No man left undone: The Armie Hammer story

The Messenger

11 min readOct 3, 2024

illumina veritatem

Disclaimer: Sources, including those challenging common beliefs, are listed at the end of this article.

Contents

⟐Introduction

⟐Weathering the storm

⬩Elizabeth Chambers

⬩The psychological evaluation

⟐The secret life of humans

⬩Efrosina Angelova

⬩Courtney Vucekovich

⬩Julia Morrison

Introduction

Pause for a moment: What drew you here? What did you hope to find?

I aim to present facts with clarity and integrity, avoiding sensationalism or bias. I encourage you to build your perspective on evidence and critical thinking, fostering what we might term an ‘informed opinion.’

How was your opinion of Johnny Depp pre- and post-court? After all, Amber Heard never had him arrested; turning to grim accusations instead.

As we attempt fairness, how should we evaluate the credibility of personal testimonies, including those from women? What factors should be considered to avoid both undue skepticism and uncritical acceptance? And regarding media, how can we discern between factual reporting and agenda-driven narratives?

Consider this: Have we gathered all the necessary information to form a complete picture?

Here are some interesting facts, perhaps new to you: Efrosina Angelova (Effie), the person behind the username HouseOfEffie, was an experienced BDSM lifestyle dungeon worker; Page Lorenze has finally confessed that all relationship activities with Armie Hammer were consensual; Courtney Vucekovich and Julia Morrison engaged in fetishistic chats with Armie Hammer in direct messages.

The lawyer representing Armie Hammer at the time reached out to multiple media outlets, offering to provide evidence supporting his client’s claims; however, none of the contacted media chose to publish the material [1].

Reason and nuance appear to have taken a backseat, raising the question: how did we reach this point?

We observed clear suppression of key facts in the documentary ‘House of Hammer’[2], alongside a concerning lapse in journalistic integrity throughout the media’s coverage of Armie Hammer. This trend of targeting men with such aggressive scrutiny is increasingly hostile and disturbing.

Weathering the storm

Who is Armand Douglas Hammer (Armie Hammer)?

The documentary reveals strikingly little about him, and most media sources offer even less insight.

We know he was born in California on August 28, 1986. Began acting as a teenager. Met his ex-wife, Elizabeth Chambers, in his teens, and has two children with her. We also know he faced several allegations, later disproven, amidst an abundance of speculation. However, any substantial or formative facts about him were omitted from the documentary.

As a youth, he shunned the paved path to wealth, opting instead for independence and a creative career. He endured unimaginable pain and turmoil, having been sexually abused by a youth pastor. This supposed golden child faced a hardship that most would find difficult to comprehend. His mother and godmother can attest to this [1]. The information is provided not to make excuses or delve into gratuitous details, but rather to underscore our limited understanding of this man. Is it not just as problematic to assess an individual’s character based on vague allegations and the testimony of an aunt who has had no contact with him for 15+ years?

Media coverage favoured sensationalism over substance, with privacy invasion and public ridicule eclipsing genuine journalism. This prompts us to question the media’s methods: Was there an effort to reach out to him directly or investigate the full context? How might a more nuanced examination of his character have altered the narrative?

Elizabeth Chambers

Elizabeth Chambers was born in Texas on August 18, 1982. She owns a bakery chain founded in 2012.

While Chambers publicly presented a supportive front, she requested a psychological evaluation as part of a custody claim. Notably, this action predated both the documentary’s release and the intense media scrutiny. The timing of her request raises questions about the dynamics of their relationship prior to public controversy. We will revisit the psychological evaluation on multiple occasions throughout this article series.

However, before delving deeper, we must first consider some specific circumstances of Hammer’s previous marriage to Chambers, as they provide crucial context for understanding subsequent events.

Notably, she asked for a divorce in 2020, though refused to have it finalized until 2023.

In 2017, Chambers and Angelova exchanged several Instagram direct messages discussing their plan to get Hammer “locked up [1]” and for Chambers to gain full custody of their two children, which Angelova herself documented on Instagram.

Allow me to provide a snippet from their exchanges that highlights Angelova’s less-than-innocent intentions: “he kept saying he was married and couldn’t do this and how he’s never cheated in so many years of marriage and would feel absolutely terrible if he started and I kept pursuing him.[1]”

Now, I am not excusing cheating; however, I will state that we have all succumbed to temptation at some point in our lives. Historical teachings offer us wisdom in the saying: Only those without sin should cast the first stone.

The evidence suggests a discrepancy in Chambers’ public statements. In a recent interview with E! News [3] , she expressed that they “are in a good place” and emphasized that “kids need their dad,” which appears to contradict her revealed intentions. Before we proceed, it’s important to note another significant detail: Chambers was responsible for referring Angelova to Gloria Allred, the renowned feminist lawyer [1].

The psychological evaluation

The psychological evaluation was shared with the online publication Air Mail [1].

According to Chamber, she demanded full custody of their children because Hammer, and I quote, “is a psychopath” and “wants to kill his children.”

