Part2 | No man left undone: The Armie Hammer story
illumina veritatem
Disclaimer: Sources, including those challenging common beliefs, are listed at the end of this article.
Contents
⟐ Taboo Sexuality
⬩How is Vore sustained in practice?
⬩The psychological evaluation part 2
⟐A change in optics
⬩Here we are
Taboo Sexuality
Let’s explore the definition of Vorarephilia (Vore) and attempt to understand how it manifests in the real-life experiences of those interested in this taboo fetish.
Vore is a sexual fetish where individuals experience arousal through fantasies of being consumed, consuming parts of another, or observing this process for sexual gratification. Vore does not appear in any psychiatric manuals such as the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Regarded as BDSM by some, because they view it as the ultimate gift of submission or manifestation of dominance. Again, this is not an uncommon fetish, as the community seems to be flourishing online. In fact, a small study shows that 10 out of 4175 people questioned have Vore as their primary fetish [1].
How is Vore sustained in practice?
For many people with these types of taboo fetishes, a significant part of the thrill is fantasising and communicating these fantasies to others; they seek fictive stimuli, i.e., books, games, role-playing, or even virtual reality. According to some community members, experiencing discomfort with one’s fantasies and grappling with how Vore integrates into a healthy relationship is quite common.
However, reflect on this: why do we seldom hear about non-consensual Vore? The answer is that supportive communities actively guide many towards healthy expressions of Vore. Moreover, these individuals often engage professionals to guide them, ensuring they steer clear of anything harmful, such as physical injury and unhealthy obsessions.
In part 1, direct message exchanges between the women and Hammer clearly show playfulness, consent, and eagerness. Despite the taboo around Vore, it was unkind of these women to publicly shame someone whom they led to believe was a consenting participant.
The psychological evaluation part 2
I question the claims of the professional Dominatrix in the documentary [2]. Her opinions seemingly stem from a one-sided narrative of the events, without access to the full direct message exchanges or Hammer’s perspective. She engages in a monetized version of BDSM, and thus is far from the best authority on how these relationships unfold in a natural setting.
BDSM is for many, not a game or mere weekend pastime. Rather, it is the basis of their relationship — a way of life.
If you are still undecided, consider that the clinical professionals who conducted the psychological evaluation drew additional conclusions beyond those previously mentioned [3]. Most notably, “Based on Mr Hammer’s clinical psychometric profile, interviews, observation data and collateral information he does not pose a risk to his children.”
In regards to his sexuality they concluded that “some of Mr Hammer’s attitudes and behaviour towards sex may be compulsive, but not out of control” and lastly, “Mr Hammer has certain preferences of BDSM practices which are fetishes and not crimes.”
I wonder, what level of evidence would our society deem sufficient to clear his name? Will any amount of facts or evidence ever be deemed adequate?
Transient emotions and immediate regrets are inherently human. However, they do not provide valid justification for irrevocably compromising an individual’s life.
A change in optics
The controversy is intensified by a documentary lacking in integrity and journalists who appear wilfully ignorant, which hints at bias in the reporting.
The documentarians invaded a family’s privacy, later presenting half-truths, and misrepresented subjective beliefs as factual; this was an evident attempt at editing reality for financial benefit, not to mention the touch of schadenfreude.
Some journalists prefer documentaries, attracted by the format’s inherent flexibility. As viewers, we approach these films in good faith, presuming they uphold factual integrity and objectivity. However, unlike the standards governing professional journalism, there are no official guidelines or transparency requirements for documentary filmmakers, except in the realm of public broadcasting, which has established clear journalistic principles [4]. This is the practice in most countries. Consider this: “52% of Americans trust the scientific information in documentaries as true [5].”
This statistic underscores the potential for manipulation when filmmakers blend factual content with biased narratives, particularly in a field with sparse regulatory oversight.
Industry professionals agree with the sentiment that genuine journalism is discouraged and underfunded; many advocate for a “watchdog entity” to enforce basic journalistic standards [5].
When did society decide it was acceptable to reveal confidential medical records, criminal records, family genealogies, personal photographs, romantic histories, and sexual preferences?
Are we, dear reader, mistakenly conflating public figures with elected officials? Is the conduct we have witnessed from certain media outlets truly justified?
Have we become irreversibly desensitized to the repercussions of cancel culture? Have we given up on upholding the core values of a respectful, law-abiding society?
If your own ancestry were scrutinized, would it withstand such public dissection?
These are some of the questions we should have asked, rather than adding wind to the storm.
Here we are
In the podcast ‘Painful Lessons’ [6], Hammer speaks with enthusiasm about the joy he experiences in taking his children to school and picking them up each day, whenever possible, over these past years — highlighting his eagerness to seize any opportunity to spend time with them. Despite his tarnished career and enduring public disdain, he does everything within his power, including undergoing a psychological evaluation, to remain actively involved in their lives.
As we judge these men so harshly, often on mere accusations, it’s essential to pause and take a deep breath. We must consider the whole picture, not just the distorted fragments. Respecting their privacy and granting them even the most basic level of dignity is something we can afford to do — it costs us nothing, yet the opposite diminishes our humanity.
Sources
[1] Vore statistics
[2] House of Hammer
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14549716/
[3] Armie Hammer Breaks His Silence
https://airmail.news/issues/2023-2-4/armie-hammer-breaks-his-silence
[4] Documentarians on their work
[5] The state of Journalism
[6] Painful Lessons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVRYOmUaL6g&list=PLxKxbHjiMXLDuBeMSalDI43Fc5WhLDxCX
