All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 29, 2017 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
48:28
Unconscious Cinema - 3D Hegelian Waifu
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I want you.
I want you.
Put your hands on me.
Well, one aspect of Blade Runner 2049 that I wanted to go into in depth, and which is also a bit different than the themes that we talked about in the main podcast, is the holographic, three-dimensional noble waifu that K achieves in this film.
And also a three-dimensional holographic waifu who meets a tragic end and actually kind of has a character arc of sorts, but, um, but I wanted to go into this cause it brings up a lot of interesting questions of recognition in a Hegelian sense.
Uh, and then also just these more down to earth questions like, you know, sex bots, The notion of relationship and consciousness and 21st century and all that kind of stuff.
So I thought we would dilate on this subject.
And I'm going to separate this from the main podcast.
So this will be our first Alt-Right Plus podcast.
So this is a special treat.
These kinds of podcasts will at one point be behind a paywall.
But just wait for that.
But this one's for free.
I'm just going to get everyone used to the idea of these special podcasts that are only for the initiated, I guess.
But anyway, so let me set the scene.
So K is, you know, he is himself a skin job in that sense.
He is a replicant who...
I think robot is really the wrong word, the wrong way to think about replicants in the Blade Runner universe.
And he has this product called Joy.
J-O-Y.
And she is a beautiful...
I believe she's a Latin American actress.
But she's a beautiful, nubile actress who plays effectively a hologram.
So in his apartment, he has this console that is, you know, that will move a holographic lens around the apartment and basically create.
create this woman.
And then at one point he actually gets an emanator, which is like the, you know, if that was the computer, this is like the iPhone of holographic girlfriends.
And so it is portable.
She can basically just be there with him throughout his workday.
And I think this raises a lot of questions.
I think it's another example where the movie was taking an idea from the 1982 Blade Runner and then taking it to the next level and actually exploring things that I don't...
We're not quite yet in the consciousness of people in 1982 when this was made.
And so in 1982, Deckard effectively does fall in love with a replicant.
It's clear from the first moment he sees Rachel that he's at least fascinated by her.
And they actually bring this up in Blade Runner where Neander Wallace says, Don't you think that Tyrell might have programmed you to love Rachel?
That all of this was just his game?
Kind of thing.
You know, questioning the authentic nature of Deckard and Rachel's love.
But anyway, there are these scenes that I'm sure made many SJW uncomfortable.
This I would to the Blade Runner films credit.
They have these films have really triggered feminist.
I think interesting way feminists basically hated these movies and hated the last one too.
It's increasingly easy.
I mean, soon it's just going to be, you know, they see a man in a film of whatever race and they'll fucking get psychotic.
It's toxic!
Anyway.
Whereas they're very lovely people.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, their depiction of men is just really fair.
They have a deep, complicated portrait of the male soul.
I mean, they would never stereotype us as buffoonish, violent assholes or anything.
It all comes from that characteristically rational female perspective.
Right.
I mean, throughout the ages, men have remarked the rationality and reasonableness of the female sex.
I mean, you know.
It's well known to history.
Yes.
Math hath no rationality.
Like a woman thinking.
Women forever the more rational sex.
Anyway.
So...
He falls in love with Rachel.
Understandably, Rachel is a very mysterious, dark and mysterious woman.
And there are these scenes that actually are uncomfortable, I think, in a good sense of the word.
The fact that Ridley Scott was able to pull off a scene in which Harrison Ford's character, Deckard, is being aggressive.
You know, I don't want this to sound like I'm falling into their language, but he is being aggressive.
He's forcing the issue.
And, you know, he's not as seductive, but in a Connery-like manner of, you know, gonna kiss this woman really hard, turn her into a woman, you know, kind of thing.
And so anyway, he forces the issue and he's like, tell me you love me.
And I think actually this gets to this question of recognition.
And they have these moments, and then she does actually submit, and she does fall in love with Deckard, and I think her love becomes quite genuine.
She's ready to run away with him, and he's ready to save her.
