In Defense of Green Greenwald's Sex Tape
the narrowing of sexual panic.
update:
Shortly after I posted this, Glenn issued a statement. What a twist!
After sleeping on it and reading some more commentary, I’ve seen a lot of people defending what Glenn did on the basis that “well, as long as it was consensual…” This sort of defeats my specific original point that the discomfort people felt with the video was with the ambiguity of consent, but reinforces the larger point that all people seem to care about these days is consent in a “monolatric” way.
Leaving the rest of this article as it was originally written for posterity.
Original article:
It is that time once again. Every 72 days, we have a political sex scandal. Every 72 days, I will be defending the accused.
Last time it was my boy, Harry Sisson, a Democratic influencer. My defense of Sisson was self-interested: both Sisson and I are white male Democrats. I want to see a successful future for the Democratic Party. If activists are intent on alienating one of the most important voting blocs in America, then they are effectively acting as allies of Trump. Exiling Sisson for being a bit goofy and horny is deranged and politically suicidal. Even my arch-nemesis, Bentham’s Bulldog (hisses and boos), leapt to Sisson’s defense a few days after I bravely and boldly made it safe to do so.
I am not sure if Bentham will be joining me in defending Glenn Greenwald, but the door is always open. The more the merrier!
It’s all fake!
Before I begin to defend Greenwald, I would like to open with the disclaimer that we live in an age of AI Deepfakes. I would like to think that AI cannot reach this level of realism, yet. Personally, I find it highly disturbing that someone could Deepfake videos of me doing heinous acts of shrimp torture. Out of wishful thinking, I want to deny that this could also be done to Glenn.
However, given what we know about the rapidly accelerating pace of technological development, it is plausible that the man in the video is not Glenn Greenwald, but an actor with Glenn Greenwald’s face mapped onto his.
In fact, I have reason to believe that the video in question may be the first Deepfake political sex scandal in history. We’ve had hundreds of political sex scandals, but I’ve never seen AI deployed to engineer one, so this may be the first of many to come.
It has been claimed that Glenn reposted the video on his own Twitter account, and then deleted the repost, which eliminates any possibility of it being a Deepfake. The rumor is that the blackmailers “forced” Glenn to repost the video.
However, if the video is a fake, then it’s possible that Greenwald’s account was hacked in order to repost the video. And if Glenn was forced to repost it, why wouldn’t he also be forced to keep it up?
If hackers gained access to Greenwald’s account, they would be technically savvy, and likely also have access to the kind of Deepfake technology to create a fake video.
Presenting the video as a “repost” would help add layers of complexity and make the video seem more authentic.
If it were an AI fake, why doesn’t Glenn publicly state so, and issue legal threats to the fakers? I’d like to provide a few excuses for why Glenn might be hesitant to do so.
If Glenn were to come out and denounce the video as inauthentic, this might create a kind of “Streisand Effect,” which would make the story even more prominent, doing more damage to Glenn’s reputation, even if the video is fake. This is because people are really dumb, and believe all sorts of rumors, like the conspiracy theory that Michelle Obama or Brigitte Macron are secretly men.
As a Professional Crisis Management expert (Glenn, call me),1 there are all sorts of reasons why Glenn might neglect to immediately denounce an AI fake of him. Maybe Glenn finds the spectacle amusing. Maybe he is working behind the scenes to identify the hackers, and wants to lull them into a false sense of security. Maybe Glenn wants to see who are his true allies and friends in the MAGA movement.
Don’t take this article as an affirmation of the video’s authenticity — take it as a hypothetical thought experiment, a fictional “If I Did It,” from a third-person perspective. Out of respect to the presumption of innocence, I will be referring to the video as “the Deepfake video.” Rather than referring to “Glenn” I will be referring to “Deepfake Glenn,” to differentiate between the authentic man and the potential fiction.
Why are people so upset?
In my defense of Sisson, I got very personal. I revealed a dark, intimate truth about myself: I have used corny and cheesy pickup lines on hundreds of women to farm pictures of their butts. Horrifying, I know. If I was a real man, like Clint Eastwood or Arnold Schwarzenegger, I would have no time for this, because I would be too busy executing vigilante justice, winning bodybuilder contests, learning the secret of steel, and winning gubernatorial elections.
The abstracted form of the male desire for sex is inherently pathetic. This is in contrast to instantiated desire, which is cool and sometimes even a bit scary. A man who has sex is cool. A man who wants sex is a pathetic coomer. The coolest thing of all is to be a man who is annoyed by women, and pushes them away, but when he does have sex, it’s the best goddamn sex you can possibly imagine.
