“nalin’ palin”

Shortly after Sarah Palin had been announced as the Republican nominee for Vice President, I received an email from my friend Dave in Portland. There were no words. It just contained a single screen capture from Craig’s List. Someone, according to the listing, was seeking a Palin look-alike to star in a pornographic film. The job, it said, paid $2,000 to $3,000, and – showing a bit of respect toward the candidate, I imagine – it further stated, “no anal required.” I chucked at what I thought must have been a joke, and put it out of my mind until yesterday, when I heard mention that notorious pornographer Larry Flynt was producing a film about a naughty hockey mom with political aspirations in Alaska.

I put in a call to one of my connections at Hustler and confirmed that it was true. (My website, for reasons I can’t quite figure out, has a few readers in Los Angeles who work for the Flynt empire.) Flynt had already cast the part, I was told, and filming had already begun. I was told that the finished product, which will be called “Nailin’ Paylin,” would be available by the end of October.

I’m not clear as to the plot details, but I’m told that one scene will involve the Governor “nailing” Russians trying to sneak across the Alaskan border. Another scene, I’m told, will feature the Vice Presidential candidate in college, debating Creationism with a well-hung professor. And then there’s apparently a scene featuring Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice. Palin will be played by a woman named Lisa Ann. Hillary will be played by a woman named Nina Hartley, who, it’s probably worth noting, I once took a screenwriting class with in LA.

I’m not condoning this project of Flynt’s, by the way. Far from it. But I do find it interesting. I like living in a country where there are so many opportunities to influence the debate. I can’t imagine that a poorly done porno film will relay too much information that’s likely to sway voters one way or the other, but it’s a tactic worth considering. If done well, I imagine that it could speak to a certain demographic probably not reached by more traditional methods… I mentioned here on the site several years ago my thought that it would be worthwhile to have the Democratic party sponsor a NASCAR team. While obviously much more distasteful, I think that porno is probably just a further extension of that same idea – that we need to reach people where they live. And, if you really want to appeal to the reptilian brain of voters, how better than though graphic, hardcore sex?

And, in somewhat related news, an influential Saudi cleric this week called for women to wear veils that only make one-eye visible. The two-eyed burkhas, it seems, are just too damned provocative… For what it’s worth, I find Flynt’s proposition to be considerably less offensive.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. Ypsiskippy
    Posted October 5, 2008 at 9:19 am | Permalink


  2. Michael S.
    Posted October 5, 2008 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    The name is actually “Hartley”. I saw this story several days ago. Some alternative titles for the porn flick were suggested:

    “Drill, Baby, Drill”

    “Riding Pipeline”

    “Northern Xposure” (this site will not allow three consecutive “X”s)

    “The Russians Are Cumming!”

    “Peelin’ Palin”

    “Alaska’s Bush”

    “Nanookie of the North”

    Of course, the “no back door” limitation rules out “Impalin’ Palin”

    …uh, no, I don’t condone this kind of stuff, either.

  3. Terry
    Posted October 5, 2008 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    I like the title “Veep Throat” better.

    Nina Hartley as Hillary should be interesting. Did you know next year will be her 25th in the porn world? I was thinking about sending her a card or something.

  4. Michael S.
    Posted October 5, 2008 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    I literally got tangled up with Nina Hartley at the Deja Vu in Ypsi many years ago. She was walking by me on her way to the stage, and the tassles she was wearing got tangled up in the paper clip I had stuck in the zipper of my jacket because the handle was broke. It took us several seconds to untangle. It was lucky for me that her brute of a bodyguard did not misunderstand the situation.

  5. Robert
    Posted October 11, 2008 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    So, for men like Flynt, portraying women in sexual situations is a way of expressing hostility toward them. These men equate sexuality with humiliation.

    Flynt is obviously hostile toward Hillary, Condi, Palin, and all women in general really. He sees his porn as a weapon to attack his enemies. This is how he perceives sex in general. It is sadly a common pathology in our society. For these men, the impulse is to cut women down to size and debase them. Portraying them as sexual beings (and in the twisted and destructive way porn portrays sexuality) is just one of the publically visible expressions of this sickness.

  6. mark
    Posted October 11, 2008 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    Great comments, everyone… And I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, Robert. I think that’s exactly what’s going on.

    And I will correct the spelling of Hartley’s name. I apologize.