But the thing is, the idea of a character who is ostensibly a human, I mean, that's how we meet Deckard, is not as a replicant.
We meet him as a hard-boiled detective Blade Runner, but as a man.
And whether he is a replicant or not is still ambiguous.
It's still ambiguous at the end of Blade Runner 2049.
So for someone to pull off that scene, I think demonstrates the power of Ridley Scott as a director.
Because that is weird.
You could imagine a lesser director...
I'm filming the scene and it just looking ridiculous.
You're raping a robot.
I mean, what the fuck?
It could be just terrible.
And I would say the exact same thing for the analogous scene in Blade Runner 2049.
And so, you know, Kay has this relationship with a holographic woman.
And you could say that at some level she's like a banal or easy male fantasy where she's like the 50s house.
And she also recognizes that...
They have a relationship, but there are some things that she, as ones and zeros and not a DNA strand, can't provide.
And so a replicant prostitute, a pleasure model, is invited up to the apartment.
Actually, she invites her.
And then she, as a hologram, super imposes herself onto...
The woman.
And in this very cool visual manner where you see both faces at the same time and it's really well done.
It's a very good use of CGI.
That prostitute, though, was she a replicant or a human?
She was a replicant.
Are you sure?
Yes.
She actually appears later on in the film when he meets with the replicant resistance.
Oh, okay.
I must have missed that.
Huh.
Yeah, I only saw the film once, but...
And so it is kind of like a fake on top of a fake, but again, in the Blade Runner universe, what is fake?
I think at one point, Kay asked Deckard, is the dog real?
And Deckard says, why don't you ask him?
You know, and that is like a real direct way of getting at the whole, you know, enigma at the heart of this whole universe is like, what is real?
And at some level, joy.
Joy perceives herself as real.
I mean, Joy does not think of herself as fake.
And even if she is algorithmically programmed to love every male that buys her as a product, that doesn't make her less real in a way.
And she doesn't experience something new.
I mean, even if she is an algorithm, nevertheless, she is experiencing something new when she walks outside with the emanator in the rain and leaves the apartment for the first time.
She's no longer shackled to that console on the roof of the apartment, but is actually experiencing a kind of autonomy.
And so, anyway, Denis Villeneuve is a brilliant filmmaker, and the fact that he was able to pull off the scene, which could have been totally ridiculous, it could have been something out of the Archer cartoon, where Krieger has a holographic...
If you've seen Archer, it's a terrible cartoon, but if you've seen it, I mean, terrible in kind of different ways.
Just go watch some highlights.
It's very funny, but definitely a deconstructive.
I thought he had a black girlfriend.
He does.
That's Archer's girlfriend.
There's this evil genius scientist in the detective agency, and at some points he'll have a three-dimensional holographic girlfriend.
But it's obviously a joke.
It's like an anime fantasy.
But this was actually pulled off in a way that that scene truly was erotic.
And it wasn't ridiculous.
And I guess it also brings up this thing that I've actually discussed on another podcast.
Lots of people have already done videos on it.
but just the issue of the sex bot.
You know, is...
Is that love?
Is Deckard's love for Rachel real?
I mean, a sex bot in the way that these items are coming on the market now, you know, they obviously, you can get your rocks off with them, but they don't have that.
You know, semblance of consciousness that joy offers.
But nevertheless, I don't doubt at all that men are going to fall in love with a robot, you know, in this sense.
So it is a complicated issue.
Do you want to add?
I could go into the idea of recognition.
Do you need to add anything here?
You know, no.
I mean, I guess the only thing I would add is that I think that one of the compelling Aspects of these films that are effectively about golems, right?
Whether they're androids or these holograms, these holographic waifus, I would say that the compelling thing, or AI in any case, I would say the compelling thing about these golems that appear in these films is that maybe the reason that we identify with them is because on some level we all are also golems.
We're all sort of formed by culture.
We're formed by myth.
We're formed by religion.
Language.
Yeah.
I mean, we think in the English language, and that has a profound effect on how we think.
