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.
A horny colture with bad taste in womens faces.
That was also 50 years ago. The print adds are probably OK, and more like the old calendars. However, the TV adds are more unsettling.
And that's why it sounded odd when I looked at it on Dictionary.com. They have nigher and nighest listed.
So do the anti-2A liberals and they can find just as many moral arguments as anyone else is able to.
Indeed. Miss Hilton's face is unrelentingly average. And she badly lacks curve.
The laws against murder and theft are pure morality regulation because they originate with G-d's Commandments, regardless of what a bunch of whacked out proto-Communist 18th century "enlightenment" thinkers came up with through their tortured and silly mental gymnastics.
Actually I was more free back there in the 50's than I am now... I had more liberty as well. And there weren't any Paris Hilton commercials on the TV, nor would any be allowed.
I just don't follow the thought that somehow my liberty and freedom is in jeabordy if I don't allow hard core porn into my living room. Why don't I have the freedom to not have the porn on my tv?
"The thing I find most disturbing about her is the complete vacuousness of her eyes. The are empty of any emotion or thought."
Most people who do drugs have that emotionless look.
Man oh man. I grew up with Sandra Dee, Doris Day etc.
Have times ever changed.
The first four are bans on violations of rights, which is the proper roll for government. The fifth is regulation by the government of behavior on its own property. Age of consent laws involve the protection by the government of people who are unable to safeguard their own rights.
All of these things are quite different than regulating ads for a fast food chain.
With you on that one ... I remember the pre-Paris Hilton days with great nostalgia.
I remember the pre-Clinton days with great nostalgia.
Do you know whether she went to college? Yes, I wonder what she would do without the money. Also, what is she going to do as she ages and her looks start to change. How will she handle that?
You do. It's called the power button.
"Hoe" alert and ping. Send Paris and Paris to Paris, it is the best place for them.
Everytime I see her face in profile it looks like 'Snoopy' to me.
She didn't. She didn't even finish high school but had to get a GED.
Yes, I wonder what she would do without the money.
Spin around a pole and/or provide sexual favors for money.
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.