Let’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.
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