Best I could do:
Posted on 06/01/2005 9:27:48 AM PDT by UltraConservative
Paris Hilton is at it again. The 24-year-old hotel heiress is the feature attraction in Carl's Jr.'s new Spicy Burger ad campaign, aimed at the horny male TV-watching population. Scantily clad in a one-piece leather outfit plunging down to below her navel, Hilton struts into an empty warehouse, licks her finger, then suds up herself and a Bentley automobile, as a stripper-styled "I Love Paris" rendition slowly plays in the background. At the end of the spot, Hilton bites the burger and sucks her finger clean. The commercial closes with Hilton's tagline flashing across the screen: "That's Hot."
The spot is pure, soft-core pornography, beginning to end. The website for the commercial, spicyparis.com, touts the "too-hot-for-TV spot." And while Carl's Jr. CEO Andy Puzder defends the ad as "a beautiful model in a swimsuit washing a car," it is clearly designed to capitalize on Hilton's target audience -- porn watchers.
As I explain in my upcoming book, "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future," the plain truth of the situation is that Paris Hilton would be a relative nobody today were she not incredibly rich and profligate with her favors. Hilton made perhaps the most infamous porn video outside of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee. That hard-core work, starring then-boyfriend Rick Solomon, brought her international fame. At least nine other sex tapes are said to be floating around somewhere, including a lesbian sex tape with Playboy playmate Nicole Lenz. The sexually uninhibited Hilton became a target for Larry Flynt of Hustler fame, who released pictures of Hilton sharing some lesbian tongue at a nightclub. As Conan O'Brien observed, "Hustler magazine announced that it will feature photos of Paris Hilton making out with another woman, while the woman fondles Paris' breasts. So the search continues for a photo of Paris Hilton not having sex."
Because of her pornographic involvement, Hilton has grabbed an endorsement deal as the Guess? Jeans girl (the New York Observer reported that "her bad-girl image jibes with the clothing company's porn-lite ad campaigns"), endless tabloid headlines, and now, this deal with Carl's Jr. As Brad Haley, marketing chief for Carl's Jr., stated, "Paris was chosen to star in the ad because she is an intriguing cultural icon and the 'it girl' of the moment."
Here's the big question: How, as a society, did we allow Paris Hilton to become a cultural icon? Clearly, no one likes her very much. Liberals and conservatives alike agree that she is vacuous and silly. Media commentators all over the map label her "spoiled" and "stupid." Maureen Dowd, hardly a cultural right-winger, lumps Hilton together with "vacuous, slutty girls on TV sitcoms."
No, Hilton is today's "it girl" for one reason and one reason alone: Individual scorn, though that opinion may be shared by a vast majority, does not control the river of a culture. It is those who push the envelope who do. Over the past few decades, we have implemented a "live and let live" culture whereby abhorrence for immorality is seen as illegitimate if promoted through governmental means. Instead, we are supposed to let our culture be poisoned slowly -- and if we protest, we are told that as long as we turn off our own TV's, all will be well.
That's why it should come as no surprise that Hilton's spicy ad has ardent defenders, who proclaim that just because you don't like pornography doesn't mean that it can't make someone else very happy. One man's pornography is another man's means to happiness. And so Keith Olbermann of MSNBC ripped the ad's detractors: "I'm reminded tonight of H.L. Mencken's definition of Puritanism: the haunting fear someone somewhere may be happy. Is that at the bottom line here, I mean, that the people who have to protest crap like this ad -- and it's crap -- but are they afraid it will corrupt somebody, or are they afraid somebody will enjoy it?" Paul Begala labeled the offended "the sanctimonious Republican right." And Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times simultaneously condemned the commercial as "a new high (or low) in television crassness" and slammed the ad's opponents as members of the "manufactured outrage industry."
This is the new pattern: individual condemnation and societal acceptance. The moral among us have been forced into tolerance of immorality. Paris Hilton is a cultural icon because of it. As long as the moral majority is impotent, the lowest common denominator will continue to define us.
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
My heart is broken!!!
Oops, didn't mean to make the font that big.
Her face is not that great in that pic. Lips look strange.
That's bull... You mean my option is to turn it off? Why... where is my freedom to watch my tv without porn? You can have your subscription channels, but on my public channels, I should have the absolute freedom to watch without being offensive.
But there's a difference between murder and killing. Murder is unjustified killing, the justification for self defense comes from the attackers willingness to violate someone elses right to life.
Statutory rape, on the other hand is a morals based law, and look at how well defined it is. I think here in MN the age of consent is 16, unless the other person is over 19, then it's a sliding scale. If there were a basis for the law in facts, every jurisdiction could come up with a hard and fast rule, i.e. Age of consent is 18 because a person is unable to comprehend enough to consent before that time (Or some justification). Likewise, drug laws are a sliding scale nationwide, with a possession of a small amount in one location being a 'catch and release' offense, and in other locations it may be grounds for some amount of jail time, or a fine.
You know, if she wore a veil over her nose and mouth she wouldn't look half bad.
Hmmm..... Having seen her work on the video making its rounds on the internet, I think her lips are pretty good....
Or the unlimited cash necessary to put magical weight loss powder up your nose.
Well, that is sad. To have all of that money and not to take advantage of the opportunities that it provides her for education and to help others. She is never going to find what she is looking for going on as she has been doing.
One of the reason why I like South Park is that it is a big fu to all of the nanny staters..
Because the libertines know that they aren't going to stop marketing porn to your kids until you send the stormtroopers for them.
That is why it is always necessary to be more tolerant and more concerned for your freedoms: To protect their license.
Porn has always been perfectly accessible for adults, but that is not enough for them. Little Johnny isn't likely to toddle down the the dirty shop in a bad neighborhood, it has to be beamed into your living room to reach him.
Or change the channel. Or call the network and complain. Or call the fast food chain in question and complain.
on my public channels, I should have the absolute freedom to watch without being offensive.
The FCC was originally founded to make sure that different channels would not bleed over into one another's tranmissions. It had no power to control content. That should be left to the viewing public. We have many, many ways to regulate what is shown on even the public channels without ever having to resort to government regulation.
There is no constitutional right to be not offened...
The author has obviously never viewed soft core pornography.
Best I could do:
Eh....too tan and too skinny.
Also god knows what kind of diseases she has...
Well, what kind of women are you into? :-)
On a handful of issues I am not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.