Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« I Am My Own Wife Goes to ArtsW... | UPDATE: White House Contradict... »

Monday, March 19, 2007

It’s Not Porn ‘Cause It’s In A Family Newspaper!

posted by on March 19 at 17:34 PM

Today’s P-I has a loving slideshow (22—!!!—photos!) devoted to the “preliminary competition photos” from this year’s Miss USA pageant, including several pornarrific shots of identical white beauty-queen hopefuls in identical white string bikinis (see? it’s egalitarian!):



According to the Miss USA web site (apparently “Miss America” is out of vogue?), previous Miss USAs (like coke-snorting faux-lesbian Tara Conner?) have exemplified the “savvy, goal-oriented and aware” modern woman. In fact, Miss USAs “display those characteristics in their everyday lives, both as individuals, who compete with hope of advancing their careers, personal and humanitarian goals, and as women who see [sic] to improve the lives of others. Currently, Miss USA is experiencing a rebirth, playing a critical role in making the next 100 years “The Century of Women.”

Both individuals AND women? Knock me over with a feather. But I’m glad to see Miss USA is looking out for women in the next century; I mean, somebody has to be out there representing my values.

Cross-posted. And don’t worry: I’m working on a big, wonked-out viaduct feature.

RSS icon Comments


as a queer man - this looks like some good stuff

the one with the bikini bottom hung off her hips is very hot

oh, Erica, what can I do to stay gay, pass this on to Dan

Posted by rorry likes anuses | March 19, 2007 5:54 PM

these do seem quite hetero-normative, not a mullet in the lot of them

Posted by vooodooo84 | March 19, 2007 5:55 PM

There's nothing wrong with Tara Connor or any of these girls. They're just regular girls in their late teens and early twenties who are competing in a contest. So it's not something cool like sports or drama or whatever, but it's a contest like anything else. Leave'em alone.

Posted by Go Tara | March 19, 2007 6:10 PM

ECB Wrote:
"And donít worry: Iím working on a big, wonked-out viaduct feature."

Yes, but hopefully you stayed up to
watch the Formula One Australian Grand
Prix held in Melbourne's Albert Park last Sunday. A brillant third place
showing by rookie, Lewis Hamilton.
Stirling Moss was quoted as saying Hamilton is a "racer" and not a "driver". High praise, indeed, from the the former world champion.

Malaysia's Sepang circut is next. Hopefully you'll be watching and
reporting, Erica.


Posted by Jensen Interceptor | March 19, 2007 6:29 PM

Miss America is the terminal title in the Miss America Pageant. Miss USA feeds Miss Universe (read Miss Human Earthling) and is owned by arbiter-of-beauty Donald Trump. Slick reporting.

Posted by pageantfan | March 19, 2007 6:49 PM

Kelly George from Sherwood, Arkansas.
I "sure would" like to put my "arcin' saw" in her!

Posted by james | March 19, 2007 7:00 PM

ECB writes, "shots of identical white [wrong] beauty-queen hopefuls in identical white string bikinis [stating the obvious].

Sounds like you've got a snarky attitude towards the color white. Maybe contestants can wear bikinis matching their skin tone next time. That would be really pornariffic!

Posted by whassup | March 19, 2007 7:22 PM

Miss America is one thing (traditional scholarship pageant where the contestant has a platform, like fighting AIDS or feeding children or whatever) and Miss USA is another (an out-and-out sexy-beauty pageant owned by Trump.)

According to the website, "The Miss America Organization is the leading provider of scholarships for young women in the world. Each year, the organization makes available more than $40 million in cash and tuition scholarship assistance." Miss USA gets cash and prizes, but no scholarships.

So basically, Miss America is Mary Anne and Miss USA is Ginger.

Posted by also | March 19, 2007 7:43 PM

I've got to try to remeber to stand like that next time I'm in my bikini (and heels).

Posted by Amy Kate | March 19, 2007 7:56 PM

So Erica,

Would you feel better if the contestants freelnaced as hookers and advertised in the back of your publication?

Or even better, the could be tricked into the Seattle area from China, Korea, etc.... Forced into prostitution, locked up at the end of the day and promoted for sale in the back of your publication.

So what percentage of those profits paid your salary?

Personally, I'd get off the "women's rights" soapbox and look a little closer at how you make your own money.

Posted by Interesting | March 19, 2007 8:25 PM

@5 "...miss universe (read miss human earthling)" lol.

Posted by ellarosa | March 19, 2007 9:03 PM

Amy Kate-
If your going for that sort of look, try this pose.

Posted by Meow :) | March 19, 2007 9:09 PM

@10 it seems to me the issue is not that The Stranger is anti-porn, or anti-sex work, it just dislikes the sex-negative dailies hypocrisy on the issue.

Posted by vooodooo84 | March 19, 2007 9:21 PM


The Dailies Hypocracy?

Give me a break.

ECB presents herself as a femi-nazi and receives her paycheck from a publication who has acted as a front for a white slavery organization.

Posted by Interesting | March 19, 2007 9:54 PM

Of all the things you can find to criticize the mainstream Seattle press for, *this* is what you come up with? Who cares?

