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.
Sorry, but my newpaper tv listing said Bianca was the woman involved. Who knows? Who cares?
Idiocy. By this "reasoning", a society that fails to provide welfare (in whatever amount its recipients care to demand) promotes destitution.
e.g. you didn't have to share a drinking fountain with them coloreds.
I used Amos and Andy as extreme example of censurship on the grounds of political correctness, but then to allow pornography as acceptable. I find Amos and Andy no more offensive than say Dukes of Hazzard or The Andy Griffith Show. I could give you so many more examples of stereotypical satire.
The Smothers Brothers show back in the day is a great example of extreme political satire programming that would never make it to a major network today.
No, I'm from the north... we shared drinking fountains. I never said life was perfect in the 50's, I said I had more liberties and that is true.
Certain classes of people did have more power in the 50s. Many segments of the population had drastically less liberties in the 1950s than they do now.
We have become more socialistic which has eroded some liberties that employers enjoyed, but that has nothing to do with the striking down of decency laws.
They are all morality based. All you are doing is arguing that a libertarian morals set should be used as a base, instead of Judeo-Christian morals. A valid POV, but a far cry from wanting the Government out of moral-enforcement.
So you believe you have an inherent right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, not to be offended?
Well, then, since you obviously are offended, your rights have been upheld.
You don't think that disallowing a community to decide what is decent and what is not isn't an erosion of liberty?
so you can drive without responsibility? One only hopes that if you rammed into someone the favor was returned.
The "right to be offended" is what led to political correctness.
How do you figure you could drive without responsibility? YOU were responsible... YOU could choose how you accepted that responsibility. Insure yourself, or pay yourself.
My car insurance on MY decision was $98/yr. and reduced each year with a clean driving record. The year car insurance became mandatory, my premium increased to over $500 per year and increased each year after... clean driving record or not.
Please, you don't REALLY think mandatory insurance is a good thing? Unless of course, you own an insurance brokerage.
Depends on how you look at it. Do you believe that the liberties of the community outweigh the liberties of the individual?
BTW, this is sort of a red herring. As a previous poster has pointed out, the idea that communities are disallowed from deciding what is decent is dubious.
I would think it was more the "right not to be offended" is what led to political correctness.
You might have been able to self insure, but a sizable segment of the population could not. When they hit someone, there was no way to collect the funds.
I agree that auto insurance companies are in bed with law enforcement and its a racket, but the requirement for automobile insurance is not a bad concept.
Auto insurance is currently a scam just as much as health insurance companies are running a scam. However, if you ram into me and you have no insurance then I am screwed. Which is always a possibility in Cali with all the uninsured illegal immigrants driving around.
I believe that the liberties of the individual must be considered by the community. Ultimately, however the liberties of the community should prevail.
For instance, I would consider the argument by an individual that he or she finds the 10 Commandments in a courtroom to be offensive. However, when the community is not offended then the community should prevail. And this is because, suppose I, as an individual is offended by the removal of above, but another individual is offended by the addition of the above. Whose offense should be considered? Do we not have equal rights? If so, whose rights should prevail?
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.