Pulled herself up by her booty straps, more like.
Sailboat
Not to nitpick, but you realize that means a women’s size 11, right?
Actually, you’re right, for some reason I was thinking men’s- what is the men’s equivalent? They still look bigger than average. 
Breaking News!!!
The medical reason why Paris was released early? It was reportedly a chipped tooth.
Women’s 11 = men’s 9.
Yes, just because she made a sex tape with her boyfriend that leaked, that certainly must mean that nothing could possibly embarrass that harlot!
Trust me, if that’s all it takes, I - along with many, many members here- must no longer be embarrassed by anything. Ever. Because gasp we’ve been filmed having sex and. . . we DIDN’T CARE!!
C’mon, that’s not a fair argument at all.
And yeah, she was released for medical reasons. She’s got herpes, though I don’t know if that makes a difference (when her storage locker was auctioned off, included in the stuff were prescriptions for Valtrex and medical write ups talking about the genital herps she has. Like my roommate said, “If there is one person in the world you’d expect to have herpes, it’d be Paris Hilton. And I mean, if she really doesn’t, I’d frankly like to know her secret.”).
Now all you have to do is to convince all the people on this very thread who were using it to mean sexual behavior how stupid they were for using a word differently from the way you approve.
She made TWO sex tapes. The second one was made after the first one leaked. That seems to be a fair indication of Paris’ embarrassment index.
Okay, then it will be your turn to do the same for “beautiful”.
So you, uh, gonna leak that to the internet? 
I’m still recovering from watching “Mr. Hands.” Please, we need time to heal.
Let’s get serious here.
I don’t understand the animus for Paris Hilton. I simply don’t care about her any more than I care about movie stars or other celebrities. But people get enormously and, IMO, totally out of proportion bothered by Paris. They see her through a filter of their animus. Which means they don’t see her at all.
I’m convinced that if you gave that Google page of images to a group of people who had no idea who they were looking at, they would say as a group, That’s hot. Or something like that.
People say that about many celebrity woman who are not as good looking, and I’m defining that as the general scale of what people commonly point to as beauty.
Is Paris Hilton “blonde, bony, and vaguely unwashed”? Yes to the first. No more so than dozens of Hollywood movie stars to the second. And you’re looking at her through a filter of unreality to the third.
I see Paris Hilton one way because I don’t care. I think that gives me some objectivity. Others on this thread - and on the ten zillion other threads that have popped up in the last 24 hours - are simply spewing mindless hate. Forgive me for thinking that they’re something less than objective in their judgments.
I don’t get it. I’m fascinated by it in a sociological fashion and I’m trying to analyze it.
As for slut, go to UrbanDictionary.com. They have pages of definitions of slut as sexual, not trashy. (Except of course for #11, which defines it as Paris Hilton!)
So, anything serious to say on the subject?
I see that there is a serious disconnection going on here. The cite you are providing to prove that Paris isn’t a slut uses Paris as one of the definitions of what a slut is. Is this correct? Or are you pulling my leg? (UrbanDictionary is also blocked at my place of work).
Because, if this is true, then there really isn’t any reason to continue is there?
If your argument is that you’ve spent all this time and energy arguing in favor of Paris Hilton because you don’t care about her, then I think you might want to check on the definition of “indifferent” as well.
DianaG, what’s with the ad hominem attack? Are you deliberately misunderstanding/ignoring points here? He’s positing a principle that seems to be relevant and divisive in this discussion, but has so far gone unacknowledged. In other words, trying to clarify, or at least assert his view of, something that seems to be a more fundamental and important issue than whether Paris Hilton is or is not a slut.
I have heard, or possibly read something from Paris in which she states that she doesn’t really enjoy sex. That would go against all of the assumptions that she sleeps with every guy who crosses her path. And, even if she did, that wouldn’t make her any sluttier than a lot of people in their '20s (and beyond). IMO, “slut” just doesn’t hold that much power anymore. It is so easily thrown about for any woman who enjoys sex and doesn’t hide it. Oh for shame!
So, if it’s O.K. to be a slut and the word doesn’t mean much anymore, why all the teeth gnashing about calling Paris one?
It’s obvious she doesn’t give a flying fuck what people think of her. She likes when people talk about her and her exposed labia. And yet it’s mean and judgemental to call a slut a slut. Go figure.
Do you deny that it’s mean and judgmental to hurl insults?
Yes, it is mean and judgmental to “call a slut a slut.” Moreover, it is stupid, a knee-jerk reaction that says more about the speaker than the object.
“Slut” is a word we all learned in grade school, right around the age when it was routine to use “gay” and “fag” and “pussy” and myriad other childish, idiotic words as insults to hurl at anyone for any reason. Why is “slut” the one we haven’t outgrown? The collective queasiness and hand-wringing over Paris Hilton’s decision to have sex with her boyfriends stinks of Victorian hypocrisy.
Or maybe it’s not because she had sex? Maybe it’s because she did something, you know, weird by allowing herself to be videotaped? Is that what’s got the collective panties in a twist?
No, no, can’t be. Maybe it’s that, after the first time she had a sex tape leak onto the Internet, she allowed another one to be made. Is that it? Is that what’s got everyone so titillated that all they can do is shout out a playground-worthy insult?
Say, how does anyone pretend to know there are only two tapes? Maybe she’s made videotapes every time she’s had sex in her life; maybe she enjoys it; maybe the two that got released were the anomalies, and she keeps the rest of them safely buried in oil-drums in her backyard.
Doesn’t seem likely, of course, but what if that were the case? Would she still be a slut? What if the two tapes had NOT been leaked? Would she still be a slut for making them?
Please elaborate on why she’s a slut; the more I try to understand this, the more genuinely confused I get as to what the actual point is.
Look, you cannot have it both ways. Either it’s fine to be a slut and calling someone a slut isn’t a problem or it isn’t fine to be a slut and calling someone a slut is mean and judgemental.
Also, if you guys want to champion a slut, champion one who is worthy. Like Annie Sprinkle. Now there’s a slut who is proud to be one. Sex on tape? Yeup. Showing off the poontang? Sure enough. She even had a one woman show in which she inserted a speculuum and invited the audience to look at her cervix. When you call her a slut she smiles.
If you want to argue that sluttiness is fine, then don’t have a cow when someone who acts like a slut is called one. Hey, do like Paris-- don’t give a fuck.