Maybe I’m jaded by years of internet porn, and anything less hard than a hermaphrodite sheep inserting anal beads into a wookiee dressed like a smurf doesn’t even register anymore, but shouldn’t at least a nipple be exposed before something is labeled porn? Am I alone in this?
And what are the chances Carl’s Jr is paying this woman for all this delicious free publicity? I never would seen the commerical if she hadn’t made a fuss.
It plays here regularly. I saw it the first time with the sound off, and wondered what she was selling. Then I saw the burger. Cute ad. Not porn-y at all.
Now, if she started licking the BBQ sauce off the hood of the car…
It’s like they were making a commercial about Paris Hilton, then at the end were like, “Oh yeah, we’re supposed to be advertising the burger- better throw in a few seconds of that!”
porneia = of or having to do with whores graphos = writing, drawing or recording
My take? NOT softcore porn itself by the modern definition in any way, perhaps except for the burger. It does however play on a lot of the clichés of sexploitation media, such as the car washing, the suds, the hosing down, etc.
And Ms. Hilton could get some pointers from Tawny Kitaen as to how you wiggle on the bonnet of a luxury car.
It seems pretty out there for a commercial. Having said that, saying it’s soft core porn is just showing one’s ignorance of what porn is like these days.
And Carl’s Jr could hire ten Paris Hiltons shudder and it still wouldn’t elevate any of their ‘culinary’ offerings to a level greater than trash.
As for the commercial, Mr. Rilch saw it last night during A.I., and when the “that’s hot” text appeared on the screen, remarked, “Only thing is, she is so not hot.”
