[bgbusiness]

(11-21-2017 12:16 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

Girl in the video just got engaged despite having openly talked about being a sugar baby, strippper, escort, and porn star

https://www.instagram.com/p/BbsvHZaAgKw/...=iampaigej

Yeah and she doesn't have the guy's face on her instagram or any social media as of right now.
I am thinking the guy has to be at least somewhat of a a chubby provider.

Anyways, I wish the best for both of them, but I am already assuming that the guy will have his life wiped out in few years.

[Paracelsus]

(11-20-2017 01:46 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

About two years ago, there was a viral story about some Wall Street intern that quit her job to become a porn star:

thread-44265.html

She ended up quitting the porn industry and now instead is attempting to make a living being a Youtuber. A few of her videos are about her time as both a porn star as well as other sex work she has done. She had been a stripper at 18 at the suggestion of an older man that she was dating/having a sugar daddy relationship with. She graduated from the University of Florida and then moved down to NYC in pursuit of a Wall Street job. Unable to find one, she ended stripping in the city for awhile until she found the internship that she later quit to pursue a career in a porn. She also had a one week stint as an escort for various finance high-roller types which she describes in this video:

At 8:30 she discusses her first client which was some older guy. She describes him as being in good shape for his age and saying that he's a guy that she might have slept with anyways. Immediately after she says "this is obviously what I tell myself cause I don't want to feel so about being a piece of shit".

Also at 10:55, she talks about another appointment with a hedge fund manager where prior to the sex, she was hanging out with the guy and talking to him about finance stuff because if she was gonna bang the guy, she wanted to at least like the guy somewhat to make it more palatable and then immediately admits she was trying to justify everything, again using the reasoning that she would have slept with the guy anyways even if the guy wasn't paying for it.

With "being real" given greater importance with the current generation, are we going to see a greater amount of millennial women straight out saying that they backward rationalize decisions they've made in the past with no real shame? Granted, this girl is a Youtuber and the people in that genre make it a point to be as TMI and reveal as much personal details about parts of their lives that they probably wouldn't even share directly with their family but I'm wondering if that sort of attitude will filter down to regular people, especially with how younger teens are so much more reliant on getting their mannerisms and worldview from social media personalities. Combine that with people being less and less affected by shame and I can see more and more people straight up admitting crap and shady behavior without feeling the need to hide it out of embarrassment.

I think some of you may have this girl's act entirely wrong. These little aside remarks are no more the real her than the backward baseball cap or levels of makeup so high as to fritz out the app currently powering the Haggening.

The least horrible explanation for why she makes those little "insightful" remarks is because they're in defence of her identity -- which is to say, for a narcissist, the brand they project to the world. What brand is she projecting to you? In a phrase: the revirginised slut.

She is trying to persuade you that she's learned a lot more and a lot faster than the average thrashed-out prostitute about life and sex and stuff. She wants you to think of her as wise, not experienced.

Thus the little asides: to try and make you think that she's actually got some insight into what she did. She thinks that if you didn't hear those little asides, you'd judge her as just another stupid bitch who pushed too hard on the accelerator of the V8 engine that is an 18-25 year old girl's body. It doesn't matter that you do or don't judge her in that way, it's what she thinks that drives those remarks.

As said, that's the least horrible explanation for why those remarks are being given. The most horrible explanation for why they're there is because she is putting them to appeal to her audience.

To tease this one out, we're going to go with Kevin Spacey and Daniel Tosh by way of the Last Psychiatrist.



The dramatic monologue to the audience is old as Shakespeare, but it has a new twist in House of Cards because the audience to which it is playing is heavily narcissistic and feels locked out of the Washington DC process. For all our celebrities are photographed day by day, we are essentially locked away from them, their interviews are fake and always guarded, we never think we see the real person underneath. Even comedy fails to bring the real person out: shows with buttfucker presenters like the Graham Norton Show might have the celebrities make arses of themselves, laugh at themselves, but at some niggling level it's not real, the seemingly unscripted jokes are in fact all scripted, you're still not getting to know the real person underneath.

That's why Spacey's monologue makes House of Cards what it is: because it allows us to be with him in his head, like a trusted confidante, a co-conspirator. He makes us feel important in his own world. "Did you think I'd forgotten you?" he asks in the Season 2 premiere, right at the end of the episode, and it's a thunderbolt, an assurance we'll keep watching, because he's used classic push-pull on us as an audience: left us hanging the whole episode, then reassuring us that we are there, that we are important.

