Whenever sales are lagging, and “something more is needed” — as has been determined by this dude Brian Shuster who wants to make a bunch of money off his multi-user online fantasyland — the “something more” turns out to be sex.
Why does the phrase “something more” even still exist? Do we really need two words for “sex”?
For that matter, why does the word “sex” even still exist? What are we, bonobos? Everyone knows that “sex,” in a public context, actually means “degraded woman.” The exercise of male privilege is what sells.
Anyway, this dude Shuster, who is of course a pornographer, invented RedLightCenter to give his boring online reality game a jolt. Download the software, and for $20 a month, your avatar in the “seedy-sex-club subculture” can get laid, or spanked, or have its nuts pierced with a railroad spike or whatever.
The LA Times article describes the game with terms like “indulging forbidden desires.” One emits a little chuckle; the conceit that there remain any “desires” whatsoever that are still “forbidden” is quaint, even for a mainstream newspaper.
I mention this asinine online game because apparently the inner repulsiveness of RedLightCenter users cannot be hidden even behind avatars; their deep personal crappiness impedes their cyberseduction of the other avatars. So in meat-reality, Shuster has “contracted with a bordello, where the working girls log on from home and are more than willing to overlook poor typing skills, for a price.”
Which is ick enough on its own, but what really cracks me up is the phony worried tone affected by the LA Times : “Can a simulated reality ever become a suitable substitute for real life? They may get a lot out of it, but the reality is that the denizens of RedLightCenter are alone in a room, staring at a machine, paying with real-world dollars to simulate physical intimacy.”
What is the world coming to that these losers should miss out on the real-life experience that normal people enjoy, the heartwarming experience of paying to rape actual prostituted women?