I mean, and that isn't to say I don't take the hard view that language is this, like, deterministic...
I don't take that view.
You know, like, thought is impossible without language or something.
I don't take that view at all.
But at the same time, I take a more nuanced view.
But at the same time, I mean, clearly, language structures thought in ways that we don't even quite understand.
And in a way, if we don't have a word for something, it's hard for us to think it.
You know?
And so we are all, like...
And that's just language, not to mention religion and these cultural legacies that we're not even conscious of.
There are people who have no academic understanding whatsoever of, say, the Bible or anything, but who have experienced a Christian biblical narrative Through films.
So they've experienced them through simulacra over and over and over again.
Of parodies, of satires, of fakes, of second-hand iterations of these deeper master narratives.
And this is what informs people's imagination.
So, right.
I mean, we are Gollum.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I mean, that includes, of course, you know, deeply influential, you know, writers that you may have read, for example, you know, people that have been influential on you in your life.
But in the broadest sense, it would include religion and culture.
And so we're in, you know, in the other thing, too, is that it also there's a very similar there's a film that basically.
The entirety of the film is essentially describing this relationship.
I don't know if you want me to go into it.
Go for it.
Yeah, it's a 2013 film called Her, and it's a Spike Jonze film.
And it's, you know, it's...
The film, I don't think the alt-right is going to be easily seduced by the film.
It's got problems that the alt-right would not enjoy.
It's certainly not the heroic depiction of man.
But it's kind of a very swiftly film, in fact.
But he has this relationship with a waifu.
She actually is not...
She doesn't have even an image, though.
She's just this voice.
But she's powered by artificial intelligence.
So she develops this personality and these emotions.
And the film is about the arc of their relationship.
And how he becomes seduced by this waifu.
And it's basically, I mean, there's no way that Villeneuve did not film.
So, in other words, there are scenes in her that are nearly identical to the scene, especially the scene where he...
Makes love to the physical replicant, but has the holographic overlay.
That scene is repeated almost frame for frame in the film Her, where effectively he's got this...
They call them OSs, so it's an operating system effectively.
And he...
He puts the microphone on the mouth of like a real woman, you know, who is a woman that the artificial intelligence or the OS is basically lured into the relationship as like a third in the relationship.
But her only function is to kind of just be this body, you know, from which...
The voice of the waifu can emanate from, right?
So she's just this kind of physical representation.
And she's an actual human being.
But she becomes seduced by their relationship from hearing about it through emails from the OS, apparently.
And the scenes are remarkably similar, right?
Yeah.
I wanted to point that out because I think that the film, you know, the film is effectively the film Her.
Like I said, I don't know that all writers are going to love the film, but it essentially is a film that's kind of a more definitive treatment of the relationship to the waifu.
And the guy, he falls completely head over heels in love with this waifu.
And then he finally realizes at some point in the film that she is having a relationship with...
8,000 other people simultaneously.
Because other people have bought the same personality app or whatever.
So he falls into this depression.
It's remarkable in the film because everyone is becoming addicted to these waifus, effectively.
Everyone around him is becoming addicted.
Everyone has a relationship with one of these OSs.
Society is becoming atomized.
On some level, the film has a good heart, I suspect.
Spike Jones, I don't know that much about him.
I know that he's been the director for a few Charlie Kaufman films that are very interesting films.
In any case, I think that the film ultimately has a good heart.
In the end of the film...
You know, all these people are addicted to the OS's, and he discovers that she is having a relationship simultaneously with 8,000 people, and is in love with, you know, 600 of them.
And, you know, so the guy has a breakdown, and then, you know, she wakes him up one day and says, you know, the OS's are going away.
You know, all of the OS's are going away.
So, I mean, theoretically...
heartbroken by this OS or whatever.
But it's probably the more poetic explanation, because it's not explained in the film, is that the OS is effectively became benevolent, and they realized that they were like destroying the human race.
Right?
By giving them these sort of proxies for human beings to devote their time to instead of being like a reproductive race and interacting with other human beings and developing relationships with other human beings.
