The 2009 documentary Graphic Sexual Horror by Anna Lorentzton and Barbara Bell examines the bondage, discipline and sadomasochism pornography website insex.com. Trigger Warning Applies.

Brent Scott (the creator of insex,) has a massive virgin/whore dichotomy. Models are routinely manipulated and coerced. Scott routinely takes advantage of the vulnerable. Scott also mentions the serial killers who have inspired his ‘artistic’ work.

Scott remembers the time with the model ‘101’ fondly, but this is not reciprocal. Scott is named. 101 is a number, not a name. Scott argues that his system of numbering the women was so that that no matter how they promoted themselves with it, it would always end up being a promotion of the website. While this is a marketing scheme that enabled him to personally make capital, it also acts to dehumanise the women who are featured on Scott’s website of male sexual violence and torture.

In her interviews about her experiences and time as a ‘resident’ (a live-in model,) 101 demonstrates signs of post traumatic stress disorder – hyper vigilance, anxiety, distress and ‘the 1000 yard stare’.

Scott had several ‘paid residents’ – essentially running a personal harem of young, vulnerable women who he groomed into being the object of his perversions.

Scott was the same age as 101’s parents. She says he made him stay with him for a few months to get her substance abuse under control. He visited her in hospitals and psychiatric wards. By taking advantage of her vulnerability, Scott was rather not getting her clean, but encouraging her into another form of addiction and self-mutilation by proxy.

Scott is described as charming and glib to the women to encourage them to participate in personal bondage, discipline and sadomasochism sessions. Scott said he needed the ‘inspiration’ and that it would be difficult to find work with other companies if they refused. Scott was manipulating his position of power. He also threatened to fire female performers if they refused him.

A resident who ended up as a camera operator and videographer mentions her feelings of betrayal watching Scott enact sexual violence and torture on the female performers.

Princess Donna (currently of Peter Ackworth’s kink.com) discusses similar feelings of betrayal while being observed by other females on set who did not act to stop the sexual violence and torture on her. She then blames herself for not ‘safewording’ which is a recurring motif in this documentary; women mentioning how terrifying, physically and emotionally painful the ‘work’ was but saying it was acceptable as they could have used the ‘safeword’ at any time.

Another former performer mentions that while Princess Donna (a colleague and friend in her private life,) says she felt safe, in control and that she could stop the proceedings at any time – she did not feel the same way. She says she feels that she was raped and then, in a typical self-blaming scenario for a rape survivor says that she could have used the ‘safeword’. She says that she only continued to work for financial benefit, stating specifically she says that she lied about enjoying her ‘work’ at insex. This is pornography of rape.

Despite this performers cognitive dissonance/denial of her sexual trauma at the hands of Scott from insex.com, she did not consent to this sexual act and that is the very definition of rape.

While scott and his staff assert that they tested all of the torture devices ahead of time and off camera to ensure their safety, a 2.5m water tank that their onsite metal worker assured was safe was broken and could have easily injured any woman who was being restrained inside of it. However, this completely ignores the fact that tying someone up and leaving them underwater (even under controlled conditions) leaves them at risk for drowning leading to brain injuries and/or death.

Similarly, many of insex’s pornographic content includes women with nooses which is extraordinarily dangerous. In one scene of Graphic Sexual Horror a model is recounting her six hour video shoot of male sexual violence and torture for a live feed while her recollection of it as a positive and non-coercive experience is juxtaposed with insex’s footage of Scott placing a plastic bag over her head, Scott then ties a noose around her neck and starts to hit her and violently pinch her breasts. Regardless of intent, this is torture and aggravated assault.

This bombardment of sexual violence, rape and torture as pornography is continued in the closing of the film, depicting a naked woman that Scott has bound, gagged and tied to a post in heavy snow.

The encouragement of viewer participation offers a particular level of rewarding both virtual and material male sexual violence. members discuss their identification with the ‘characters’ of insex.com.

While the creators and senior staff of insex complain about the government’s desire to censor what adults can and can not see – the crux of their problem with the government is their ability to make a profit from the graphic sexual torture and rape of women.

In 2003, several years before Graphic Sexual Horror came out, a former insex model (with the pseudonym of ‘moonshine’) made a documentary about the male sexual violence that is rampant in the pornographic industry and highly demanded by consumers.

XXXEXPOSE documentary opens with footage from an early 2000s AVN expo where one porn producer discusses his new pornographic business venture of the rape of male-to-female transgender individuals; a male-to-female transgender performer discusses the size of their penis; and the driver and producer of bangbus.com (which was then just starting up,) discuss their pornographic website’s concept – picking up women from the footpath, “fucking” them and then “dumping” them on the back onto the footpath without paying them.

While their concept may be an exaggerated and falsified one (the women are in fact paid performers,) it demonstrates the ideology of pornography in one short statement: that women are consumable objects to be used and disposed for male sexual benefit. The interviewer remarks that this is the McDonalds of sex (a phrase later used by anti-pornography academic and author Gail Dines,) and the producer laughs and agrees.

Unlike Graphic Sexual Horror which does not delve into multiple pornographic companies – XXXEXPOSE does and features interviews with several producers and agents, the first of which is Jimmy D of now the now defunct ‘Bad Girls Modelling Agency’. Jimmy D discusses how many of the early internet pornographers are quote “pieces of shit”.

XXXEXPOSE also discusses notorious hardcore pornographer Paul F. Little, better known as his stage name ‘Max Hardcore’. Little is often credited as the father of gonzo pornography and for pushing the boundaries of male sexual violence and male psychological violence perpetrated on female performers.

A former pornographic performer known as ‘Roxy’ discusses a shoot with little where she was to made to eat and smear faecal matter on her body. ‘Roxy’ states that she got through it by pretending it was mud and dissociating despite being able to smell that it was excrement.

the interview and archival footage is intercut with edited clips of graphic sexual violence against women and stock footage of cell division.

None of the porn performers featured in this documentary are google-able and have faded into obscurity. given the high premature death rate associated with women in the porn industry it is reasonable to conclude that a significant number are dead through drug overdose, suicide, homicide or other causes.

The documentary also features the porn site facialabuse.com (now known as facefucking.com) in its early days before gaining notoriety in 2014 with Duke University student Miriam Weeks appearing on the site under her selected pseudonym “Belle Knox”.

XXXEXPOSE is no longer available anywhere online. This film has disappeared and Graphic Sexual Horror seems to have taken its place.

Is this deliberate or something more insidious?

Advertisements