"How Paris Hilton Got Left Behind"

[Chuckles 2,544]

One person against a whole family? Ok.

But I do agree that Paris's rise was in her early 20s while Kardashians have all demographics and genders covered...

[Alvaro Moreno Ullrich 1,535]

As if she had something interesting to share with the world 

[mzncb 332]

5 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

5 hours ago, ProdigyARTPOP said:

Kims perfume line and game and makeup line are doing insanely well. 

 

After 12 years of failing to release a follow-up album, you'd think she'd believe that singing wasn't her calling, but no, she just keeps doing it. It makes her appear out of touch. I believe Kim's only released one perfume which wasn't a massive seller or anything, so she didn't keep pursuing that direction. Paris, on the other hand, doesn't know when to stop and I believe she's still releasing a new perfume every year that she's been famous even though the public stopped caring after the first 3.

Doesn't Paris have one of the best-selling celebrity fragrance lines?

[StrawberryBlond 13,287]

12 hours ago, mzncb said:

Doesn't Paris have one of the best-selling celebrity fragrance lines?

The first 3 (Paris Hilton, Just Me, Heiress) did well. Everything after that was only known of by fans, I believe. Once you get into the stage where you're releasing a fragrance every year, people stop caring. I never saw anything beyond her first 3 perfumes ever sold in perfume counters or perfume shops. No ads either. Now that she's old news, why would anyone except her most loyal fans bother? So how could she have one of the best-selling lines?

Edit: Wikipedia claims that her fragrance empire is valued at $2.5 billion but that must totally be for her earlier ones. Britney gets way more promo for her fragrances and a bottle of Fantasy apparently is still selling every half hour in the UK to this day. I don't know how Paris could possibly beat that.

[Bio 23,538]

She got left behind because she's a homophobe lol

[Inferno 2,880]

9 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

The first 3 (Paris Hilton, Just Me, Heiress) did well. Everything after that was only known of by fans, I believe. Once you get into the stage where you're releasing a fragrance every year, people stop caring. I never saw anything beyond her first 3 perfumes ever sold in perfume counters or perfume shops. No ads either. Now that she's old news, why would anyone except her most loyal fans bother? So how could she have one of the best-selling lines?

Edit: Wikipedia claims that her fragrance empire is valued at $2.5 billion but that must totally be for her earlier ones. Britney gets way more promo for her fragrances and a bottle of Fantasy apparently is still selling every half hour in the UK to this day. I don't know how Paris could possibly beat that.

Actually her fragrance line did exceedingly well up until they stopped carrying it in Macy's/department stores around 2013 or so. Up until that point she had also released Can Can (arguably the most popular Paris fragrance aside from her debut), Siren, and Tease which were the most prominent. Just Me didn't actually perform too well by comparison. Her mens fragrance line was also very popular. Now shes been relegated to Kohls and other bargain stores like TJ Maxxx and Perfumania along with almost all other celebrity fragrance lines. They're all kind of in the dumps tbh especially Kims who was never even a particularly strong seller in that realm. The only reason Britney still sells is because she has a deal with Kohls and releases a seemingly endless amount of flankers for her Fantasy collection. Honestly Rihanna doesn't even do that well anymore. Celeb fragrances in general are just kind of dead.

And actually Kim K has released almost as many as Paris and just released a new KKW fragrance line a few months ago. Its not even available in stores. Whereas Paris' are.

[brit4ever 2,034]

5 hours ago, Inferno said:

Actually her fragrance line did exceedingly well up until they stopped carrying it in Macy's/department stores around 2013 or so. Up until that point she had also released Can Can (arguably the most popular Paris fragrance aside from her debut), Siren, and Tease which were the most prominent. Just Me didn't actually perform too well by comparison. Her mens fragrance line was also very popular. Now shes been relegated to Kohls and other bargain stores like TJ Maxxx and Perfumania along with almost all other celebrity fragrance lines. They're all kind of in the dumps tbh especially Kims who was never even a particularly strong seller in that realm. The only reason Britney still sells is because she has a deal with Kohls and releases a seemingly endless amount of flankers for her Fantasy collection. Honestly Rihanna doesn't even do that well anymore. Celeb fragrances in general are just kind of dead.

And actually Kim K has released almost as many as Paris and just released a new KKW fragrance line a few months ago. Its not even available in stores. Whereas Paris' are.

I think the only celebrity fragrance line that has been selling continuously well is Britney's. According to Daily Mail, in an article they published in 2015/6, every 2.2 seconds a Britney perfume is bought somewhere in the world, it might be because she is releasing a new perfume every 6 months, but she's build a brand of her name in the fragrance market.