Most men fall quite short of the idealized form of Clint Eastwood, who is simultaneously a female fantasy and a male fantasy. Women want a man who is highly aloof and uncaring about earthly matters, who is relentlessly and violently pursuing some epic ambition. They want a man so obsessed with winning that they barely notice women. This also appeals to women because it helps them feel secure in trusting that this man won’t cheat or sleep around — like a horse with the blinders on.
Men like the fantasy of Clint Eastwood because men admire those with focus and dedication. Whether for proto-Christian or spiritual reasons, men also seem to admire the power of self-control over one’s libido. This may be inspired by some level of Schopenhauerian self-hatred of the sex drive, which so often distracts and sabotages men. Eve in the Bible isn’t just a woman, but a personification of the male sex drive, which seduces men and drives them to foolishness, like asking for a booty pic with your panties on, and one without them on.
Now Glenn Greenwald is not very interested in women, but this does not resolve the problem at hand.2 Even among gay men, the dynamic holds — the most attractive man is unattainable, aloof, distant, and selective, not available or desperate.
The Ugliness of the John
For those who haven’t seen the Deepfake sex tape, it doesn’t really involve sex.
Man, back in my day, sex tapes had sex! What’s this generation coming to?
There was the Hulk Hogan sex tape, the Kim Kardashian sex tape, the Paris Hilton sex tape… Hell, in 1988, Rob Lowe was videotaped having sex with a 16 year old, let off with a warning, and went on to have a successful career in Hollywood.
The worst thing about this Deepfake is that Glenn is wearing a maid’s outfit, he licks feet, and he sends money to a prostitute.
Licking feet is much worse than wearing a maid’s outfit. I’m biased in this regard, since I would much rather put on a maid’s outfit than lick feet. How unsanitary! Deepfake Glenn, do you know where those feet have been? You could seriously get a stomach infection doing that. But maybe Deepfake Glenn has the stomach of Shoenice, in which case he will be completely fine.
Whether or not sending $2,000 to a prostitute is bad or not is up for debate. It is obviously a very selfish use of $2,000, since it could have been donated to shrimp instead. But I think the worst part of the tape is simply that Deepfake Glenn is an old man.
If Glenn was Glenda, and Glenda was a hot young woman, it would be a very different story. The biggest mystery would be: why does a hot, young woman need to send $2,000 to a prostitute? Can’t she just get a guy to dominate her for free?
This explains much of the stigma and demonization of Johns (men who hire prostitutes): by hiring a prostitute, you are admitting that you can’t get it for free. Therefore, you are undesirable. Therefore, you deserve to be locked in a cage for the crime of not being hot.
Why do we hate undesirable people so much, that we are willing to persecute them, hate them, and throw them in cages?
Why are Johns gross?
If Deepfake Glenn had a sex tape released where he simply was just having gay sex, I’m not sure it would provoke the same reaction. Of course there are many people who think that Deepfake Glenn is gross, and that gay sex is gross, and they would also find the combination of the two gross. But in 2025, releasing a sex tape of someone isn’t very damaging. People have sex, and there’s really no “revelation” there. But there is a “revelation” in paying a prostitute.
Whether the tape was leaked in order to damage Greenwald, or whether it was manufactured by AI, the tape was intended to do damage. Why is it that paying a prostitute is viewed as more despicable than having sex for free?
Men who pay for sex are presumed to be undesirable. Going back to the ideal of Clint Eastwood — the ideal man is one who doesn’t desire sex, but is desired. The Buddha was described in this way, as one who is desired by many but has no desire for them. The archetypal John — one who pays for a prostitute — is the opposite: one who is desired by none, but desires many.
In reality, men who pay for prostitutes are not desired by none. In fact, men who visit prostitutes may be desired by many. I’m sure if Deepfake Glenn hopped on Grindr or simply put out a call to his thousands of admiring gay fans, I’m sure he could find a sex partner. But Glenn might not have time for all of that. He may be simply seeking out convenience.
Additionally, by paying a prostitute, Deepfake Glenn might be avoiding emotional cheating. Yes, Deepfake Glenn is physically cheating, but if he were to seek out a partner without payment, the implication would be that there was some kind of mutual desire or affection at play. By paying a prostitute, the transaction becomes business-like and contractual, with a smaller risk that Deepfake Glenn is going to divorce his husband and run off with the escort.
