Discover more from American Guardrail
Everything is a Thirst Trap
It wasn’t too long ago when nudity and explicit displays, intentional or not, were taboo in American culture. 2004’s Super Bowl with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake was perhaps the last vestiges of an American culture which leftists thrash, crying all over themselves, was “puritanical” and “sexist.” Since that miniature crisis that consumed American culture, which I was too young to remember, American culture has practically become nothing but a giant exercise in pushing the limits.
A good point of comparison would be the oft-cajoled Hardees commercials of the 2000s and 2010s, and how they quickly reflected culture in the midst of change. For example, a Hardee’s commercial from 2004:
This is stupid, and most can agree it’s stupid. But it wasn’t the headliner of the ad campaign; it also ran alongside advertisements like this:
Another commercial from 2004, but with a more heart-warming message and something to actually sell about their restaurant, even if it is a minor difference. The commercials, as awful as they usually are, are a reflection of culture. Now, let’s look a few years up the line:
As the adage goes, “sex sells.” But that adage was often reserved for products that were already adjacent to somewhat risque or were proximal to something that made the advertisement make sense. Tobacco, condoms, soap, fragrances — these can at least be understood to have a partial relationship to a sexual selling point. American culture now, however, has completely disposed of that notion. Sex doesn’t just sell cigarettes or fragrances that are supposed to attract women to you. Sex sells burgers from fast food establishments, dripping in oils, that fatten you up to 300 pounds on your low-activity lifestyle.
None of this is to imply that controversy didn’t exist in selling sex for products. But the rise in sex as marketing, devoid of any other features, just as the internet became popular in the late 2000s and early 2010s served to add it as a characteristic to the founding traits of the internet.
I won’t indulge in posting any of them here, but if you’ve been around, know, or have adolescent or teenage children, especially girls, you can be sure they’re engaging in thirst traps on social media. Posting videos, pictures, etc, to explicitly solicit flattering comments, advances, views, clicks, follows, whatever. This is beyond well documented (1, 2, 3) and kids will do anything to get attention. The viral, self-harming “challenges” that have been seen on social media for the past several years all stem from chasing attention endlessly. Women on the internet, however, have an innate advantage over men. I don’t think I have to spell it out.
If you’d like to support my writing, consider subscribing.
Unfortunately, you’d think that the American right could resist falling into a trap of low-IQ, brainless consumption that Richard Hanania would love to write about. Unfortunately, given the presence and rise of the “psyop e-girl,” the right has proven itself incapable of resisting its most base and brainless impulses.
Eric Trump evidently failed to vet his hotel room party well enough (a common happening in conservative circles at conventions, many of which are cesspools) and gives more clout to psyops. This is pathetic.
But the selling point, as users back on 4chan (before my time, I’ll remind everyone!) understood, was the sexual appeal, and so anonymity helped fight it away. It’s no different than Twitter now — anons jockey for hierarchy on merit, not on faceposting. Women on the internet back in those days were chasing attention, and it’s no different now. Find a niche, find an audience, and rack up the views wherever applicable. For WeaponOutfitters, this is not especially surprising (their niche is women and guns), but that they chose to specifically platform someone who is employed in psychological operations (by the government, whose profession is monitoring civilians, even though they say they don’t) is frustrating.
What’s more frustrating? People know it and like it. Two tweets I came across summed it up rather poignantly:
(And no, I’m not lost as to the apparent irony of using these tweets from this user in particular, but credit is due where it’s due.)
The choice of aesthetic, audience, and message isn’t a coincidence. It was probably farmed out in a conference call and PowerPoint deck meeting, contrary to what Lujan herself claims. And if she continues to claim otherwise, you can continue to tune her out, because she works for the government, and the government’s current job is to lie to you, in case you didn’t notice. The right is full of men who have proven themselves easily distractible (and I am among that group simply by writing this, unfortunately) and the vast majority of men in America are so easily brain delayed by the overstimulation and overexposure to sexual imagery that seeing it turns off all critical thinking. She still posts regularly, as of last week, and she used the online right as a stepping stone to boost her already-probably-peaking “career” on TikTok (nevermind the horror of someone in the US military having TikTok on their own devices). Good job, everybody, we did it.
If the dissident right is currently in a bit of a hissy fit over Nietzsche, longhouses, and gynocracy, maybe it would be important to eject people who pursue attention-seeking based on one’s sexual appeal. The right would also be best served by an absolute intolerance to any influencers who have had a past selling themselves in this way. The last thing the right needs is “based” former porn stars or failed actresses leading whatever small contingent of girls and women align with the right’s broader thinking.
Then again, most of the right can’t help themselves whenever a new BASED TRANS PERSON!!! joins their side or spouts their talking points, so what does it matter? We’re probably done for anyway.
Thanks for reading. Subscribe for free to receive new posts.