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.
The constitution provides freedom from religion, therefore your example is an inapproriate analogy.
"As the boy put it: "girls want to be her and guys want to be with her."
Must be fans of herpes.
ping
One with really, really effective antibiotics?
I heard a couple of kids on the radio talking about the new Paris ad. Apparently, she is extremely popular with school aged boys and girls alike. As the boy put it: "girls want to be her and guys want to be with her."
***
Supports the notion that we are failing our young.
I know soft-core porn -- and this ain't it.
Per your last paragraph, that is what they should do if they care about their kids. One has to wonder how much Paris's parents care about her. Poor little rich girl, she has to be outrageous to get attention.
"I looked at the nursing mother and wondered if she was single."
You have quite the sense of humor. Keep it up, we need it.
The sort that is destined to devolve into a culture that worships an average-looking heiress without a shred of talent, whose trademark is her utter stupidity.
The standards for celebrity have evaporated very quickly since Monroe... but really, there's nowhere to go but down when you're dealing with celebrity worship, so this was inevitable. God's out, Paris is in. This is the culture we've created for our children.
Nice work, America.
Ding ding ding You get the award for the post with the most common sense today.
so you can drive without responsibility? One only hopes that if you rammed into someone the favor was returned.
Actually, back then most people took responsibility for their actions, and had the other car fixed if it was their fault. With the advent of mandatory insurance, people drive like flippin' idiots. They are content with the fact that insurance absolves them of any manners, or personal reason to drive safely. Oh yes, body work is triple now then what it should be...because of insurance.
I had no insurance years ago, and you can bet I drove cautiously. I drove like a nun, baby!
No, it doesn't. It provides freedom of religion.
That's the problem with speculation isn't it. If I had a more specific and true example it would make the argument much better.
Funny!
By all standards of decent behavior, this guy is a jackass and is highly offensive.
Should the community have the power to shut him up?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I intrepret this as freedom of and from religion. Placing the ten commandments in court rooms constitutes establishment of religion, and therefore is unconstitutional
The same culture that killed her? (i.e., Kennedy liberalism, Hollyweird, etc.)
You have the freedom to try. Success is not guaranteed
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.