Forgive me, but this seems at odds with her claim that they were “in a good place” as co-parents, or her stated belief that “kids need their father.”

In fact, the evaluation labels Chambers’ behaviour as dubious, stating, “This casts a doubt over the intentions of Ms Chambers as she seems wrapped up in this narrative”.

Further, the evaluation concluded that Hammer’s sexuality is “not out of control” and that “concerns about Mr Hammer being a perpetrator of sexual violence are unfounded.”

Do the words of qualified professionals suffice? Would additional facts be more convincing? The evaluation specifically addresses Hammer’s BDSM activities. For more details on the sexuality aspect, refer to the section ‘The secret life of humans’.

As previously noted, Hammer sought to maintain some semblance of privacy and dignity by approaching the media discreetly with his evidence. Reflect on his circumstances: here was a man watching the career he’d built since adolescence crumble, his mental health deteriorating, tormented by thoughts suggesting he “just end things” — a struggle that tragically culminated in a suicide attempt.

Is it plausible, as he claims, that he desperately sought to keep his life, including his sexuality, private? Not just for himself, but also to shield his children. Allow, for a moment, that he harboured no desire for retribution or to expose the women he once cared for, and that even now, years later, he still cannot bring himself to do so.

One might wonder about the depth of confusion he experienced as events unfolded around him. In a recent episode of the podcast ‘Painful lessons’[4], his frustration was palpable: “Just having to deal with whatever the fuck is happening, and to navigate it in a way that I don’t cause more wreckage or damage, either to myself or to my kids.” He also expresses a struggle to control his defensive instincts, given the resentment that had been building within him. Consider this: if you were in his position, would you truly have taken the moral high ground?

Indeed, we are left with a conundrum: the sole criminal charge against him was found baseless and subsequently dropped [5]. No one could provide any evidence linking him to wrongdoing. Yet, he remains cancelled by many. Why?

The secret life of humans

Heaven knows I would never suggest that women are immune to sexual or emotional abuse. However, is the answer to consistently downplay women’s agency and responsibility?

First, BDSM is an abbreviation for bondage, discipline, dominance, submission — and, yes, playful sadism and masochism. Second, a fetish is any object or non-genital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation. Third, a kink is an unconventional sexual preference or behaviour. As for Shibari, this is simply an intricate form of Japanese bondage that highlights the visual and artistic elements of rope binding.

Let’s examine the statistics: Innerbody, an online publication with a medical review board, found that the top sexual desires in America fall under the BDSM umbrella [6].

A survey conducted for Harvard Sex Week concluded that “fetishes are much more common than we think. [7]”

Another study, published in The Journal of Sex Research [8], revealed that nearly half (45.6%) of the sample subjects expressed interest in “at least one type of sexual behaviour considered anomalous.” The study even concludes that “women who report an interest in sexual submission have more varied sexual interests and report greater satisfaction with their sex lives” and “sexual submission is therefore not an abnormal interest.”

The key point: BDSM is not nefarious, rather the purpose is to engage in practices that explore and establish power exchange, role-playing, bondage, and other interpersonal dynamics.

Sexuality manifests in numerous forms, and BDSM can be a component of healthy human sexuality. However, this acknowledgment does not confirm that the interactions between the woman and Hammer were consensual; it merely recognizes the possibility.

Efrosina Angelova

It’s important to recall that Angelova previously worked at a BDSM dungeon. For those familiar with the lifestyle associated with dungeons, this background might prompt questions about the credibility of Angelova’s public statements. It’s worth clarifying that work at a dungeon typically requires demonstrating both deep involvement within the community and a comprehensive understanding of the lifestyle.

I understand that the term dungeon might sound off-putting to some. To clarify, it’s an old-school term for a lifestyle play and learning space. Here, individuals come to engage in workshops, acquire new knowledge, socialize, and participate in adult activities. Some dungeons even orchestrate elaborate themed events.

Contrary to her numerous public claims, Angelova was instrumental in introducing Hammer to various BDSM practices, including consensual non-consent(CNC) [1]. Engaging in CNC is considered an advanced practice, which ideally should not be introduced early on in a relationship. Insisting that someone who is inexperienced and newly ‘awakened’ to BDSM participate in such activities is both troubling and potentially unsafe behaviour.

CNC refers to a relationship dynamic where one individual, the submissive, consensually cedes authority to another, the dominant, over one or multiple aspects of their life. To clarify, the submissive willingly relinquishes decision-making power in various, or all, domains of their life. This practice is often embraced in the context of committed, long-term relationships. CNC is an advanced BDSM practice because the dominant might wield their authority even when the submissive expresses reluctance or experiences discomfort.

My suspicion that Hammer had limited experience with this lifestyle before meeting Angelova is reinforced by his own admissions. He has publicly expressed a desire for a more adventurous intimate life, yet he harboured fears that it would offend his ex-wife, with whom he had been since his teenage years — worried his desires were “disrespectful.” This suggests that Hammer was a man conflicted, afraid to acknowledge his own desires and needs, essentially reluctant to embrace his ‘shadow self’.