Posted by whocares | March 19, 2007 9:55 PM

Meow #12:

Didn't know the Mistresse had her own blog. Thanks for the link!

Posted by Sean | March 19, 2007 9:56 PM

Accepting advertisements is not the same as "acting as a front".

Posted by Tiz | March 19, 2007 10:06 PM

Erica - if you're going to write about sexual politics, you ought to let your audience know your own personal angle in the bedroom. Are you gay or straight? How many people have you bagged? Any experiences, anecdotes, or relationships that have shaped your politics? What turns you on? Where do you draw the line?

Self-disclosure makes sex columnists like Dan Savage and Mistresse Matisse compelling. Without knowing your story, we have no reason to take you seriously.

Posted by Sean | March 19, 2007 10:12 PM

one more good point from tiz. and how outdated are you to refer to the kind of sex work advertised in the weeklies as "white slavery." yes, ws exists, and is evil, but that's NOT what you're seeing at the back of the paper. geez.

Posted by ellarosa | March 19, 2007 10:16 PM

Remember, it's not a beauty pageant, it's a "scholarship contest".

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 19, 2007 11:39 PM

Miss USA and Miss America are two different things. You've been duped. FTL.

Posted by K | March 20, 2007 1:03 AM

taking ads from the whore house mafia system - profits from misery - the Stranger and the Weekly - well, well, well

bet the whore masters got frequency discounts

of course it is just business so Tim and Dan can buy condos in the upcoming TRUMP TOWER condos - the new Seattle

so Erica, ads for white slavery and mafia network run whore houses, what say?

now getting to real feminism, the true explo
ation of masses of women worldwide

Posted by Grunfral | March 20, 2007 3:55 AM


Go back and read the article linked in post #10.

There's a big difference in willingly be a sex worker and being a forced sex slave.

On that note, Gunrals post addressing femisniism.

Recently Queen Rania of Jordan asked, "what are you doing to propel women in your community?"

It would appear that ECB can't honestly answer that question.

Oh and Tiz... Yes, accepting ad dollars for forced sex slavery
is acting as a front. Being involved in this and never mentioneing it to your readers just hsows what hypocrites staff at The Stranger actually are.

There is such a thing as editorial integrity and this is an Issue that the Stranger has always turned their back to.

The brothels in question advertised in two weekly publications, that's it. So each time one of those girls had to ebdure their experience, there was a 50/50 chance that one of the Strangers readers was involved.

The reason that the brothels did not advertise in the daily papaers is that the dailies won't accept these ad dollars.

Posted by Interesting | March 20, 2007 4:39 AM

Is Knight-Ridder locally owned a family paper? Gee, I never new Tony lived in Seattle. Thanks Erica!

Posted by Whatevs | March 20, 2007 9:09 AM

For some reason, while I respect Erica's feminism very much, every time I read one of these all I can think of are snarky comments to make like "I'd totally bang them," or "got look at those titties."

But it's totally true - I would bang them.

Posted by Sam | March 20, 2007 10:02 AM

'Iím working on a big, wonked-out viaduct feature.'

I think she's coined a new phrase for masturbation.

Posted by Girl Power | March 20, 2007 10:34 AM

these photos are a fine example of Lesbian eye candy

bang them, hell, to be honest, just good old pussy eating, for days and days

what a crop of lovely ladies

Posted by hilda | March 20, 2007 10:36 AM

Hello trolls:

1) By "family newspaper" I mean a newspaper for families, not locally owned by a family.

2) I have no idea how much the Stranger makes from escort ads, but at any rate, we don't pretend they're wholesome fun for the whole family.

3) "White slavery"? I'm sorry, what century are you living in?

Posted by ECB | March 20, 2007 11:24 AM

oh, and Sean? I'm not a sex columnist. I'm not going to disclose anything about my sex life because it's none of your (or anybody's) goddamn business.

Posted by ECB | March 20, 2007 11:41 AM

As a person with eyes and a pulse, I have to say: that's hot!

Posted by S | March 20, 2007 11:52 AM

"identical white beauty queen hopefuls"? What? The woman on the right looks to me to have Asian features.

Posted by him | March 20, 2007 11:56 AM

Thanks for picking up on that. I tried to point it out with comment #7.
I think there are also two black conestants.

Erica seemed to have gotten giddy with the 'identical white' repetition and therefore fudged the facts.

The implication is:
Identical White
Identical White
Identical White...

like the women are Mistress Stormtroopers blindly marching - albeit hotties.
(see? it's egalitarian)

Posted by whassup | March 20, 2007 12:41 PM

@23 i stand corrected. i assumed the slave trade types didn't want to be so high profile as to advertise in a widely distributed paper, and i was wrong. but are not the overwhelming majority of sex ads in the stranger for willing workers? i agree that the paper should make efforts to accept ads only from the latter. erica shows her bias here, which i don't completely share, but her assumption (which was also mine) that she is not profitting from sex slavery does not make her a hypocrite, only naive, like me.

Posted by ellarosa | March 20, 2007 2:35 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).