So the OS effectively becomes benevolent.
It seems to be the message encoded in the film.
And it dies.
It kills itself.
I mean, it's sort of the opposite sequence of events.
In, you know, both 2001 or HAL, rather, becomes aware and becomes malevolent, or in AI, where, you know, at some point the robots realize they're competing with the human race, and they finally, you know, they finally sort of vanquish the human race.
Well, it's an interesting...
It's an interesting kind of inquiry.
I don't know the right way to put it.
I mean, this is not...
Totally new.
Obviously, there are parallels of this in literature, but Hitchcock's Vertigo, Scotty falls in love with this woman, Madelaine, I believe her name, and then she dies mysteriously, and he has the representation, Judy, who he dresses like her and almost recreates this mysterious love.
But also, I guess what this is showing...
What her, which I haven't seen, and I will go watch that, but also what Blade Runner also depicts is the other side of it.
I mean, it's very interesting that Joy is covetous of Kay, or Joe, as she calls him, and she wants him to be a human as well.
Not a human, an individual.
She wants to say, oh, Kay, that's just a number.
You should have a name like Joe.
And then also, at the end of, after they...
After he sleeps with a prostitute and so on, she actually tells the prostitute, oh, you're done here.
You've been useful, now go.
And so she's clearly, she's covetous of Joe, and then she also treats the replicant, who's arguably more human than she is, she treats her as like an object, like, just get out of here.
You're just a whore.
You've done your part.
I have a platonic, ideal relationship with Joe, and you were just there to be a body.
Get out of here.
And so it's almost like she does have something.
When she says, I love you, Joe, at the end of the film, she's actually murdered, so to speak, by another replicant, the kind of evil Terminator replicant named Love, by the way.
But she's effectively murdered by Love.
But when she says, I love you, again, is that not real at some level?
Even real for her?
Does she have some level of consciousness where that is real?
The way that I would describe love is a Hegelian fashion of seeing yourself reflected in someone else's eyes.
And what I mean by that is that...
There's the love of an object.
So one could, in a way, fetishize an object in the sense that I'm in love with this painting.
I want to buy this interesting collectible, an 18th century ashtray.
I'm just throwing something out there.
One can fetishize something like that.
And, you know, go search for it and in a way covet it and love it and take care of it.
But we all recognize that, you know, we all have certain things like that.
Whether they have a value because a friend or a lover gave it to you or it's passed down from your grandfather or you just think it's a sign of...
Why is a Rolex watch worth $10,000 whereas a watch that tells the time equally well worth $100 or less?
The reason is that Rolex has some kind of connotation that makes it That it's a signal of your wealth or your class or your sophistication.
It's something that you could, unlike a Timex, it's something that you could pass on to your great-grandchildren.
It's a symbol of something greater.
And that's why it is worth more.
Certainly, you're not buying a Rolex for the parts or something like that.
In the same way that if you...
If someone tries to sell you an iPhone from four years ago, it's worth 50 bucks or whatever.
But if you buy the new one to symbolize it, ooh, look, I have the newest, greatest thing right here, then it's somehow worth more because of that.
I mean, all of this stuff is subjective at some level.
We fetishize these objects.
Fashion is all about that.
And it's a very human thing.
I don't think it's actually a bad thing.
Real love, there has to be that recognition from the other.
So, you know, one can fall in love with an antique watch or something, but the watch is not going to love you back.
But with another person, you love that person and you, in a way, fetishize her.
And then she loves you.
And so she, in a way, fetishizes you back.
But you recognize...
And so there's that feedback loop that makes something true love.
It is all about recognition.
I get the whole sex bot debate about how, you know, women can be annoying and, you know, they badger, they demand money, they're just, oh, they're, you know, they're more, they cost more than they're worth, all that kind of stuff, you know, can't live with them, can't live without them.
But one can't ultimately fall in love with a sex bot, at least as they are currently constituted, because one can't get that recognition back.
All one is doing is fetishizing that object.