And by Frank Underwood's side we're no longer powerless peasants in the political process, we're there alongside him as he pushes Kate Mara into the path of an oncoming subway train, as he blackmails his way into success, it all feels so effortless, as if we could do it ourselves if we only were his character. And it appeals to our most base, cartoony impulses: that the only way you can make real change in Washington is by blood. The problem being that this is precisely how we are conditioned by the MSM to believe Washington operates. And, in the very best traditions of Greek tragedy, what we believe about Washington has come to pass: compromise across the aisle is now all but impossible, and America is so heavily divided the only way anyone is going to get something passed in Congress is if they start beheading people on the other side of the aisle right there on the Capitol steps.

Either way: you'll invest in a show when you feel like you're a participant of something rather than a watcher of nothing. The former is what all narcissists want to be, and the latter is what they are desperate to avoid confronting.

Comedians, too, have figured this shit out. Turning over to TLP here...

Quote:

Some comedians explicitly state that they are doing an act; there is no suspension of disbelief that the entertainer is telling a "true" story. The comedian lets you know this is fake, constructed, but still funny:

Daniel Tosh (hilarious) on Tourette's:

Do you think there's one case of polite Tourette's in the world? One person, who yells out random compliments for no reason at all? Nice smile! I'm sorry ma'am, I have a disease.... Lovely hat! I think two examples is enough-- next joke.

And on changing Daylight Savings Time:

I'd like to change Daylight Savings Time-- are you ready for this? Hold on Irvine--(pause)-- I put whatever city I'm in right there so it feels more local... (etc)

...[it's not fair, especially to] the people who work at night-- 1/3 of this country according to a survey I just made up for this joke...

The main joke is funny, but it's funnier because he has allowed the audience into the process.

Another example is the terrifically funny Mitch Hedberg, who does a Steven Wright-esque routine of short, independent jokes ("Every book is a children's book if the kid can read.") But different than Wright, he also references himself as a comic, and tells you how he feels the set is going:

Mitch Hedberg

I think a gift certificate is a bad gift. What's a gift certificate? You take money that was good everywhere...(a lot of laughter/cheering from the audience; he, too, starts laughing) You took a little long on that clap. I had some extra lines, but now I can't do them.

On writing jokes in his hotel:

Quote:

I got to write these jokes. So I sit at the hotel at night, I think of something that's funny and then I get a pen and I write it down. Or, if the pen's too far away, I have to convince myself that what I thought of ain't funny.

It is common for Hedberg to judge his own jokes ("that joke was dumb, I'm aware of that") or talk about how he tells jokes ("I have monitors [today], thank God, because last night I didn't have them and I was telling jokes, and I had no idea what joke I was telling. So I told jokes twice. I even told that joke twice") or accept joke requests from the audience ("cherries joke? Wait, you mean the cherry--? Ok-- I heard a guy tell me he liked cherries. I waited to hear if he was going to say, "tomatoes," then I realized he just liked cherries... that joke is ridiculous." He also jokes about taking the laughs he gets from one joke and using them on the CD for jokes that didn't work.

The comedians themselves aren't narcissists; they are tapping into the narcissism of the audience. The audience is attracted to these comedians because they get brought in, they get to feel like they are part of the comedy, part of the process, part of the act-- they are behind the curtain, behind the scenes. They're not the performers, but they could be; and at least their close confidants, and that's a start.

This meta-comedy is appealing because by being brought into the process, audience members are permitted to believe that what separates them from being the main act isn't hard work, or talent, but being noticed, being selected, getting a break. I could so do Mitch's act. Howard Stern is also like this. Few people think they could be disk jockeys, but almost everyone thinks they can do a 4 hour morning show. And they think this because Howard has brought them into the process of a morning show. So you feel like you've already done it, you know the tricks of the trade and you're good enough. But you're not-- you're just narcissistic.

To follow the evolution of this process, go back to the previous leader of comedy: Jerry Seinfeld. Certainly, his show "about nothing" was about himself, his (feigned) narcissism. It was the unimportant minutiae of his life blown out of proportion: he was the main character in his own show. But today's comics play on our desire to be main characters, first in their shows, but of course ultimately in our own.

I used to hear people repeat Seinfeld's jokes, but it was funny precisely because we all had a shared experience of them. But nowadays I hear people use a Hedberg joke as if they came up with it-- because they could have written it. They could be comics, too, if it wasn't for the wife and kids. Mitch wouldn't mind, anyway; he's a friend.

This girl producing little fits of insight (maybe Tosh would call it Reflective Tourettes) is part of her act. It's designed to draw in narcissists, designed to make people think -- but never act -- on the idea that "I could be a youtuber too, I could make some videos about stuff in my life and offer little personal insights I had". It is appealing to the audience that wants to be part of the process.

The best analogue I have for it is this: allowing yourself to be persuaded that the stripper has told you her real name after a couple of lap dances will keep her on your mind a lot longer than the memory of her shapely tits will.