June 9, 2008, - 12:27 pm

It’s Hard Out There for a (Pseudo) Ho: Sarah Jessica Parker’s Guide to Ethics

By Debbie Schlussel
As I suspected would happen, the National Female IQ Test a/k/a “Sex and the City,” was a one-weekend wonder, as it sunk to fourth place this past weekend.
Still, it’s fun to watch the desperate Sarah Jessica Parker flailing around promoting this movie. And now she’s instructing the world on her own special brand of “ethics.” The woman who built her career on a show (and now, movie) glorifying high-style ho-dom, without batting an eyelash, has an interesting sense of what is ethical and what isn’t.
It seems Parker is upset that a gazillion-dollar designer gown she wore to the “Hags and the City” premiere was once worn by equally ho-ish but far more attractive Lindsay Lohan, in a fashion mag back in December and was also worn by an attractive heiress at a charity event. And now the world is over:


Nothing As “Unethical” As This:

The World According to Sarah Jess-Equine Parker

What they did was so short-sighted. It’s just unethical and disappointing that they would allow the dress to be worn again.

To sum up: Teaching the world’s 12-year-old girls about giving oral sex and the glories of sleeping around, on her syndicated SATC TV show–not “unethical and disappointing” or “short-sighted.” Two far more beautiful women wearing the same dress some time ago–completely “unethical and disappointing,” not to mention “short-sighted.”
Glad this one-note, over-rated movie starlet has her priorities straight.
As a friend of mine–a former Muslim who converted to Catholicism–writes:

“Unethical”..?! Humans starving, genocide, terrorism,and allowing illegal immigrants to stay is unethical. “Disappointing” is that people actually care about what this hag has to say. Silly that she gets that much attention because her whole act is about “putting out” and being a psuedo-whore.

As you’ll recall, back in late 2000, Parker told the Washington Post that she was worried about the Bush Presidency because her poor Ohio relatives on welfare would have their services cut. Not that she’d ever give her relatives a dime of her estimated $100 million empire (endorsement deals, perfume line, acting gig and syndication royalties, clothing line). But “Oh, No!” if the taxpayers stop funding them.
Yet more reinforcement of why Maxim Magazine picked SJP as its 2007 Unsexiest Woman Alive.


Two-fer: Unsexiest AND Official “Ethics” Scholar

11 Responses

Well Debbie what did you expect. After the sexual revolution, immorality is a badge of honor and only backward people would dare deny them their right to get bent, spread disease, kill babies, lower their self-esteem, etc. But horror of all horrors wear something used. I am sure her poor relatives have never donned a hand me down.
Of course, she doesn’t want to help her relatives get off of welfare. As long as they are on welfare, they are slaves to the federal government and must vote for the party that provides for them in exchange for their servitude. As a member of the hollywood elite, she knows that she and all her virtous stars and starlets control this morally deprived party. They not the party leaders dictate what is important and politically correct in this country. If her relatives were to be weaned from the welfare teat, they might gain some sense of pride and accomplishment from fending for themselves and realize that the “evil” businessman is not out to get them. They might actually think for themselves instead of doing what Hollywood says they should do.

Ford Jones on June 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm

I hadn’t checked until I read this, but my prediction did indeed come true about Skanks in the City. As I said last week, it would sell great for one week then slide quickly.
It was always hyped much bigger than it really was.
Maybe is Parker had spent less time worrying about a dumb dress and worked out more for her race she might have won the Triple Crown this weekend.
Just say Nayyyyyyyy to SJP.

Jeff_W on June 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm

The line should read “Maybe if Parker…..”

Jeff_W on June 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm

She is also a promoter of Steve and Barry’s. I never shopped there before, and it looks like I won’t now since her hag ass face is all over them.

Squirrel3D on June 9, 2008 at 4:55 pm

No wonder this once, great country is going down in flames. Disgusting! I am so concerned about what my children will have to live in when they start having kids! It infuriates me that people like her have no clue what the real issues are, like fighting islamonazism as just ONE issue! Hello?
Oh, no, all she cares about is creating the next perfume!
Can’t enjoy that perfume, Jessie, if your head is cut off!

NC on June 9, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Why is this even an issue? So two people wear the same dress, so what? They should feel lucky they can afford it. There are MUCH bigger issues going on.

mindy1 on June 9, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Debbie, great coverage as always… thanks for the nod!

EnigmaticEntropy7 on June 9, 2008 at 9:50 pm

When SJP made these comments about Bush in 2000, readers wrote in to People Magazine blasting her. Another letter, written by someone who claimed to be a friend of Parker’s, said that she has actually quietly given money over the years to her less-fortunate relatives. Be that as it may, I still find it comical that a woman who admittedly owns hundreds and hundreds of pairs of shoes would criticize the president-elect for lack of compassion for hte poor.
Point is, though, is that our government pays for many things it shouldn’t, and it can’t keep supporting people who seemingly make a career living off welfare. In the past, my family and I have received food stamps, etc., as I’ve tried to get back on my feet despite the horrific economy of our state. It’s my hope someday that I can earn enough money not only to provide a comfortable but modest lifestyle for my family, but also to be able to help out the less fortunate.
No, I haven’t seen Sex and the City and have no plans to. Lost interest in SJP after she talked of trying to teach her young son to say “President Kerry”.

richardzowie on June 10, 2008 at 12:49 pm

I guess “Sex in the City” means herpes if you referring to New York.

Burt on June 10, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Sarah Jessica Parker is one of the most unattractive, unsexy women in Hollywood. As a matter of fact none of the 4 women on SATC are good looking.
Politics aside if you want 4 sexy women for a show try – Catherine Zeta-Jones, Elizabeth Hurley, Ashley Judd (granted – an air head), and Bridget Moynahan (or Kate Beckinsale).

Ripper on June 11, 2008 at 3:50 pm

I used to work in entertainment (with two of the celebrities mentioned here, in fact), and I think her overall frustration is valid.
With the rise of digital photography and the profusion of paparazzi images, celebrities’ fashion-forward persona must be maintained 24/7. This means no repeats — failure to “rotate” properly will result in excoriation from the tabloid press.
I understand that she wanted to “wow” at the premiere, and it’s short-sighted that the designer flat-out lied to her.
But “unethical?”
Not sure where she got that one!

Second City on August 12, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field