judge our candidates on their outward physical appearance."

That means... it's not a "physical beauty competition", so there are no "physicality issues".

Your cognitive dissonance really has you running in circles.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: InTheLight
Stating facts is not being regressive or sexist, it is just stating facts. Get over it.

Progressives disagree with you, and arguments exactly mirroring yours were absolutely and repeatedly labeled sexist and regressive in regards to the Boy Scouts being "for boys".

Perhaps you should come to terms with the fact that you're either not as progressive as you might wish to believe, or that you simply think progressives need to "get over it" when they try to promote ideas of sexual egalitarianism.

It's called psychological projection. They do it all. The. Time.

"Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting."

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero
a reply to: introvert

Stupid move. The swimsuit edition was to show how tight the girls' bodies were. Staying in shape was a goal to keep. But, eh, who cares now. Anyways, no quicker way to kill the show than to end the part a lot of people watched it for.

I am sure they will come up with a new T&A show where all contestants need is a tight body...it's coming. In the meantime, a woman's beauty will be expanded beyond T&A.

Unless you're getting to know them personally, who cares about their "inner beauty"? I'm not a fan, but when I watch Miss America, I root for the one I think looks best. The swim suit plays a bit of a role in that, and I highly doubt I'm the only guy that judges from home that way.

Well, we will have to see who cares about women's inner beauty and who will not. I don't really think they will take out the beauty part, only because they have not changed the age requirements nor the name 'beauty' pageant (yet?).

I'm sure it's coming. Miss America Pageant. Next up is the Evening Pant Suit portion.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: InTheLight
You cannot compare a boy scout organization excluding girls with physical beauty competitions it doesn't make sense.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. The Miss America Pageant is not a "physical beauty competition". That's what this entire thread is all about. You seem willing to repeatedly attribute your words to Carlson, yet still fail to grasp what she actually said.

Take a deep breath, and try reeeeeeeally hard!

"We will no longer judge our candidates on their outward physical appearance."

That means... it's not a "physical beauty competition", so there are no "physicality issues".

Your cognitive dissonance really has you running in circles.

If that is true, then why is the organization still excluding men? Your greenhorn is showing.