  7. Michael S.
    Posted October 11, 2008 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Sexist p0rn? Isn’t that a bit redundant? (Would a woman who voluntarily took part in a swimsuit competition have any room to complain?)

    I may be wrong, but it would seem that Larry Flynt’s intention with this movie is “fantasy fulfillment” rather than a hatred toward women. (OK, his first motivation is making money.) An attractive woman in a position of power is often the subject of mens’ fantasies. And when Flynt saw a semi-competent book-censoring bible-thumping creationist, he couldn’t resist. (The plot summary includes, “young Paylin’s creationist college professor explains a big bang theory even she can’t deny!”..hehehe)

    I think Flynt is also wanting to show everyone, “Look at what I can still do!” in his ever-continuing crusade to advance Free Speech. Flynt did a piece on Elliot Spitzer a while back which counters the belief that he only targets women. And “Nailin’ Paylin” has got to be better than “Ridin’ Biden”, don’cha think?

    Flynt’s involvement with this movie means Sarah Palin will have the opportunity to learn about a *second* Supreme Court case, which can only be good.

    Flynt has a history of exposing government hypocrisy. Back a few years ago, Louisiana Republican Rep. Bob Livington resigned, after Flynt dug up some dirt about an alleged extramarital affair. Flynt may also be trying to effect the Presidential Erection, er I mean Election. Although I fear that it may have the opposite impact if the religious right makes a big deal about “those damn p0rn-loving liberals”.

    Larry Flynt readily admits that he’s a self-serving scumbag p0rnographer. But he defended all the way to the Supreme Court his right to publish a parody that claimed that fundamentalist evangelical demagogue Jerry Falwell had screwed his own mother in an outhouse. His standing up for Free Speech was a significant positive contribution to our society, for which we should all be grateful for. (Had Flynt lost that case, I would be more hesitant to post this comment for fear of retribution from the Morality Police.)

    Even though I respect Flynt’s right to make this movie, I doubt that I will go see it. Why pay good money for p0rn when there’s so much free stuff available? But the comedic value may be worth it, and the Palin-Condi-Hillary-look-alike three-way sounds interesting. But anyone who finds it offensive should definitely NOT go see it. (hmmm, this site’s spam filter accepts “erection” but I had to spell “p0rn” and “p0rnographer” with a zero.)

    “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” – H L Mencken

  8. mark
    Posted October 13, 2008 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

    Publicity photos have been released.

  9. Posted October 14, 2008 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    I absolutely love what capitalism brings to this country. No Anal huh?! At least she isn’t getting f*&#*ed in the ass like we are if she gets elected.

    For a good laugh, see our spoof of this concept.

  10. Robert
    Posted October 15, 2008 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Michael S., are you suggesting “fantasy fullfillment” and hostility toward women are somehow mutually exclusive?

  11. Paw
    Posted October 15, 2008 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    Cheney had the anal clause removed from the VP oath. It’s still required for Cabinet positions.

  12. Michael S.
    Posted October 15, 2008 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Robert, no I’m not. Let me now re-phrase the portion of my previous comment you are targetting.

    “I may be wrong, but it would seem that Larry Flynt’s intention with this movie is “fantasy fulfillment” AND NOT NECESSARILY a hatred toward women.”

    There. Now I’m immune to you trapping me into the no-win position of defending the “merits” of p0rn.

  13. Robert
    Posted October 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    RATS! ;)

  14. Robert
    Posted October 16, 2008 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    I call ALL the sick things I do “fantasy fullfillment” and I urge all of you to do the same. It weighs way less on my conscience that way, and I’m less likely to consider the damage I might be doing to myself and others.

    I like this notion that certain folks seem to keep reverting back to which suggests that anything a person choses to do couldn’t be destructive or wrong for them. It’s such a glaring leap in logic it astounds me that anyone who can put a sentence together doesn’t catch themselves before they make it.

    I never question anyone’s right to do what they want with themselves, but I also don’t feel like tip toeing past their rationalizations about any of it. Why should I? I’d be doing them and myself a disservice if I did. The defensive emotional reaction everyone who’s doing something stupid with themselves has to being reminded is to pretend someone’s trying to stop them just by talking about it. It’s a pathetic thing to watch.

  15. Someone other than Meta
    Posted October 20, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    (Because Meta would never look at such a thing.)

    The first minute of the Hustler video (totally work safe) has been released. You can see it here:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Melissa Detloff