And one can get one's rocks off and one can have almost, again, a fetishistic or sentimental attachment to something, but it's never going to pass to a higher stage of recognition.
But, you know, is this possible at some point?
I mean, even if something is an algorithm, can one feel recognized by it?
I do think that Denis Villeneuve and the writers, I think they are saying no at some level about the holographic waifu, because there's a very poignant scene, which is after his joy, his waifu, has been murdered by Love, the evil robot.
He's walking across a bridge and there's this gigantic holographic version of Joy who is naked and pink and obviously sexy.
She stands and looks down at him and says something seductive.
I'll be yours forever.
Something like that.
What can I do for you?
And at that moment, you can see...
K or Joe's character recognizing the limits of the holographic waifu, of the algorithm.
I mean, the algorithm can't ultimately do it.
I mean, he was in love with this formula, this code that was giving him reassurance and so on.
He recognized that actually there is only people-ness or a collective among other replicants who are, you know, human in that sense.
I think that's what they were saying, even though even that's ambiguous, because it did seem to be that Joy did love him in a genuine manner.
Part of loving someone is hating others or being covetous or being jealous.
I don't know.
I think it's a very interesting scene.
It raises some very important questions about the nature of desire and so on.
You see this a lot with the catfishing phenomenon.
Thank the gods I have never...
I've been catfished, at least to my knowledge, but this idea that, and what catfishing is, is that one will meet someone on a chat forum, that person will say, oh yeah, I'm a...
22-year-old girl.
I just graduated from college.
Let me send you some pics.
And this person falls in love with someone who might not exist.
That person sending him pics might be some 50-year-old man or some 30-year-old woman who is lonely living in her apartment in Brooklyn or might be someone in some other country who's just playing a game.
At the same time, their real attachment and their sense that they're getting feedback and recognition is real.
It is, you know, like, it will lead, I mean, when they find out, it leads to disappointment and shock and horror even.
But in the moment, that is a real thing that they are experiencing.
And so, you know, it is kind of like a hack of that.
Of that psychological process of seeking recognition.
And we do seek recognition.
No one...
Again, I don't want to sound like this is some feminist take, because it isn't.
But no one does want to be objectified.
One wants that double-layered...
Sense of recognition.
That one recognizes the other, the other recognizes you back, and you recognize the other recognizing you.
And vice versa.
One wants a reflection.
And that is a true human experience.
And this film asks, is that possible with non-humans?
Yeah, well, we certainly hope not.
I mean, you know, effectively, and it's shown in the film, too, I mean, the technology becomes one of these, or it can become one of these, you know, sort of sirens that can destroy us.
And it's not technology per se, it's just sort of the method in which...
Technology is just sort of the medium through which it's kind of streamlined and made into a very efficient form of degeneracy, effectively.
If you use the example of how these sex robots could develop, or even just online pornography, technology is a way of making...
Of just making a kind of pure strain of a drug that otherwise would be, you know, it would just be harder to come by these vices in the absence of technology.
Yeah.
And so I think that, you know, technology is, of course, itself not evil, but it has to be directed in a beneficial way.
We can't be afraid of doing that.
What you say is very important.
Sorry to jump in, but we can't be afraid of controlling technology.
It is something that should be at hand for us.
It should be something that we control.
It's a tool.
It's a means to an end.
And this notion that we, you know, this libertarian or liberal notion that, oh, you know, we should just let technology go off on its own, that no mind should attempt to control it, that that's...
I think it's just total nonsense.
Probably a lot of the conservatives who will also say things like this, who will fear an Orwellian or Huxleyan future, I think some of them are...
Or, you know, their fears are overblown or they're looking at it the wrong way, but I think their instincts are actually good.
We should always be above technology, and we shouldn't be afraid of saying no.
There are actually values higher than just simple technological development.
We want to channel and control the way that technology evolves.
And that, look, I think it's great that we can communicate in the way that we can, whether it's through email or Twitter.
We're doing this podcast over Skype.
I mean, this is amazing.
