Tut-Tut Pornography

They say that you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. But, with only a barely-noticable bit of hypocrisy, you can have your pornography and decry it, too.

I offer, for your consideration, the movie, 8mm. In 1999, the relentlessly mediocre Joel Schumacher directed an atrociously hammed-up performance by Nick Cage as a private detective who has been hired to find the truth about an old 8 millimetre snuff film found in a wealthy man’s estate. On this film, if you can force yourself to sit through an entire showing, you’ll see glimpses of bits of real bondage pornography, specifically women tied up and gagged. But it’s okay for mainstream media. Why? Because the premise of the movie is that pornographic movies are evil things created by evil people.

That’s all it takes to show the most extreme pornography while holding your head high: proclaim it as evil and say, “Tut, tut.”

It’s a trick as old as censorship. The Vatican stoutly denies that it has a secret library of books that it has banned over the centuries. But it denies a lot of embarrassing things, sometimes even after they are proven true. Are we to believe that they would ban a book and not keep a copy so that they will know exactly what they have banned? If they didn’t have a copy, how would they know that a book called “Justine” by Sade was actually the book that was banned and not some other book written by some other author calling himself “Marquis de Sade”?

There are examples that are more verifiable than the Vatican’s fabled cornucopia of porn.

In 1986, President Reagan commissioned his Attorney General, Edwin Meese, to describe the harm that pornography does to America. Some Christian bookstores refused to stock his report because it contained too many explicit quotes and synopses.

In 1982, the feminist anti-porn documentary, Not a Love Story: A Film about Pornography, was shot in the Canada Film Board studios. It includes enough footage of sexually explicit material to please a porn addict.

If you want to see rape acted realistically, forget porn and look at mainstream “anti-rape” movies such as Jodie Foster in “The Accused”. You’ll quickly realize why porn actresses never make it in mainstream film. It’s not their tawdry reputation, it’s because they can’t act. Real actresses know how to simulate real emotions.

These are not isolated cases, but examples of a well-established genre of books and film that has become more prevalent in the last few decades, especially in mainstream film. It was fuelled by the (oxy)moronic feminist soundbites that “all sex is rape”and “rape is not sexual.” Therefore, politically-correct depictions of sex show it as, if not violent rape, at least degrading to the woman.

Sadly, this tactic showcases the worst porn. The people creating tut-tut pornography have to include the most detestable material they can find. They can’t credibly “tut, tut” the normal sexual behavior described in a Harlequin Romance or simulated in Hollywood movies, even though normal forms of intercourse are preferred by the largest audience and, therefore, constitute the bulk of available porn. The tut-tut pornographers have to find something so perverted that it will outrage.

Even if they have to make it up. Which brings us back to 8mm. Poor over-wrought Nick Cage is hunting down the perpetrators of a snuff film, contributing to the urban myth that there are people stupid enough to risk capital punishment to make and market such a film and other people depraved enough to pay for it.

The people who make tut-tut pornography are not reporting on a sick society, they are manufacturing it by are creating exactly the evil that they decry.

Hypocrisy is never admirable.

Yours, Ashley


About Ashley Zacharias

I'm a post-modern woman who lives a vanilla life and dreams about kinky adventure. I write BDSM pornography but have no interest in acting out my fantasies in real life. Find my work on SmashWords.com and Amazon.com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Tut-Tut Pornography

  1. Koala says:

    I had the same reaction reading “The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo.” There’s a lot of “oh how horrible all these men are abusing these women. Now let me tell you in graphic detail all the ways I’ve made up how the women could get abused….” By the third book I found the moralizing pretty comical. My guess is there’s probably not any other way to get books that depict a girl getting forcibly sodomized with a dildo or her nipple pierce with a safety pin on to the New York Times best seller list unless you then talk about how horrible it all is…

    • I know what you mean about Lizbeth Salander. Larssen gave us scenes that would have been great if they were consensual but making them actual rape and abuse took most of the fun out of it for me. Though I gotta love Lizbeth’s feistiness :-).

      • Valdez says:

        The original title of the book translates as Men Who Hurt Women. The entire trilogy was intended, in part, to illustrate how women are often victimized by society itself, not just by a few misogynistic individuals out there.

  2. Curtis says:

    I read the Meese report; it was not titillating.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s