Despite the fact that prostitution is one of the oldest professions, it still inspires disgust. This can also be understood through the “Handicap-Crutch” Theory of attractiveness.
The HC Theory states that, for any given trait, that trait is modified by a series of handicaps and crutches. For example, if a man is rich, but he inherited that wealth, that inheritance becomes a crutch, which makes his wealth less attractive. On the other hand, if he came from poverty, that is a handicap, and makes his wealth more attractive.
If a man has a perfect physique because he spends every waking moment maximizing his health with a perfect diet, perfect sleep schedule, and perfect meditation rituals, that is less sexy than a man who has a hot body while smoking, drinking, partying, and staying up all night.
There’s something attractive about a man who harms himself or puts himself at risk, whether with extreme sports, fights, drinking, drugs, fast cars, or breaking the law. There’s something unattractive, nerdy, and creepy about a man who minimizes risk to himself by never breaking the rules, always going to bed on time. The John, from this viewpoint, is avoiding risk by seeking out a transactional arrangement rather than engaging in a messy affair. The John, by this logic, is worthy of our derision and disgust.
The Sex Pest as an Oppressed Class
Over the last 50 years, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and even transgender people have been normalized. Women who enjoy being spanked and reading about werewolf sex are protected under the label of “queer.” But there is one sexual minority which seems to be increasingly persecuted under the new regime, and that is the Sex Pest.
The term Pest is uniquely targeted toward men. Generally, it is a straight man. But the Deepfake video has shown that it can be extended to gay men, too.
Attacks on the Sex Pest come from left and right. Trump’s recent ban on Deepfake porn, signed by his wife, is targeted toward the Sex Pest, the kind of guy who wants to see Scarlett Johansson and Taylor Swift in compromising positions.
Think about this deeply for one second: when’s the last time you saw a law restricting sexuality? We’ve had laws protecting sexuality, promoting sexuality, enabling sexuality, but no restriction since 1977.3 Trump’s ban on Deepfake porn is uniquely targeted against the Sex Pest.4
Or take Nancy Mace’s castigation of her ex-husband in Congress, where she showed nude pictures of herself to the world.5 Mace claimed to have found these videos by stealing her husband’s phone… I won’t dwell on the case in specific, but it is notable for the vector of attack: stirring up hatred against the Sex Pest.
Well, obviously. Deepfake porn is deeply unethical. Secretly recording women without their consent is unethical.
Sure! They’re not called “Sex Angels,” they’re called “Sex Pests.” They are at the minimum annoying, and at the worst, an aggressive, malicious, and sadistic group. But couldn’t the same thing be said of all forms of sexuality?
I’d like to argue that Sex Pests are actually an unavoidable form of “blowback” from consent-centered sexuality.
Historically, the concept of consent, or “love marriage,” as they call it in India, existed in contrast to rape or arranged marriage. When I say that our culture has become “consent-centered,” I don’t mean that some Jewish sexologist invented consent in 1896 to subvert western culture. What I mean is this: as other sexual taboos have been eroded or eradicated, the taboo surrounding consent has been strengthened to an absurd and even destructive degree.
The two most evil sexual activities are arguably pedophilia and bestiality. But think about how those taboos are justified in modern parlance: by the concept of consent. This is not how they would be historically understood. 100 years ago, pedophilia would have been denounced as “the destruction of innocence;” the concept of consent would have never entered the picture. Similar, bestiality would be attacked as “unnatural;” a critique which is now irrelevant and even laughable.
As all sexual taboos have been systematically eliminated, only one remains. And like some kind of hungry monster, it greedily gobbles up all the moralistic energy left behind in the wreckage. As homosexuality, casual sex, polyamory, and birth control become blasé, consent takes on a singular power.
One could compare it to the worship of Akhenaten or Yahweh, where a single God became monomaniacally worshipped over the others. This aggressive fanaticism left no room for compromise, and these sorts of cults either were destroyed or took over the world.
In this metaphor, consent was once a God in a polytheistic pantheon of many sexual taboos: the taboo against homosexuality, transsexuality, polyamory, pedophilia, bestiality, and premarital sex all stood strong as various cults of worship within an interdependent sexual theology. But as each of those old Gods has been struck down as “idols,” only consent remains.
The deepest logic of liberalism is founded on the contract, the mutual agreement. The worship of consent as the highest sexual taboo is reflective of the victory of liberalism.
