By Chris R. Morgan.
For many of us the thought of sex in and of itself offers no small portion of exhilaration, but the act itself, especially when performed under haphazard circumstances, brings too much clarity to its detriments. The emotion and splendor to which modern sexual conduct connects itself often allows people the privilege of setting aside the pressing biological mechanics driving the act and the desire to act – which as many of us have learned act out of need rather than want, even if what it needs is not as necessary as it once was. It is only after the act that such awareness is restored. People who engage in casual encounters are often faced with a certain reality following official completion of the act that was hidden preceding the act. Even if all preventive measures were taken against the biological aspects of the act, one is still left with the feeling that they have made a grave error in judgment. Previously thinking oneself to be of some intelligence, one now feels otherwise having allowed one’s own emotions and the emotions of one’s partner to be abused for a spontaneous act of biological manufacturing. For these reasons many find much to envy in the sex addict, whose compulsions have managed to neutralize his or her conscience, though since the same can be said of serial killers, perhaps even of day traders, the prospect of actually being one seems to cost more than what casual sex would cost in comparison. Therefore, pornography’s safety zone comes to light.
In writing about pornography I’ve come to see two distinct types that, while seemingly identical in presentation, aesthetics and intent, appeal to two different fantastical mindsets. On the one hand we have the “God’s eye” pornography, that which places two or more performers in a vague if not altogether unexplained setting for the very purpose of putting on a show of perversion and vulnerability for the viewer whose sexual arousal takes secondary status behind his autocratic arousal. Perhaps not common in the past, this type abounds today on the internet, where websites offer cheaply made photo and video depicting unremarkable males performing with pretty but mostly disposable females for seemingly no other reason than they’re existing in that time and at that place. The more commonly known – and perhaps classic – style of pornography is what I call “funhouse mirror” pornography. While this type may seem dated when set up against the less substantial, more consumable God’s eye pornography, its depicting of Man’s sexual mishaps – as laid out in the previous paragraph – is enough to assure a life of at least modest health.
Funhouse mirror pornography is created from various but centrally similar scenarios that are treated with great sterility by practitioners of mainstream tasks. The simplest scenario is the pairing of two domestic (parent with friend of child) or professional roles (teacher with student) or one domestic with one professional (housewife with mailman or husband with babysitter). Whatever the case they all play out much in the same manner. One character manages to say something that would in any real situation be passed off as creepy and a few lines later the character gets laid. Given the sheer improbability of the scenarios playing out as they do on video and of the appearance of the characters, it is not hard to see comedic possibility. Though as much as one wants to see these as odd parodies of archetypes, it is inescapable that they are essentially archetypes in and of themselves, as they are preferred to be seen.
Further viewing of variants of funhouse mirror pornography will reveal what is truly behind its endurance. Rather than enable any kind of fantasy in the traditional sense, it presents a version of nonfiction to the viewer that has taken place, but with crucial editorial revisions. The content of this pornography is not simple escapism, but a representation of a state of mind that is in all humans. While the aesthetics of pornography are often exaggerated – or in some cases the complete opposite either by budget or by indifference or both – the behavior, lack of self-control and communication between performers is accurate down to the very last detail. This is not only acknowledged by the viewer, but desired. Funhouse mirror pornography depicts an act that the viewer is fully capable of doing biologically and with much enjoyment – excluding those, of course, with certain types of paralysis – but wishes not to face the shame of committing something immoral or criminal that comes in the aftermath. That the performers’ behavior is grotesque and their language reduced considerably is entirely the point. The sexual state is a rare combination of beastly abandon with concise purpose; one propels them to act while the other justifies it. Though it is both out of humility towards beastliness and refusal of responsibility that also keeps them from acting. In reality the sexual state, though manageable, is yet another utopia deferred. Funhouse mirror pornography’s accurate depiction of the sexual state coupled with the obliteration of the consequences and obligations that justify the primacy of the sexual state is the most adequate consolation, the best evidence of which being its most extreme creation.
On the face of it, Taboo would seem to be a pornographic film that overloads the viewer, and those of an immovable virtue would expect most people who see it to switch it off in disgust. It is, in fact, one of the bestselling films in the history of the genre and has spawned just under 30 sequels. As the penultimate funhouse mirror pornographic film, it serves regular amounts of literal penetration while doubling the figurative penetration. It tells the story of a beleaguered housewife and mother (played by Kay Parker) whose husband left her and her son (played by Mike Ranger). As properly befitting of such a film, Parker is offered help to get back into the game with more than the average amount of sexual encounters. Though everything from casual couplings to extravagant orgies leave her aroused but dissatisfied. Both the former and latter maladies are remedied by engaging in an affair with her son, prompted by her but not refused by him. Though the relationship is not denied as being abnormal, there are no aftereffects typical of an abnormal, abusive relationship, in stark contrast to the more realistic and tragic David O. Russell film of the same theme Spanking the Monkey. The sense of wrong and lapse of judgment that comes with the act and the almost natural demeanor of innocence with which the characters carry out the acts have never been more harmonious. Whether it’s incest or a tamer scenario the viewer sees what they see in themselves and in others everyday but are unwilling or unable to enact it constantly in any practical sense.