[StrawberryBlond 13,287]

18 hours ago, Inferno said:

Actually her fragrance line did exceedingly well up until they stopped carrying it in Macy's/department stores around 2013 or so. Up until that point she had also released Can Can (arguably the most popular Paris fragrance aside from her debut), Siren, and Tease which were the most prominent. Just Me didn't actually perform too well by comparison. Her mens fragrance line was also very popular. Now shes been relegated to Kohls and other bargain stores like TJ Maxxx and Perfumania along with almost all other celebrity fragrance lines. They're all kind of in the dumps tbh especially Kims who was never even a particularly strong seller in that realm. The only reason Britney still sells is because she has a deal with Kohls and releases a seemingly endless amount of flankers for her Fantasy collection. Honestly Rihanna doesn't even do that well anymore. Celeb fragrances in general are just kind of dead.

And actually Kim K has released almost as many as Paris and just released a new KKW fragrance line a few months ago. Its not even available in stores. Whereas Paris' are.

I notice that there aren't a whole lot of celebrity perfumes around these days. The only ones I do see are Britney's, Nicki's, Rihanna's, Beyonce's and Ariana's. Even the Justin and 1D ones have moved on. They used to be huge business but not anymore. So, with that in mind, I didn't think Paris could be selling well at all if she isn't even relevant like the afformentioned names. I didn't know Kim had released more, though. I notice that, along with Kylie, they only sell products through their official store as well. I can't work out if that's good or bad business sense. I don't know if Britney sells just because she has a marketing deal and releases a lot of spin-offs. All her new perfumes are always advertised in magazines here and I see the occasional tv ad as well. Surely letting the public know her new scents exist is the major factor? Letting the public know that she has a new product out?

On 3/11/2018 at 8:41 PM, Inferno said:

This is 100% completely false and its not arguable. Not a matter of opinion. When you have Kim rocking dreads and Kylie Jenner surgically changing her body to look like a woman of color you can't make this statement.

I didn't see your earlier arguments until now but there's something here that needs to be said: styling your hair like another race because you like it is not a racist action and Kylie wants her body to have curves in all the right places, like most women do these days. Times have moved on from the "heroin chic" trend of the 90's where women were urged to starve themselves and be thin from top to toe. Having a shapely ass is the most wanted feature now across all races. I was always thrown by the statement: "Kylie Jenner is morphing into a black woman before our eyes." She may have changed herself massively but she doesn't look black. Normally, to be accused of that, you'd have to get a deep tan, which she doesn't have. May I remind you that any woman can have a naturally curvaceous features? I'm a white girl with big breasts, hips and ass. That's the way my body is made. The women in my family are built like this and I've seen a lot of other white women all over with the same shape. The average bra size of UK women (over 87% white population) is a C-cup and the average dress size is a 16 (equivalent to a US 14). White girls being flat with thin lips is a totally unfounded assertion. Most of us don't try to enhance our features to look black, we want to look like voluptuous white women.

On 3/11/2018 at 8:55 PM, Inferno said:

Its not a reach at all. She was a flat white girl that changed her body to look exactly like her sisters, women of color. She desperately wanted to look like the kardashian brand. Thats not even up for debate. And thats on top of the fact that shes marketed to young latinas who idolize her. When she was modeling for YMI jeans (a brand usually targeted at young latinas) her billboards were only plastered around latino populated areas here in los angeles. if you can't acknowledge all that? You've been sipping that kardashian kool-aid.

Yes, she wanted to look like the Kardashian brand...but that isn't the same thing as looking like a woman of colour. The Kardashians are half Armenian, which is still white, by the way, so she isn't attempting to copy a non-white appearance by looking like them. And young Latinas look up to Kylie? First I heard of it, but even so, if the brand is targeted at this demographic and this celebrity is looked up to by this demographic, obviously, the brand's going to advertise itself in the hub of this demographic. What's wrong with that?

[Inferno 2,880]

On 3/13/2018 at 12:35 PM, StrawberryBlond said:

I notice that there aren't a whole lot of celebrity perfumes around these days. The only ones I do see are Britney's, Nicki's, Rihanna's, Beyonce's and Ariana's. Even the Justin and 1D ones have moved on. They used to be huge business but not anymore. So, with that in mind, I didn't think Paris could be selling well at all if she isn't even relevant like the afformentioned names. I didn't know Kim had released more, though. I notice that, along with Kylie, they only sell products through their official store as well. I can't work out if that's good or bad business sense. I don't know if Britney sells just because she has a marketing deal and releases a lot of spin-offs. All her new perfumes are always advertised in magazines here and I see the occasional tv ad as well. Surely letting the public know her new scents exist is the major factor? Letting the public know that she has a new product out?