What I am attempting to expose is the fact that we, as a society, have not become less sexually prudish, but we have redirected and concentrated all of our prudery against one single scapegoat: the violator of consent. As this religious fervor is further concentrated (as homophobes and transphobes die off), it becomes more intense, more vicious, and more cruel.
In a prior age, Deepfake Glenn would be ridiculed for being gay. Having sex with men is, to be fair, gay. If you showed your grandfather from the 1950s the Deepfake video, and asked him what was wrong with it, he wouldn’t talk about the unsanitary conditions, the humiliation fetish, the maid costume, or any of those details. He would simply say, “that man is gay,” and that’s all there would be to say.
Now that homosexuality is fine and dandy (well, it was always dandy, but now it is also fine), we have to invent new reasons to be disgusted by sex. Some of these inventions aren’t even conscious — they happen as a result of subconscious pressures and desires.
The biggest sexual emotions aren’t happiness, sadness, or anger. The biggest sexual emotion is fear. Being afraid of getting caught; being found out; exposed; hurt; kidnapped; ravished; spotted; abused; going too far; losing one’s self… even the fear of death is strongly connected to sexuality.
Why are goth chicks so hot? Death! Why is Halloween the sluttiest holiday? Death!
Death is, in fact, very sexy. But death is also very scary. This is no coincidence!
The implicit fear contained within all sex acts makes sex a primary focus of moral panics. We haven’t reduced the moral panic around sexuality — we’ve only narrowed the focus of our panic, tighter and tighter, to the point of absurdity.
No, Harry Sisson is not a rapist. And no, Deepfake Glenn isn’t any more weird or disgusting than any middle aged bottom. But there are these implicit ideas of consent surrounding “talking to multiple women at the same time,” or “hiring a prostitute to dominate you.”
No one ever makes these things explicit. No one, except the most deranged and least self-aware, is going to accuse Harry Sisson of “rape” for downplaying his non-monogamy. And I don’t even think people understand why the Deepfake video is “weird” or “gross” or “potential blackmail material.”
I am trying to dissect why people think Glenn Greenwald is being blackmailed for being anti-Israel. “He’s gay” is not a sufficient explanation.
Let’s say a video of a female came out in which she was wearing a maid outfit and licking toes and so on. No one would assume “she’s being blackmailed!” They would assume she is an OnlyFans model. Now, being an OnlyFans model isn’t the most prestigious job in the world, but it’s difficult to imagine “blackmailing” a woman by showing her in a submissive position.
When Katie Hill resigned, it wasn’t because she was naked, but because she was accused of being in an inappropriate relationship with her staffer. The implication? Because she had power over her staffer, her staffer… could not consent! Ergo, Katie Hill is a rapist!
No one will ever say that word out loud, but that is the implication. “Inappropriate power dynamic” is a euphemism for “consent violation” which is a code word for “rape.” What originally referred to a brutal and violent act of an invader dragging a kicking and screaming woman from her village and shipping her off to an Ottoman harem now refers to the managerial violation of byzantine bureaucratic “power relations” defined by an HR Lady Priesthood.
Deepfake Glenn did nothing wrong according to the “explicit” rules of consent — ostensibly, he was either the victim, or he was a willing participant. Sure, he may find the video embarrassing, but “embarrassment” does not rise to the level of blackmail. According to the “implicit” rules of consent, however, Deepfake Glenn’s Sex Pestery as a John makes him deeply immoral.
Conclusion.
Most people don’t have the ability to understand why they find things “weird” or “creepy.” In the same way, most people don’t understand Hollywood movies or works of literature. Yet, behind every “moral intuition,” there is a hidden logic. In this case, I think the Deepfake video has the appearance of blackmail material because it violates certain implicit understandings of consent — that two partners in a sexual interaction should always have the same degree of sexual desire, with no imbalance between us.
The Deepfake Glenn video is uncomfortable to watch, because there is a great deal of uncertainty. I don’t speak Portuguese, so I have no clue what they’re saying, but it’s hard to tell whether Deepfake Glenn is afraid for his life, being held at gunpoint, or extremely horny. It’s this confusion — the mixture of sexual desire and fear — which I think makes people so uncomfortable, because it strikes at the taboo of “enthusiastic consent.”
In a prior age, sex was immoral when it was declared unnatural. To engage in an unnatural act was evil because it was an affront against dignity or God. Homophobia still persists, and if you think gay sex is disgusting, you surely will find Glenn Greenwald disgusting as well. But the “homophobia” justification doesn’t explain why, in 2025, so many people think “Glenn Greenwald is being blackmailed.” This requires going a bit deeper.