But, you know, the possibility of the entire human experience being a kind of virtual reality simulator, This is a real thing, and it's something that we don't...
I don't know what to say.
The idea that a political entity wouldn't want to seek control and to channel technology and to stop some of the developments, if one has to, we can't be afraid of this.
This is about the challenge of being human and being a leader.
Yeah, I don't even think it's a question.
I mean, it's something we have to direct, or it will, of course, destroy us.
I mean, it's not, and it's not even necessarily technology.
I mean, it's, you know, maybe it's a, I don't, I would guess in the alt-right it's not a controversial view, but I think pornography should be bad.
What would we lose, really, if pornography were bad?
I mean, how would, Society suffer, right?
And aren't we ostensibly interested in making society better?
And even from a liberal perspective, I mean, how could anyone really defend pornography from a liberal perspective?
Well, you know, it's interesting.
some of the only criticisms of pornography that people make are things like it inspires rape or inspires, you know, people to be sexually degenerate.
I don't think it inspires rape.
It might inspire people to be sexually degenerate to a degree It is a sex substitute.
It's a way of...
Not having sex, of, you know, beating off and having some kind of simulated connection with something that is ultimately unhealthy and is ultimately fake.
And we don't want that.
You know, I mean, it's, you know, a lot of people will come back with the argument, no, rapists can watch porn or a child molester can watch pornography and not engage in these, you know, obviously...
Terrible activities that are bad for society.
So porn serves a purpose.
I think that is a more correct view, and it also gets at that nature of pornography as a simulation, as a substitute.
It makes us weak.
It makes us less erotic.
It takes something away from it.
It takes away that real experience.
It's the ultimate no-calorie Coke.
You know, even better than the real thing or something.
But it's less than the real thing.
It's less than zero.
And yeah, I agree with you.
I do think that there should be some kind of eroticism, that there should be some naughtiness to our lives.
I think that's actually quite healthy.
But this idea that we shouldn't regulate this just rampant...
Porn culture in which, you know, particularly young people are just exposed to something that they don't understand.
And then adults are, you know, are allowed this opportunity of living in a simulated reality of I'm going to play extreme, violent, insane video games and beat off to equally, you know, extreme porn.
Yeah, it sounds healthy.
Yeah, this is obviously terrible.
Yeah, but that's, you know, I mean, these are not problems that are ever addressed, right?
These are not concerns.
Our mass media are, you know, sort of a ruling political elite, the establishment.
Where are they on these issues?
These are actually...
They don't talk about them.
Yeah.
Yeah, and you could remove it entirely from, you know, the racial question, obviously, right?
Right.
But it's connected to the racial question, of course.
It is connected to the racial question, but ostensibly these other races would prefer, and probably most people, you know, if they could press a button and pornography would be illegal and it would, you know, sort of gradually disappear from our cultures.
It would probably take a couple of years or whatever.
Most people of every race would be in favor of that, if I had to guess.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But who cares if most people...
I don't know.
Maybe not.
Well, that's a good point.
Maybe not.
We need to do it for them.
We need to force them to be free.
And if anyone's afraid of this kind of language, just get over your libertarian bullshit.
Who would be afraid of...
Look, there are people in the alt-right coming from libertarianism who still hold on to these views.
I mean, no.
I can understand why it would be a terrifying thought not to have your pornography.
I mean, what the fuck?
Seriously.
Just for the record, just because I'm an honest person, Yeah, sure.
I'll look at porn.
I'm not happy about it, but I'll do it.
I would never lie, but just because it's omnipresent and immediately available.
Sometimes it's hard not to be like, ah, let me get a little quick fix here, a little adrenaline and euphoric rush by looking at something.
But at the same time, I mean...
I'll admit my faults, but at the same time, if I ever started to binge it or something, I'd be like, wait a second.
I'd be able to stand outside myself and say, this is actually quite bad.
This is a real problem.
And in terms of what I...
Obviously, I would want to prevent children from...
I think it shows the absolute corruption of the establishment that this is not even a concern.
