printLet’s see, the line-up of sluts and just plain unsavory sorts in today’s WorldNetDaily column is long: Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, “Hue Hefner’s harem of hos,” Judith Regan, Michael Richards, Barack Obama. Even Oprah, “the Queen of Kitsch,” cameos.
As usual, politicians make most ordinary sewer rats pale in comparison. Here’s “Sluts Galore: Scenes From 2006.”
Update: Mike Burns dares me to print his apparently very gritty letter, so here goes:
You have written many a wise and witty column, Ilana. Unfortunately, “Sluts Galore” wasn’t one of them.
In an astoundingly vicious screed, you succumb to a pervasive form of bigotry, one of the last few “acceptable” forms left in America: bigotry against people you consider “ugly.”
Don’t start saying I’m defending the slutty behavior of Brittney Spears et al [That would be a moralizing, Malkin-type, red-herring retort, not one Mercer resorts to]. I don’t approve of that anymore than you. But denigrating her (and by extension, those of similar physiognomy) on the basis of the features she has is just plain mean.
I call ’em as I see ’em. Dare you to print this.–Mike Burns
Mercer Reply:
Although these females are not beautiful, neither are they ugly. Nor were they so termed in my column. Rather, they represent what I call the porn aesthetic the essence of which is not true sensuality or real physical beauty, but something that corresponds to the lowest form of sex. They are pornographic phenoms theirs are faces that men want to see on hookers; on women they have plain crude sex with. They look well-used, cheap, unrefined, and whorish even in their youth. This nuance has evaded Mike’s righteous indignation. In fact, like the best of left-liberal sensitivity enforcers, Mike rails against aesthetic judgment per se. — ILANA
Mercer, you put so much juicy stuff in this one I could go off on a thousand word rant. Don’t worry, I’ll keep it brief, sort of, to spare your other readers.
1) I have always said that nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. In the case of OJ’s book, to be renamed “An Exercise in Bad Taste”, the public’s rejection proved me happily wrong.
2) Despite the oasis of good judgement mentioned above the rest of the contemporary American scene is trash. Trash sells because the buyers are trashy. If we demanded Shakespeare or the Boston Pops that’s what we would get. We demand Hef’s Hos, Paris, Oprah, Obama ad Nauseum so that’s what we get.
3) What can I say about Catherine Deneuve? She needs me badly and the poor girl just doesn’t know it.
Ilana,
Your comments are spot on! This ties in nicely with the article on WSJ Opinion Journal commenting on a new book – “Unprotected”. It is written by a campus M.D. describing the effects of sexual freedom and safe sex on campus – depression and a slow death of our women living a lie! Your article locates the “Mother Ship” of this death – the Media worship of Sex.
They have picked their poison…
I offer a decidely low-brow response, which is a couple of my own personal crushes that I can think of off the top of my head. In the process, I date myself:
1. Meg Ryan – such great eyes. Even now in her 40’s she’s way prettier than the likes of Britney snd Paris.
2. Winona Ryder – forget about her sticky fingers. There’s something about her lean sensuality that makes my heart go BOOM BOOM BOOM.
3. A non-famous woman in my life. Trust me, she’s gorgeous! [We do; you’re a man with good taste, but have you seen what the lovely Meg has done to her face recently?]
I love it when you type dirty.
Shame on you, Ilana Mercer–why, don’t you know that Oprah knows what’s best for you! Zahn too. Let’s not forget Rosie either–she is the greatest person in this world, the smartest too–and Angelina Jolie, why, she will take in every international blooper baby just to create a “rainbow coalition.”
I’m no good.
[A friend had a really good line. He said, “Oprah acts like she’s the pope (God’s spokesman on earth), but she’s really a dope. Hence, Pope-Ruh is what I call her, or sometimes Dope-Ruh.”]
Well-used? We have a more direct term in my part of the country but I don’t want you to wear out your delete key so I won’t use it. Anyway, well used, cheap, unrefined and whorish pretty well cover the subject. As I said before, trash sells because the buyers are trashy.
I don’t like these girls because they don’t have any talent. As far as looks go, well.. hmmm. I think pretty is better that ‘sexy’. I don’t know if both of them are really interchangeable – I think they’re exclusive.
I can’t remember the last time I saw a good looking woman on screen. Maybe Ilana has some women she thinks suit the requirements of beauty. I would be interested in seeing if I agree. [I named a few great beauties–unaltered too–in the column. Another one is Julie Christie. What a kind, intense, and wonderful face that was. Can’t think of any today.]
Is your article a condemnation or just an observation? You’re right that the “old” Britney and current Paris look like hookers (though Paris wouldn’t get a doubletake if she didn’t have money). Men want to see hookers when they look at celebs because they’re already married to a wholesome sensual woman. Married men seek hookers because they can do to hookers what they can’t to do their wives.
I think your “porn aesthetic” has more to do with the way these women behave than with their particular physical features. In my day girls were taught to behave like ladies, not loose women. There is nothing ladylike about Britney Spears or Paris Hilton or any of the other celebrity sluts that populate our media. If the antithesis of “ladylike” is what you have in mind by the porn aesthetic, we’re on the same page. [Not quite; I was referring to their exterior, which happens to mirror their behavior. These “celebs” get selected from a biased sample that complies with the whore look. As annoying as she is, Gwyneth Paltrow, for instance, is more regal in looks]
Proverbs Chapter 31: verses 10-31 has the final word on a woman. These verses should be read, but I will quote just verse 30……… ” Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the the Lord, she shall be praised”. Martin Berrow
Ouch. ‘Whore looks’? *cringe* You’re brutal, Ilana…
I dislike Britney and the others because of their extreme baseness. It’s amazing, but it looks like they really don’t have much going on inside their noggins.
I never found them really attractive, because they were not pretty.
Julie Christie is, though.