Published: May 16, 2009 07:00 pm         

Stephanie Salter: Lost in a universe of denial, delusion and chicken cutlets

Although contestants are discouraged from altering their own natural beauty, no restrictions are placed on cosmetic surgery; it is impossible to enforce such a rule. In fact, since 1990 the organization has allowed padding in an effort to discourage participants from permanently altering their bodies for the competition.

— from FAQs about Miss USA/Miss Universe



Sometimes the young ones ask me, “Why did you become a feminist? Why are you still one?”

I tell them about the time (1969), the place (Indiana) and the movement (women’s liberation) that put me on the path. If I am fortunate, I can hand them some current visual aid to answer the second question. Say, the transcript of a CBS television interview with a Miss California pageant official.

Anti-Assumption Alert!

This is not about the reigning Miss California’s pronouncements on same-sex marriage. This is not about her semi-nude photographs, her decision not to mention those photos to pageant organizers, or her explanation for some of the racier shots: “It was a windy day.”

This is not even about the irony of a person such as Donald Trump delivering the ultimate judgment on the good taste and propriety of said photographs.

What this is about is a May 1 conversation between “The Early Show” co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez and Miss California pageant co-director Keith Lewis. The topic? The organization’s financial assistance for breast enhancement surgery for 21-year-old Carrie Prejean. Rodriguez had just asked why.

LEWIS: Well, you know, first off, it’s not something we endorse, nor is it something that we suggest. But when we meet with the titleholder when she’s crowned Miss California, we put to her a litany of questions about how she feels about herself, what she feels she needs to work on, what she may need to change, what is good, what is not good. We want to put her in the best possible confidence in order to present herself in the best possible light on a national stage.

RODRIGUEZ: Why is the best possible confidence involve getting breast implants? Why does that improve her odds of winning? Why in that meeting didn’t you discourage her from going that route, rather than help her to pay for breast implants?

LEWIS: Well, we would never encourage her to go that route, but —

RODRIGUEZ: But why not discourage her?

LEWIS: — it’s a personal choice. Well, I think that it’s about how a woman feels about herself. In terms of, for me, it’s not a personal choice that I would recommend. But at the same time, I know so many women that have done the procedure and feel better about themselves and the way they present themselves. And I think that’s the question, is whether or not, when you’re looking at that procedure as an option, am I going to feel better about myself? It’s not about one night. It isn’t about one night of competition. And doing a procedure like that for one night of competition would be foolish, but —

RODRIGUEZ: But don’t the judges look at proportion when they’re judging the swimsuits? Wouldn’t she have a better chance of winning if she were more proportioned?

LEWIS: Well, of course she does. But there’s plenty of ways of getting more proportion without doing breast implants.

RODRIGUEZ: Well, but if —

LEWIS: Many of the girls use chicken cutlets.

RODRIGUEZ: — if you have a flat chest, what are you supposed to do?

LEWIS: You use chicken cutlets. You use tape. You use anything that you can to enhance the line. There’s a lot of tricks of the trade. It’s just a matter of whether or not you want to go to that next level.

RODRIGUEZ: I wonder if you should change the rules and maybe not judge it so much on proportion.

LEWIS: Well, it’s a beauty pageant, and the swimsuit competition is part of that beauty pageant. So, I agree with you, I think that we have to look at the way that we perceive real women and whether that needs to be changed in the media. But you see it in television. You see it in advertising. It may be part of this pageantry, as well. But I think it’s prevailing to everywhere, not just in one area.

Rodriguez agreed, called the prevalence “unfortunate” and closed the interview.

As many of us were relieved to learn when we went looking for answers after the interview, Lewis was not referring to literal boneless, skinless poultry as stuffing for a bikini top. “Chicken cutlets” is the show biz term for flesh-colored silicone brassiere inserts that push a woman’s (or teenager’s) breasts in, up and forward.

Then again, is there really any difference?

If it took raw chicken cutlets in her bra to make a beauty contestant feel “better” about herself, who believes there would not be a run on the Tyson case in every supermarket?

If a lovely, shapely 21-year-old like Prejean needs to have her breasts slit open and “enhanced” with pouches of saline or silicone gel to be “put in the best possible confidence,” who is to condemn skinned poultry?

Woven into Lewis’ careful, seemingly sensitive answers is classic denial and delusion about who is responsible for “the way that we perceive real women” in society. Hey, we don’t encourage it, but we’ll pay for it if that’s her choice. It’s the same logic that allows civilized societies to pretend most prostitutes enjoy selling their bodies to strangers.

Why do “so many women” feel better about themselves after “the procedure” of breast enlargement? At what age did they begin to view their small or average-sized breasts as “not good,” things in need of change? Who helps perpetuate such ideas?

If Miss USA/Miss Universe officials really wanted to discourage young, healthy females from “altering their own natural beauty,” why did they reinforce the bigger-is-better lie almost 20 years ago and encourage deceptive, padded tricks of the trade?

Why now don’t they at least drop the euphemisms — “enhance the line” — and call it like it is? Tape, chicken cutlets or slice-and-stuff, the tricks are meant to make breasts appear (or become) grapefruit-big and round, and hung high — a state of, um, proportion almost no female on Earth gets from nature.

Significantly, two Miss USA/Miss Universe rules have remained sacrosanct through the decades and myriad social movements. The age window for vying for the crown is still quite narrow — 18 to 27. Then the party’s over.

And the “Miss” part is etched in stone. According to the organization’s FAQs, “contestants may not be married or pregnant. They must not have ever been married, not had a marriage annulled nor given birth to a child.”

Find me a contest for men that is confined to males in the prime of their child-producing years but which prohibits an entrant from ever having fathered a child (or adopted one, which Miss Indiana USA also forbids) and bars him from competing if he has now, or ever did have, a wife.

While you’re at it, find me a contest in which healthy young men are not encouraged to get key parts of their bodies sliced opened and “enhanced” with gel packs, but will not have to pay for such surgery if it makes them feel better about themselves to present in “the best possible light on a national stage.”

So there you have it, young ones. Now you know. Maybe next time we can talk about the Equal Rights Amendment.

Stephanie Salter can be reached at (812) 231-4229 or stephanie.salter@tribstar.com