I decided to test out my new DSL connection by searching for the infamous Paris Hilton sex video…and while I found LOTS of nice porn, I don’t think any of them are the real deal.
Obviously, I don’t want anyone to provide a direct link or something that’s too specifically against the rules, but can I get a few hints (items in the background, day/night, animals involved, etc.) so I’ll know when I’ve got the genuine article? Unfortunately I don’t even know what Paris looks like with her clothes on…
Ack! Gasp! Not work safe! I’d like to point out that in at least one of those pictures, you can quite clearly see that Paris goes commando. Very commando, if you catch my drift.
Ummm…not that I’ve seen the video or anything…but a friend told me about it…
Anyway the complete video is titled “1 Night in Paris” and runs about an hour long. It has Rick Salomon, who is perhaps the sleaziest human on Earth, introducing the different segments. All of the sex scenes appear to have been taped in a hotel suite (presumedly a Hilton). The first is a twenty minute “night vision” sequence which starts with Salomon masturbating himself, then Salomon and Hilton having intercourse in about six different poistions, and ends with Hilton performing oral sex on Salomon. Excerpts from this segment were the ones used in the preview video, but in the final product they have been re-filtered and are gray instead of that bizaare green tint. The remaining segments were taped in normal indoor lighting and are regular colors. The next segment is two minutes of Hilton taping topless in her bathroom. Then there’s about three minutes of Salomon taping Hilton in the bathroom. She’s wearing a black bra, panties, and stockings and he’s trying to convince her to strip for the camera. He apparently has some success because the next segment is her sitting in a chair with her panties off (she keeps the bra on). Salomon eventually sets the camera down on a table and enters the picture. He performs oral sex on Hilton for about twenty minutes, first in the chair and then in bed, followed by three minutes of intercourse (he does her from behind) but you can’t see any graphic details because of the camera angle. The final segment is about twelve minutes long and is Hilton wearing a pair of green thong panties while performing oral sex on Salomon. The first minute or so is poorly shot because Salomon is holding the camera; he then puts it down on a table. The end of the tape is about a minute of Salomon and Hilton in some nightclub followed by a final Salomon segment.
I’ve disabled the link, because it’s not “safe for the workplace.” Our standard is that if you click on a link, and your boss or coworker walks by, they shouldn’t shout “OHMIGOD” or anything equivalent. This link did NOT meet that standard.
Oh, and zut, when you want to point out that a link isn’t workplace safe, don’t repeat the link, OK? … just means I gotta disable it in two places, not one.
So, I hit the link, just to see how not-safe-for-work it really was - er, does anybody else think the picture in question is a little… odd? A little, er, abnormally baboon-like in the genital area? Maybe it’s the angle, or the stubble, but I couldn’t quite parse that into what I was expecting to see.
Heh. I swear I wasn’t thinking straight. Would it help if I claimed that the sight of so much Paris was making me woozy, and prone to errors in judgment?
Off or not, by the twenty minute mark I’d have been looking for the TV remote to see if I could get it on “mute”. Either that or “Look, over there!” to distract him and get on with it. Twenty minutes subjectively is years!
Good God, I hope not! My mouth is numb after about five, if they ain’t done by then then I’m guessing at what I’m doing down there, cause I can’t feel a damn thing with my tongue anymore.
Granted, my sample size is but a handful, but none of them took twenty minutes of oral to get off, I can assure you of that. Less than ten minutes from aroused to OH MY GOD.
If it takes you twenty minutes…I’m sorry. But if you can find a partner willing to put in the time and effort for that long, then I guess it doesn’t matter.
Well I found it, the first half at least. Finagle was right, it was hardly worth the effort. I guess it’s interesting from a pop culture perspective, kinda like The Blair Witch Project.
The fake clips were a nice add to my collection, though.
Generaly speaking, yes. We’re not against links to potentially objectionable material, we just know that we have lots of folks reading at work, and we don’t want any direct links to anything that a boss might not understand. The non-clickable link means that the person isn’t going to accidentally click on it, it takes some effort. Similarly, we allow indirect links – a sort of “second click” rule. The theory is that you might accidentally click on something (or even do it out of curiousity), and we want to protect against that; a second link means you know what you’re doing (so to speak.)
Some links will never be permitted, whether direct or indirect, such as links to pyramid-schemes, get-rich-quick plans, etc.
Yeah, OK, I’ll buy that one. (Hey, seriously, no biggie, 'twas a minor nuisance because the dog had his nose on the keyboard to tell me it was walk time, and I had to de-activate yet one more link.)
