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.
I'm amazed anyone could be impressed with the dead fish in that night-vision video. Her appalling lack of talent absolutely carries over into the bedroom.
The comments are well documented. My own take on this, is that she is a beautiful, perhaps not very bright, young lady.
Unfortunately, there are animals out there that prey on young women, particularly if they happen to be beautiful, rich and famous. Paparazzi stalk the famous as a matter of course, with impunity. A topless picture of Jennifer Anniston, or a photograph of the Olsen twin as she steps out of the hospital after being treated for an eating disorder, fetches a small fortune for the photographer that followed them for days, weeks and months.
The fact that Paris Hilton sleeps with her boyfriend is of no interest to me. I could care less. That's their business..it sure isn't mine. The fact that this boyfriend filmed their "activities" and that film ends up on the internet, is another matter. She is labeled "trashy", he isn't stigmatized at all.
There are vicious, amoral people out there that prey on kids that are impressionable and have the free-spiritedness of youth. This isn't anything new...Larry Flynt is a prime example. Hugh Heffner, for Heaven's sake, became a cultural icon.
Somehow these kids lack the foresight to realize that having sex with your boyfriend on videotape is more than likely going to end up on a porn site. These kids have the "sex is cool" message hammered into their heads in teen magazines, movies, schools, and even on the evening news, thank you Bill Clinton.
It is the same lack of foresight that prompts a beautiful young 18 yr old to get a tattoo across her lower back or to have her body pierced in various and sundry areas that probably should remain unmentioned. There is no thought to the fact that a tattoo is permanent. There is no thought of "tomorrow".
Animals like the producers of Girls Gone Wild, Paris Hilton's boyfriend, and porn purveyors in general, prey on the gullibility and naivety of the young and that makes this very sad. Paris Hilton may be a very wealthy young lady, but she is no different to other young girls, who ham it up for the guy with the little video camera on the beach in Cozumel during summer break, and are then horrified to find themselves on a porn site or on a soft porn video like Girls Gone Wild.
To me, it is just terribly sad to see a beautiful young girl be labelled as "trash". The "stories" will never go away. Any mention of Paris Hilton, will have the obligatory mention of her "steamy" sex video with her boyfriend, etc. The boyfriend's name won't be mentioned. He's disappeared into oblivion. She's been labelled forever. No-one will remember him. Yes, her behavior certainly helped promote the label, no question about that. I see it, though, in a much larger context, as a cultural problem, not just the problem of the young rich girl that schtups anything that moves.
Anyway, sorry about the rant and the really long post. I feel very strongly about this, as you probably noticed. I'll don my flameproof suit and retreat to a safe distance.
The same people that bought "Pet Rocks"...and still think Micheal Jackson is normal.
What kind of culture? A culture that is now producing a 'reality' show whose contestants vie to be Bianca Jagger's "kept" man.
Whenever you think the bottom feeders have hit a new low, they manage to surprise you.
Now there's a Genie you would never want to put back in the bottle.
I used to love that show.
Well said BUMP!
(and BTW, you're not "in trouble" either)
A legend in her sick liberal pin-head mind. What has she done for America that is good? NSNR
Do you really think she had nothing to do with that video making it onto the internet? She is an attention whore and that video got her in the spotlight.
The Paris Hiltons of the world have always existed and will always exist. Edie Sedgewick was one. So was Gypsy Rose Lee. They cycle through pretty quickly.
Um...no. You're trying to tell me that she had NOOOOOOOOOOOO idea she was being videoed? If she truly didn't know...then you have a point. But I'm sure she knew about it...possibly even spent some time planning it. The "impressionable and easily coerced" argument doesn't work here.
Bottom line...he's a scumbag, and she's a trashy, bigtime, skank.
I don't see how her being in the video, means that she wanted the video to be on the internet.
Didn't say that she had no idea she was being videotaped. I'm sure that she knew. I don't believe, though, that she knew that the videotape would end up on the internet.
Why are we abandoning free market principles in this area? I don't want the government taxing my earnings, and I don't want them telling me I can't spend it on hypersluts.
Way back when, I was taught that your rights ended where mine began and vice versa. But that went the way of the PC crowd and the porn dealers.
Back in the 70's there was an effort, handily won, by the porn industry to put an end to community standards. That industry was steeped in organized crime and thus had the money it took to fight in the courts and win.
They went state by state, purchasing a run down theatre in a "nice" neighborhood and running hard core movies. Of course the intent was to be arrested and brought to court. The appeals ran up to the state supreme courts and because comminity standards could not be defined or quantified, the community lost.
They made fools of morality and ethics and they made a joke of the constitution.
I might add that the Constitution allows for my right to be offended.
Very well stated and I'm in total agreement.
(shaking head)
What is the difference between a videotape and "on the internet"?
The principle is still the same. She knew she was being recorded, with the knowledge that the recording would more than likely be dispersed and sold for profit.
Erm,
If that picture doesn't scream "I'm a spoiled, selfish, souless, vapid, worthless skank"
I don't know what does. ;)
You must not be black.
How does a "run down theatre" exist in a "nice" neighborhood?
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.