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.
Oh, back in my day we would call her a 'slut'. Guess the word feminist sure has changed. =)
any ideas?
Hmmmm ... you might be on to something there.
I would say more than that. The kind that just did not care. What a waste.
Oh you can honey. Just be prepared for daily 'Silkwood-type' showers, that's all.
Nah I'd make her get a test first.
Just because someone is a cultural icon doesn't mean they've been embraced. The celbrity that functions by being completely worthless and the constant target of derision has been around for a long time, icons but not embraced.
That's hot. ;o)
You may be right, but I have a feeling she's got more above the neckline than below it. (not that it would be hard with her frame)
Here's my reasoning:
1. She doesn't need to make money, but is doing that very successfully right now.
2. She could have stepped into her father's business and always been seen as the 'heiress' - she might yet choose to do that, but I doubt it.
3. She can cook. As silly as that sounds it's not something a pampered princess would have the discipline nor desire to learn. Sure it's not rocket science but it's something other than just 'see how I spend my money'.
4. Maintaining her figure is undoubtably costly, but that too requires some discipline when you are backed by nearly unlimited cash to eat what you want.
Those things lead me to believe that she's using what ever she can to gain her own wealth quickly. The video's the silly tv shows, the Carl's Jr. Ad, etc... it's all for the publicity and to separate herself from the 'Hilton heiress' title.
Of course, she might just be a stupid spoiled whore.
A slutty culture. One that includes slutty Democrats and slutty Republicans.
So he wants government regulating morality???Typically the cultural collectivists will cop out and say "society" should regulate the culture. They forget to mention that society armed with the power of compulsion has a name: "government".
Given the choice between Paris Hilton and Donald Wildmon, I'll take Paris any day. She compels no one.
-Eric
You can die of hanging or you can die of syphilis ... depending on whether you embrace Paris's principles, or Paris herself.
I don't get the Paris thing. She has a body that recalls Twiggy and her face isn't that gorgeous. But her being big doesn't mean the end is nigh either.
Leni
Libertarians live in a dream world where externalities do not exist. A society that fails to promote virtue is a society that promotes immorality. Amoralism caters to, as Shapiro says, "the lowest common denominator."
Starting in the 1920s, the feminist movement has had one goal: to decouple sexual activity from reproduction and marriage.
In other words, to create an atmosphere where hyperslutdom is the norm.
..What kind of culture would embrace Paris Hilton...
The same that embraces Tommy Hilfinger
*DingDingDIng* we have a winnah!...
Thank you for spelling the word "nigh" properly and using it in its proper context.
Like anyone else, she can look good, and she can look bad. Airbrushing helps immensely. :)
It's not about her looks, per se. It's about the fame. There are dozens of girls walking down the street who are better looking than Britney or Paris, but if you ask many regular guys, they'll say, "Yeah, but it's **Britney**! (Or it's **Paris**)"
The most atttractive ones are the ones you know you can't have.
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.