Sex cannot exist without taboo. In the absence of taboo, sex becomes stilted and boring. In the past, men and women would risk hellfire for a pre-marital rendezvous. Now, the kids can’t be bothered to get off the damn phone to meet someone in real life.
Schopenhauer was right. Human beings swing between boredom and pain. Freud called it the death drive, but it is also a desire for pain.
As men become feminized and domesticated, they seek to be punished by a dominatrix, or coddled by a mommy. This fantasy intensifies with guilt and the fear of failure.
Sex is confined to the house party, the dating app, the pre-approved meet up. Nudes before sex. It’s procedural. There is no spontaneity; no surprise; no ambiguity. Contrast this to the bride-napping of the Bronze Age, where women were taken from one tribe to another in a game of capture the flag.
No one is fucking, they are simply “hooking up.” Hear the difference? “Hooking up” is a mutual interlocking, like two puzzle pieces fitting together; it is mechanical, metallic, technical. Fucking is brutal, unforgivable, chaotic.
The term “ravish” comes from the same Indo-European root as Ravana, the demon lord of Lanka, who kidnaps Sita, the wife of God. Ravishing isn’t contractual; it’s not pre-approved. The concept of consent is inherently anti-sexual, as it turns every act into litigation and bureaucracy.
Sexual power is only present where risk is possible. In an overcrowded, domesticated world, risk becomes impossible. Trillions of cameras track every twitch. The scale is dehumanizing.
Sexual power exists in the forest and skyscraper. The forest, because it is wild and free. The skyscraper, because it rises above the mass suburban repetition and reintroduces the individual.
Against this force, I cannot see the Deepfake video with anything but sympathy. Here is a very professional, highly domesticated man trying to “get his freak on.” Who can blame him?
At the end of the day, most conservatives watching the Deepfake video think it is disgusting because it shows a man fetishizing his own subservience. But that’s literally what every gay bottom in the world does, and I don’t think a video of Deepfake Glenn being a bottom would be viewed as “blackmail.”
Rather, I think it is the depiction of Glenn as a Sex Pest and a John which inspires this particular judgment. We should consider what the nature of this particular “celebrity sex tape” (potentially the first Deepfake sex hoax) says about the monomaniacal narrowing of a sexual moral panic which was once broad and “pantheistic.” If our society continues down this direction, I think the result will be a rise in sexlessness among young people, with serious implications for public mental health.
Of course, I denounce Real Greenwald’s politics, which are insipid, conspiratorial, and histrionic. But maybe that makes his sexuality more understandable. If I was forced to defend MAGA day and night, I would also probably develop some pretty powerful neurosis and seek catharsis by paying men $2,000 to lick some feet.
Ending Theme Song Lyrics:
(Woah) (Ladies)
It's Charly (Girls)
My girl, come flip it like a Flipagram, flip it like a Flipagram
Mek yuh bumpa flip like a Flipagram
Flip it like a Flipagram, flip it like a Flipagram (You, you deaf?)
Gyal, your wine is so emotional
[In Jamaican Patois, “wine” refers to a specific dance move where the hips and waist are rotated in a circular or gyrating motion. It's often used in the phrase “Wine Pon You,” which means to dance on someone with this particular movement. The word “wine” in this context is derived from the word “wind” meaning to go around and around. ]
Baby, you bubblin’, you bubblin’, you bubblin’, baby
Gyal, you a party animal
Gyal, you active, no, you no lazy
To how you wine, you drive me crazy
Gyal, me love how you party
I charge way less than $2,000!
My theory of homosexuality states that homosexuals eroticize other men because they feel alienated from maleness. In having sex with men, homosexuals are attempting to integrate or unite with something that feels distant. This theory follows from the Platonic myth of the androgyne.
You could mention the Defense of Marriage Act, 1996. Before that was the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977, which banned the obscene depiction of minors.
Prostitution stings and the popularity of “To Catch a Predator” copycats could also be considered here. Some of these involve a disgusting mentally disabled old man being enticed to meet up with a 13 year old. Others involve a 21 year old being enticed to meet up with a fictional 17 year old and then being physically assaulted as a “pedophile.” The subject deserves an article of its own.
Supposedly. They were pretty blurry.
https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1928440222771015912 Update
Can Deepfake Glenn cheat on his husband when real Glenn’s husband is dead?