ok, so tell me why Paris Hilton is such a bimbo....

yeah , I know this is GQ, not MPSIMS… …but I need the facts, just the facts, ma’am

The news today is overflowing with Paris Hilton’s jail-time saga.
Now, I admit that I’m an old fart nearing retirement, and am totally, like, out of the loop regarding pop culture. All I know about Paris Hilton is that she is the dumbest of all the dumb blond bimbos in the galaxy.

I’ve read the Wikipedia article on her career, which makes her look like pretty much all the other dumb blond bimbos in Hollywood. And I know about her famous video, too.

So will someone please tell me what specifically she has done to earn this title? Why is Miss Hilton more bimbo-ish than say, Miss Brittany Spears? From my limited knowlege, Hilton at least wears panties more frequently.

(Yes, I’m ignorant of cultural icons. But I am smart enough to know that googling “Paris Hilton” is not a good idea on a computer at work…)

With regard to that specific example, Britney Spears first gained recognition as a performer and singer. She appeared on the Mickey Mouse club from the age of 11. She had a highly successful career as a pop singer, with several hit singles and albums. Whatever you might think of the quality of her music, Britney certainly has some degree of actual talent as a performer. Her notoriety is due to her behavior after she became famous.

Hilton, on the other hand, is basically famous for little more than being famous. She initially gained attention as an out-of-control “party girl,” then later because of the notorious sex video. She has shown no particular talent except for attracting publicity. Unlike Britney, her bimboish behavior is the fundamental reason for her fame, rather than being merely a sidelight.

Actually, her name, her money, and the way she spends it contributes to her notarity.

Well, yeah, Paris certainly showed a talent for being born into a well-known family with lots of money, and for spending that money.

People are insane about Paris Hilton for reasons they can’t articulate.

See this thread, which, despite the name is all about Paris, for examples and discussion. Well, “discussion.” :rolleyes:

I don’t think Paris Hilton is more of a bimbo than Britney Spears.

That’s actually the *most * flattering of the pornographic videos of her out there. A number of others have come to light since she failed to pay the rent on her storage building. Now, far be it for me to criticize someone for sharing themselves in whatever manner they choose, but in candid videos, Paris has shown that if it weren’t for her millions, she’d quickly starve to death, even if she availed herself of the world’s oldest profession. Yes, she’s that stupid.

Somehow, despite having been born in a family that was loaded, she couldn’t manage to graduate from a boarding school, prep school, or other educational institution. She got a GED. Now, having a GED doesn’t make you stupid, but come on, with her family’s money, they should have been able to buy her a high school diploma from some place, don’t you think?

To expand on that, Paris and her sister Nikki became “famous” at first by being spotted by the paparazzi at a lot of the hottest parties in town, hanging out with the Beautiful People, and attracting attention to themselves. They were able to be AT the hot parties and next to the Beautiful People for the sole reason of being wealthy, but there’s no sin or crime in that. Then she seemed to decide that this would be her “career”: playing and marketing Paris Hilton, celeb socialite/party girl. No problem with that in itself, either. But most “career socialites” have some sort of “excuse”: they’re “artists” or “art patrons” or “mavens” or “dealmakers” or SOMETHING who just happen to do a lot of socializing and romancing in front of the cameras because they like the attention; part of the problem for Paris is that there’s no sense of there being anything but attention seeking, and if the camera’s on 24/7, you WILL be seen at your worst, too.

JRDelirious writes:

> But most “career socialites” have some sort of “excuse”: they’re “artists” or “art
> patrons” or “mavens” or “dealmakers” or SOMETHING who just happen to do a
> lot of socializing and romancing in front of the cameras because they like the
> attention; part of the problem for Paris is that there’s no sense of there being
> anything but attention seeking, and if the camera’s on 24/7, you WILL be seen
> at your worst, too.

Is it really true that most society types (female or male) have some sort of supposed job like being an art patron or a dealmaker? It’s possible that that’s true, but I don’t know how one would find out. I wonder if in fact there are lots of rich society types who spend most of their lives at parties, etc. with celebrities and other rich people. Perhaps the Hilton sisters just were better at making themselves seen.

Also, in a very clear sense, Paris Hilton has decided that being a childish public celebrity is her job. She’s making money from it too. She gets paid very well for her TV series and other acting jobs, for her public appearances, and for putting her name on some products. She gets a lot of free clothes, jewelry, and other freebies out of them too. Her share of the Hilton fortune isn’t that large. It appear to me that before she turns 30 she will have made more money from being a celebrity than from her inheritance.

One of them grew up to be President. :wink:

The value of Paris’s inheritance has been variously estimated at between $30 and $50 million.

re: “famous for being famous” - ZsaZsa Gabor (and to a lesser extent, her sisters Magda & Eva and mother Jolie) were also “famous for being famous”. ZsaZsa had a lesser film/television career than Eva did, and while Magda did some lounge acts briefly, none of them really “did” anything to warrant the fame - other than their marriages and liaisons.

ZsaZsa is of course Paris Hilton’s step-great-grandmother. Are there any “seasoned” dopers here who could comment on the general 1950s/1960s consensus of ZsaZsa? Was she as reviled as Paris is? My memories of her were her very glamorous appearances on Merv Griffin & other daytime talk shows.

VCNJ~

My memories of Zsa Zsa are mostly from the 70s, but I’ll tell you the difference I see right off: Zsa Zsa had a sense of humor about herself which suggested that she was intelligent enough to know that you show one side of your personality to the camera and leave the rest at home for your private life. I don’t see anything like that in Paris Hilton, and that’s why I expect that she’s got nothing inside her head but a vague idea that she’s better than everyone else.

From what I’ve seen (mostly in wealthy kids while at college, MTV and around Manhattan) is that the offspring of the wealthy pretty much have the opportunity to do whatever they want to do. They don’t need to hit the books so they can get a job at graduation unless they want to. So, not having the normal incentives you or I have, they can go do things that interest them. They can go try to be actors or models. They might patron the arts or go start some business. Or maybe they just wake up at 2 in the afternoon every day and go party each night. If you never have to worry about paying the bills and you have no particular goal or ambition, I would imagine most of your life would be spent indulging in excess, focusing on your self and/or fighting off boredom.

Walloon writes:

> The value of Paris’s inheritance has been variously estimated at between $30
> and $50 million.

That’s what I meant by it being not that large. People have the impression that she’s worth ten times that much, so that she could never make from her being a celebrity as much as she makes from her inheritance. In fact, she makes millions from her TV show and other celebrity work each year, so, as I said, she’ll probably make more money by the time she’s 30 than she’s inherited.

msmith537 writes:

> Or maybe they just wake up at 2 in the afternoon every day and go party each
> night.

Exactly. I suspect that there are a fair number of rich society types who do nothing. Paris Hilton is just one of the few that we’ve heard of.

I don’t think she is a Bimbo… Perhaps she is spoiled because of being in a rich family, but that is not her fault. She is definitely being exploited because of her position.

This is an interesting idea.

I could think of many words to describe Paris Hilton but “exploited” is definitely not one of them.

Zsa Zsa married (1942) and divorced (1946) Conrad Hilton (1887–1979) long before Paris was born (1981).

Yes?

VCNJ~