I didn't see your earlier arguments until now but there's something here that needs to be said: styling your hair like another race because you like it is not a racist action and Kylie wants her body to have curves in all the right places, like most women do these days. Times have moved on from the "heroin chic" trend of the 90's where women were urged to starve themselves and be thin from top to toe. Having a shapely ass is the most wanted feature now across all races. I was always thrown by the statement: "Kylie Jenner is morphing into a black woman before our eyes." She may have changed herself massively but she doesn't look black. Normally, to be accused of that, you'd have to get a deep tan, which she doesn't have. May I remind you that any woman can have a naturally curvaceous features? I'm a white girl with big breasts, hips and ass. That's the way my body is made. The women in my family are built like this and I've seen a lot of other white women all over with the same shape. The average bra size of UK women (over 87% white population) is a C-cup and the average dress size is a 16 (equivalent to a US 14). White girls being flat with thin lips is a totally unfounded assertion. Most of us don't try to enhance our features to look black, we want to look like voluptuous white women.

Yes, she wanted to look like the Kardashian brand...but that isn't the same thing as looking like a woman of colour. The Kardashians are half Armenian, which is still white, by the way, so she isn't attempting to copy a non-white appearance by looking like them. And young Latinas look up to Kylie? First I heard of it, but even so, if the brand is targeted at this demographic and this celebrity is looked up to by this demographic, obviously, the brand's going to advertise itself in the hub of this demographic. What's wrong with that?

Its laughable to me that you're trashing Paris Hilton and turning around and defending the Kardashians.

And in what world do you live in where Paris is 100% irrelevant? We're discussing her now. Its so funny to me when people argue that shes irrelevant yet they're discussing her. On top of that, her fragrance brand has a following because of how long shes been in the fragrance game. You see her scents every bit as much as anyone else you mentioned you're probably just selectively ignoring them because you clearly have some type of contempt for her.

[Phlop 4,773]

I don’t think Paris actively cared. She gets an allowance anytime someone stays in a Hilton.

She got her lil fame and she’s now just a hot middle aged milf. She ain’t bothered about Kim Ks fame.

 

[StrawberryBlond 13,287]

1 hour ago, Inferno said:

Its laughable to me that you're trashing Paris Hilton and turning around and defending the Kardashians.

And in what world do you live in where Paris is 100% irrelevant? We're discussing her now. Its so funny to me when people argue that shes irrelevant yet they're discussing her. On top of that, her fragrance brand has a following because of how long shes been in the fragrance game. You see her scents every bit as much as anyone else you mentioned you're probably just selectively ignoring them because you clearly have some type of contempt for her.

I'm not a fan of the Kardashians. I don't watch their show or buy their products. I just find them fascinating. I just look at things realistically.

I live in the UK. Her perfumes aren't sold here anymore. I don't selectively ignore anything. Granted, I haven't looked in TK Maxx like you said but I have been in some discount stores and not seen any of her scents. I actually used to kinda like her back in the day but went off her when she turned out to be a bad person. But I still wouldn't criticise her for no reason. Yes, we're discussing her now because we're reminiscing on the past. Irrelevant people can be brought up in a "whatever happened to them?" kinda way, you know.

[MonsterPaws 2,631]

On 3/11/2018 at 4:41 PM, Inferno said:

This is 100% completely false and its not arguable. Not a matter of opinion. When you have Kim rocking dreads and Kylie Jenner surgically changing her body to look like a woman of color you can't make this statement.

I kind of get the dread part, but the part in bold? Imo that simply isn't possible unless explicitly said and done. Cuz if you mean full lips then sorry to break it to you but that's a biological feature, and one present in every ethnicity.

I genuinely don't think it's right to claim biological features in the same way as cultural features, because then--rationally--we ought to question transgender males and females acquiring unique biological features of their opposite sex or gender, in order not to contradict ourselves or else our reasoning is false. And I  don't believe transgenders going through surgery is morally wrong in terms of "appropriating" the biological features they feel they need from the opposite sex, what do you think?

[Inferno 2,880]

53 minutes ago, MonsterPaws said:

I kind of get the dread part, but the part in bold? Imo that simply isn't possible unless explicitly said and done. Cuz if you mean full lips then sorry to break it to you but that's a biological feature, and one present in every ethnicity.

I genuinely don't think it's right to claim biological features in the same way as cultural features, because then--rationally--we ought to question transgender males and females acquiring unique biological features of their opposite sex or gender, in order not to contradict ourselves or else our reasoning is false. And I  don't believe transgenders going through surgery is morally wrong in terms of "appropriating" the biological features they feel they need from the opposite sex, what do you think?

There are certain biological features related to race. The social construction of gender vs. ones race is not equatable.

[MonsterPaws 2,631]

1 hour ago, Inferno said:

There are certain biological features related to race. The social construction of gender vs. ones race is not equatable.

Related to race, not exclusive. Humongous difference. And which is the main thing I'm looking at.

The social construction of gender isn't equatable to one's race, I completely agree. But arguably pretty analogous when said social construction gender involves practices in biology (which it does in the case of sex-reassignment surgeries).