I would argue that Angelova, given her level of experience, bore a responsibility to foresee the potential consequences of her actions. Accountability in such matters transcends gender; being a woman does not exempt one from moral obligation or responsibility. An unfortunate element of the situation was her apparent contentment with his lack of experience and her expectation that he would adjust to meet her desires.

Direct messages exchanged between Angelova and Hammer appear to indicate a recurring pattern where she initiated requests for increasingly intense activities that pushed boundaries. The following excerpt from a 2020 conversation includes explicit content that may be distressing or triggering for some readers. Please proceed with caution: “..I feel like prime fuckmeat needing to be utilised and my ass is craving you to one man gang bang me utilise me as property and fill all my holes and choke me pass me out. I’m sorry if this makes you feel anxiety I hope it doesn’t I don’t mean to be insensitive. [1]”

To further support the argument that his intention was not to cause harm, I will conclude by providing his response: “It doesn’t give me anxiety but I am not going to be able to engage in you it that specific way right now. It never ends well. We can talk and be friends but I can’t do that. [1]”

Courtney Vucekovich

In the documentary [2], Courtney Vucekovich’s apparent minimization of her knowledge regarding BDSM raises questions about her sincerity. It is worth noting the inconsistency between claiming ignorance of a subject and actively participating in private conversations that specifically reference that very topic.

Hammer claims that their exchanges were mutual, and the direct messages presented appear to support the presence of a shared boundary-pushing humour related to the Vore fetish. To provide clarity, the following is an excerpt from one such conversation [1]. Again, please proceed with caution; this excerpt may cause distress or be triggering to some.

Hammer: “Want to squeeze your head off.”

Vucekovich: “Oh my God. Please. Just pop it off and hold it. And let my head occasionally bite you.”

In the documentary [2], Vucekovich’s repeated statement, “He abandoned me,” suggests a strong emotional response. This sentiment is particularly notable when juxtaposed with her claim that “He made me feel really comfortable and safe.” The apparent contrast between these two statements could be interpreted as a potential motive for her actions or feelings towards Hammer.

It is worth acknowledging the complexities of the situation, particularly when considering Vucekovich’s allusion to Hammer’s potentially problematic alcohol consumption. This statement takes on an additional layer of context given her own reported struggles with substance abuse and her mention of having sought treatment at a rehabilitation facility shortly after their final break-up.

In summary, the documentary portrays a pattern of unstable and inconsistent behaviour from Vucekovich towards Hammer, resulting in multiple instances of the couple parting ways and reconciling. This tumultuous dynamic in their relationship seemingly led to a situation where he ultimately distanced himself from her, which she may have perceived as abandonment.

The documentary seems to present Vucekovich as someone with a restricted range of emotions, highlighting primarily her confusion, sadness, and desire for retribution. Such a portrayal might not capture the full scope of her character or experiences comprehensively. It’s also noteworthy that she consented to the use of her story by the documentarians, who appear to have shaped it to fit their narrative objectives.

Julia Morrison

Lastly, there’s Julia Morrison, who acknowledged being aware of his marital status and later his polyamorous lifestyle [1]. Given these details, the timing and motivation behind the contact and accusations, especially three years after he complimented her artwork, raise questions.

Similar to the other two women, she also claimed innocence regarding BDSM [2]. However, she acknowledged that their exchange “didn’t seem unnatural to me, [2] ” implying a level of comfort with the theme of their conversations, which is further reinforced by their direct messages [1]. Again, please proceed with caution; this excerpt may cause distress or be triggering to some.

Hammer: “Ohhh haven’t read that yet.”

Morrison: “he penetrates her instead kf kissing her and then makes her a slave”

Curiously, she incorporated their intimate communications into her art shortly after the media storm began [2].

To conclude, the documentary’s approach raises questions about the editing process. It seems the documentarians have selectively edited out parts of the direct messages that reveal the women’s excitement and encouragement, as well as the mutual nature of the exchanges.

Next in Part 2: I will begin by dispelling some misconceptions. We rightly oppose cannibalism in civilized society, picturing this archaic practice in light of horrific circumstances and the disgust it elicits. However, the fetish Vorarephilia (Vore) couldn’t be further from the grim realities of true animalistic cannibalism. Hammer has denied the cannibalism label, but has not denied an interest in Vore.

We take a closer look at what the psychological evaluation concludes about Armie Hammer’s BDSM interest.

Lastly, I will touch on the documentary industry and the state of journalism.

Sources

My link for 30 days of free Air Mail: https://airmail.news/i/NgID2Q5

[1] Armie Hammer Breaks His Silence

https://airmail.news/issues/2023-2-4/armie-hammer-breaks-his-silence

[2] House of Hammer

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14549716/

[3] Elizabeth Chambers Is Ready to Comment

https://www.eonline.com/news/1346590/the-e-cover-story-elizabeth-chambers-is-ready-to-comment

[4] Painful Lessons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVRYOmUaL6g&list=PLxKxbHjiMXLDuBeMSalDI43Fc5WhLDxCX