With the depth of the reflection given back by pornography’s funhouse mirror realized, it will not only not disintegrate, it will evolve and transcend beyond the more easily consumable power-hungry pornography. It will achieve what some might consider a bizarre feat of remaining loyal to the skeletal and muscular concept of pornography while simultaneously breaking past its limitations. With the potential to become more fully human than has been traditionally perceived, funhouse mirror pornography will fortify its mother genre’s founding definition while simultaneously making it more complex and versatile. Funhouse pornography has the potential to amass a media empire of the depiction of questionable behavior and those special moments in human life in which any given human being can lose control of his or her impulses and derive spectacular pleasure from it. This includes going beyond the questionable and into the realm of the extreme.
A pornography that veers into the extreme is by no means a new concept. In addition to incest pornography has covered a variety of other acts that are either illegal or just physically and psychologically harmful. On one end there is what is generally considered “bondage and discipline” or “domination and submission” and on the other end there is simply flat out simulated rape. As much as these genres within genres may be endemic of some moral decline on everyone’s part, these are par for the course as far the industry itself is concerned, which is one that is far from modest and always needing to prove to everyone who will take notice that it is pushing creative and commercial boundaries more often than not. As such, it is required to become more depraved. So why they seem to have stopped at literal sexual matters is something of a predicament.
The inclusion of snuff films into the repertoire of pornography would seem to be the next logical step in completing its empire of deviation, and gauging the current looseness of our moral standards, so too should murder pornography be a standard sub-genre. Like Taboo, snuff films are the pinnacle of funhouse mirror pornography, providing the grotesque representation of the viewer’s innermost desire to not be restrained by such basic tenets as dignity, virtue and good, though with the perfect satisfaction of not having to make the actual effort. In a way there are significant parallels between standard pornographic intercourse and a murder that takes place in a snuff film; though instead of penetration by penis it is by a knife, and rather than have semen as the signature bodily fluid it is blood, even if the blood is very likely to be fake. Though the acts are quite different, the dynamics and intensity in which they are carried out are nearly identical, proving some marketability.
Or perhaps not. It is entirely conceivable that at least one company that specializes in extreme tastes could have mulled over the possibility of producing snuff material, but having seen that the costs outweigh the benefits, producers declined to move forward. Since it is clearly not a matter of legality or controversy – though two people are currently imprisoned for producing and distributing rape-related pornography – it is more a matter of believability. Simple as sex may be, there is still a matter of relativity as to the performance of it. One can underwhelm in one’s performance while not failing to exchange gratification with one’s partner and will only be a step or two behind filmed professionals. To enjoy a snuff film would require a more taxing suspension of disbelief. It takes an uncommon strain of genius to commit recreational murder competently and to great fulfillment. One who underwhelms in murder leaves a only mess in addition to getting a likely death sentence if one is lucky enough to have actually killed. Moreover, to enjoy a snuff film from a reputable company is likely to pale in comparison to enjoying a snuff film cobbled together by random lunatics, and is perhaps better kept in the God’s eye camp of pornography, if anywhere at all. Since the vice of a snuff film stems mostly from owning one, the most feasible funhouse mirror approach would be to have a performance of someone watching a snuff film.
Even with one direction closed off indefinitely from funhouse mirror pornography there is no lack of room to move. There is much to be said of the brilliantly cold minimalism of God’s eye pornography, to be sure, but if the industry remains interested in cultivating even some imagination, God’s eye is not its best medium. Pornography’s bid for mainstream popularity has extended as far as it can go, or at least should go, it is the potential for mainstream respectability that remains untapped, if it wants it. Pornography is a bizarre bit of media that has a way of gratifying any who view it while simultaneously criticizing those aspects of their beings that lead them to be gratified by viewing it, and mainly by presenting it as the viewer very much wishes to see it, in spite of the fact or, more likely, because it is horrifying. Taken in this way, pornography ceases to permit its critics as well as its defenders to propagate the myth that it is an altogether disposable piece of colorful nihilism that either enables or prevents the transition of the acts depicted into reality. In truth a film and its viewer are in agreement that what is being shown is what constitutes as real, with all its thrills and all its shames going into full account of it. That the viewer should act on those very thrills and shames goes beyond the concern of the film which simply reports what has been in the viewer’s head and in his or her personal history before the film was viewed. The viewer’s inevitable vilification is the fastest way to the medium’s vindication, and it barely has to change much of anything it most wants to do.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Chris R. Morgan was a staffer at Trader Monthly magazine and is currently the editor of Biopsy magazine. His writing has appeared in VenusZine, Treble, Slate, Wunderkammer, and Disappear Hear.
