Comments
  1. washingtonpost27 min
    3 reads2 comments
    8.0
    washingtonpost
    3 reads
    8.0
    You must read the article before you can comment on it.
    • KapteinB
      Top reader this weekReading streakScoutScribe
      6 months ago

      It's fascinating to me how open they are about their business in this article. This can't make them look good to their audience, can it? It shows how mass-produced and hyper-commercialised it all is.

      • bill
        Top reader of all time
        6 months ago

        I had the same thought. But I guess it doesn’t matter. The customers know, on some level, that they’re watching something fake(ish).

        The difference between “con” and “game” (or “play”) is a really fine line. Some seriously dumb guys might be getting full-on tricked into believing they’re actually “getting close” to Bryce, but I bet 9 out of 10 know very clearly that they’re interacting with a “mass-produced and hyper-commercialised” thing and couldn’t care less. Because: still better than old-fashioned porn which has precisely zero interaction between actor and viewer.

        I love thinking about the difference between “real fantasy” and “fake fantasy.” Either way there’s multiple layers of deception and self-deception.