Being Michael Phelps‘ arm candy is a rough job. Back in December, former Phelps flame Caroline “Caz” Pal claimed she was being “victimized by the media” when topless photos of her surfaced across the internet (including here at SPORTSbyBROOKS).
Now, recent Phelps companion and Miss California 2009 Carrie Prejean, who first made waves with her decidedly traditonal views on marriage, is coming under fire for some naughty photos of her own (after the jump, of course).
(Click for larger photo)
(photo credit: THEDIRTY.COM)
Of course, these aren’t just any naughty photos, and this isn’t just any beauty queen. Ever since she made headlines at the Miss USA contest with her views on “opposite marriage”, Prejean has taken to wearing her religious faith on her sleeve and speaking out against equal marriage rights for homosexual couples. She was recently named spokeswoman for something called the “National Organization for Marriage” and appeared in ads defending “traditional” marriage.
(Prejean wistfully thinking about heterosexual marriage)
With all this in mind, the appearance of topless photos might not go over well with her far-right religious buddies. When asked for a response by the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Prejean predictably cloaked herself in religion and attacked THEDIRTY.COM, the source of the photos, rather than taking responsibility for her actions. She also claims that they are “modeling photos”, despite the photos’ rather obvious self-snapshot quality.
However, even if you don’t particularly care for Prejean or where she stands on issues, you have to admit that her 15 minutes of notoriety are welcome to continue as long as stuff like this keeps leaking out.
4:01 pm on May 5th, 2009
She looks better as a brunette
9:43 pm on May 5th, 2009
Geez, what a tramp… I mean you can ALMOST see something!
(:/end of sarcasm)
12:08 am on May 6th, 2009
This is now the country we live in.
If you stand up for your beliefs and exercise you're inalienable rights to free speech and expression, you are demonized and excoriated.
We will soon become a trans-nationalized/secular progressive country.
We are losing our sovereignty outlined by our Declaration of Independence and shredding our Constitution.
5:04 am on May 6th, 2009
Yes, how dare this chick answer a question honestly. She should have given the PC answer. Can't have Perez Hilton and Pete get their knickers tied up in knots. When will the stoning commence against this heretic of the New Orthodoxy???!!!
1:12 pm on May 6th, 2009
Hey RoB68. Separation of church and state means that you have the right to practice your religion as you see fit. Not to shove it down my throat when I don't believe in your book written by shepherds 2,000 years ago. Where in the constitution do you see the right to have a theocracy?
1:22 pm on May 6th, 2009
Boyd. Oh, Boyd. Come on now. Are you really telling him that he has no right to express his opinion or that she has no riht to expores hers? Yeah, you sit there and talk like you know something about government and separation of church and state, and then make no sense at all about saying we don't have the right to speak our mind if we want to. Get a clue.
1:42 pm on May 6th, 2009
Brooks
you don't like that she attacks "the dirty" kinda the same way this site takes the "left" view and attacks her for stating an opinion, and you never once attacked hilton for calling her both the b and c words. I love most of your choices in pretty girls but you're better off staying away from politics. just keep the girls coming.
3:54 pm on May 6th, 2009
The right to free speech is against government oppression of such speech. It is not the right to be free from ridicule by members of society who find your speech offensive. Please take a constitutional law class.
7:19 pm on May 6th, 2009
I dont recall hearing her mentioning religion, just her belief in a 2 gender marriage. Good for her. A persons gotta relalize if you are going to ask for someones opinion and you may not be prepared for, or like the answer, then DON'T ASK THE FLIPPEN QUESTION!
1:48 am on May 7th, 2009
Thank you Eric. You beat me to the punch.
This issue has nothing to do with a "theocratic state", this has everything to do with the right of free speech.
I'm in no way an overt or even subvert religious person by any stretch of the imagination and to imply that I am is ignorant.
I am though and in a big way completely for the inherent right to my freedom of speech and personal expression.
All this woman did what give an honest answer to a loaded and calculated question. That is why I chose and choose to defend her.
Since when in the history of this great country and where is it written that you have to apolgize for saying what you believe.
The fact that she is being ostracized by the "progressive" media is just abhorrent. The media is suppose to be where they are to inform us and let us decide. Not to tell us what their opinion of the news is.
And…….
BoQ-"A persons gotta relalize if you are going to ask for someones opinion and you may not be prepared for, or like the answer, then DON'T ASK THE FLIPPEN QUESTION!"
Spot-on dude.
And……
Sam-" love most of your choices in pretty girls but you're better off staying away from politics. just keep the girls coming."
Agreed 1000%.
9:33 am on May 7th, 2009
RoB68 is right. This is a free speech issue. It is also an issue of free speech being guaranteed to all of us regardless of what clothes or lack of clothes we are wearing. I don't see a clause in the first amendment denying our free speech based on clothing or anything else.
Also at play here is the gay community trying to legitimize their behavior by calling those whose disagree with them as bigots. Most Americans would agree that gays can have civil unions that would allow "rights" that they feel are being denied. They are not content with civil union. No, they continue to demand marriage because it further legitimizes their behavior. Civil unions do not legitimize anything.
By the way, the separation of church and state issue is not part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights
10:48 am on May 7th, 2009
This just goes to show you how fine that line is between beauty pageant queen and sleaze magazine soft porn. Truth
5:00 pm on May 7th, 2009
I don't care why she did it. I don't care whether or not there is some larger message. I just like her ass. I think she is yummy and I want to see more of her.
11:32 am on May 9th, 2009
she's a bigot and a hippocrite with her soft porn pics so she fits in perfectly with social conservatives.
good on her for answering the question honestly, and good for so many people speaking their minds regarding her backward prejudice.
11:34 am on May 9th, 2009
Still it should be noted she's no worse than the majority o californians who just a few months ago confirmed the right to discriminate based on their fairy tale books.
4:37 am on May 10th, 2009
alright first of all
big f****n deal.jesus internet is full of chicks with half naked pics.
4:57 pm on May 10th, 2009
Why is this even a story? It's the opinion of a beauty pageant contestant. Honestly, what she said was not any more offensive that 90% of the stuff on Perez Hilton's website. Seriously, does that guy draw a cock in someones mouth on EVERY picture he posts? She has a right to her opinion the same way Perez has a right to his, and the same way some people can believe in fairy tails….like the big bang theory & books written by shepherds! :-) Can we get back to pictures of hot chics and sports now? If I wanted politics, I'd be reading Fox or CNN or the National Enquirer. They are all the same, right?
4:56 pm on May 11th, 2009
Everybody relax…Look….TITS !!!