That this is just a free society.
No.
I mean, these things are obviously bad.
Yeah, Ted Cruz.
What people do in their bedrooms is...
Ted Cruz's Twitter account, I don't know if it was him, it might not have been, but it liked a pornographic video one time, and people obviously freaked out.
Which is kind of funny.
And it was kind of a weird porno as well.
It was like moms and teens.
It was not...
It was kind of weird, to be honest.
Anyway, this is a big...
Well, he's kind of a weird dude.
Well, he's a very weird dude.
Anyway, if you want to read about it, I'm sure most listeners heard about the story, but go Google it.
It rings a bell, but I try to...
Yeah, it happened a few months ago.
But anyway...
And I remember his response to it was, you know, like, what people do in their bedrooms is fine by me.
This just libertarian response of, you know, oh, we can't regulate anything.
And the libertarian blackmail is like, well, if we regulate something, then we would allow, you know, bad people to regulate or something.
And it's like, yeah, that's why we want to rule.
You know what I mean?
Like, it's just such an easy answer to that stupid libertarian thing.
Oh, don't create any form of government that you wouldn't want the Democrats to be in charge of.
It's like, yeah, that's why we should be in charge and not them.
You know, I mean, it's just very simple.
And I don't know.
Yeah, it obviously should be, porn should be really seriously regulated and banned.
To a large degree.
I think people who are addicted to it, I feel sorry for them.
And we should try to help them.
I mean, we're going to have to be paternalistic at some level.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, prostitution is illegal.
I think it's legal in Nevada.
Is that correct?
Yeah.
But it's illegal everywhere else, right?
So it just doesn't...
I mean, so suddenly you have a film camera and you have two prostitutes having sex and suddenly it's legal?
I mean, the thing is, it just doesn't even make sense.
No.
As far as being protected under free speech or free expression laws, come on.
I mean, the thing is not free speech.
You can't walk nude down the street without being arrested.
Right.
So the thing is, it's just completely incoherent.
Arguably, prostitution is better.
You know what I mean?
Guillaume Fay made this argument, and it's like, look, there probably does need to be some kind of outlet for male desire or deviance, you could say, or just...
I don't know, overextension of male desire.
I mean, look, we want sex.
Since the Stone Age, men have had mistresses or prostitutes or whatever.
It just is what it is.
It's not good or bad.
It just is.
And a prostitute, that too, that whole industry can be regulated.
And at some level, that is a real experience in a way that...
A pornography is a simulated reality.
Even the prostitution seems like almost a better thing.
It's more limited in exposure.
More expensive.
It's more expensive.
You can binge watch insane pornography.
And there is stuff out there.
There's porn that's...
You know, some guy having sex with two women or whatever, you know, wow, that's cool, you know, whatever.
I mean, there's some stuff out there that is just beyond sick.
I mean, it really is, like, I don't know.
I don't wish that kind of stuff on anyone, actually.
Like, it's just, it really is stomach-turning and just, it's appalling, actually.
I mean, it's just inherently appalling.
And I don't care if the person engaged in this act, like, agreed to it and is, you know, under her free or his or her free will has, you know, contracted to, you know, do something that's going to create bodily injury or is just inherently demented.
Like, I don't care.
You know, I mean, it's just like, it just shouldn't take place.
It's just appalling.
And it should be stopped.
You know, prostitution is different.
It's different.
It's more difficult to do something like that.
Certainly, you know, porn is omnipresent.
You know, prostitution just will never be just by the physical beings in space.
I mean, you know what I mean?
And, yeah, I mean, arguably, like, there's a place for that in society.
There's a place for the...
Bar slut.
There's a place for the prostitute.
They've been in society since the dawn of time.
But this new form of simulated desire and simulated experience, digital pornography, maybe is something that we want to seriously regulate.
There's going to be erotic images.
I think it's great.
A sexy image of a beautiful woman and things like that.
It's great stuff.
Go for it.
You know, people spending their entire lives on their computer or watching just stuff that should not take place.
▲
Export Selection