Why People Buy Celebrity Sex Tapes and Porn Parody

by Dr. Witherspoon

This essay could also be called The Masturbation Ontology of Celebrity Sex Tapes and Porn Parody; however, accessibility to a less specialized audience guided the decision to avoid what could easily become a very exclusionary discourse.

*Note: This article is a bit long, and I do most certainly feel that it is worth reading in its entirety. However, true to our general Weltanschauung (notice I’m not applying this world view to just Americans!), there is a shamefully short attention span along with not a tremendous amount of interest in deep analysis (the type of analysis that leaves one with more questions than answers). That being so,  for those in this category, skipping to the conclusion at the end will provide the bare-bones thesis of this piece. Thank you, Dr. Witherspoon.

The Sociological Imagination And Sex Tapes

It should be expected that some sociologists would wonder about the recent emergence and rapid prevalence of the pornography genre known, generally, as the XXX Porn Parody (hereafter referred to as PP). After all, in the last several years we have seen this category dramatically proliferate with such films parodying The Incredible Hulk, Spiderman, Superman, Wonderwoman, Batman, Scream, Star Wars, The Flintstones, Friends, Seinfeld, etc. It would appear that many of these films, thematically, depict the explicit sexual exploits of super heroes.

Stigma As A Possible Explanation

One way to understand this is through Goffman’s understanding of stigma (it’s also worth considering Goffman’s oeuvre as generally about the self…or the “discredited self” as in the case of stigma). For me, the stigma work as a sensitizing theory is the smartest way to analyze this. According to Goffman, the world is divided into the stigmatized and what he calls “normals.” Now, granted, in 2012 the term normals sounds a bit funny and has a 1950s feel to it. Well, Goffman was writing during that era, and the term doesn’t really matter. It’s the concept behind it. Normals are your average people who can coast through society: there is nothing about them which is socially discrediting.

The stigmatized, in contrast, have a visible aspect which discredits (or a discreditable aspect that is purposefully hidden: managed.) In Goffman’s universe, some very obviously stigmatized people are those with various deformities, the blind, those unattractive by conventional aesthetic standards, the mentally ill, junkies, flunkies, alcoholics, etc. Another group of stigmatized people have a hidden discrediting aspect that they manage to hide (at least for a time): this includes someone who’s a closet alcoholic, has a father who’s a convict, has a scandalous past, etc. Indeed, this is very interesting (Goffman, 1963).

Now Goffman gets a bit complicated in his views, because he’s not really saying that the stigmatizing factor is the particular aspect: it’s rather “a language of relationships” (Goffman, 1963, p. 3), but that isn’t important for this piece. The idea that’s important is the power relationship between the normals and the stigmatized: and, that it’s the normals who have the power.

So, why does all this matter in an analysis of the celebrity sex tape (hereafter called CST) and PPs you’re wondering? Aren’t we discussing tapes of Lindsay Lohan sucking cock and Kim K fucking? What’s with all this sociological mumbo jumbo? Bear with me for a bit, and you’ll see.

The Stigmatized, The Normal, And The Celebrity

Your first thought, at this point, might be that in this model the viewer (of the sex tapes etc.) is the stigmatized and the normal is the celebrity. But, that’s not it. Goffman, though, does have some interesting thoughts, on the concept of fame, which also inform this analysis. In Goffman’s perception, the famous receive special treatment. “The mere fact of being recognized in public places by strangers can also be a source of satisfaction (Goffman, 1963, p. 68).”

Goffman has a lot to say about fame: some of which gets pretty complicated. But, this fragmented idea, expressed above, can stand on its own, and it’s all we need in this essay. We can fairly think about it now in this way:

Famous >> Normals >> Stigmatized.

Now, most of the discourse literature doesn’t formulate it in that way. The “famous” part gets left out: that’s a mistake. It is in Goffman’s writings, and it’s important.

You see, the famous group is, indeed, a very special, unique category that hovers above the normals in a strangely abstract, fantastic, super human way. And, this special status is constantly reaffirmed through the deluge of media coverage. The specialness is minute by minute created and recreated. It’s an illusion continually made real. As a result of this perpetual process, in American society, there could be no greater contrast than between the famous and the stigmatized.

And, there is a desire on the part of many normals to dethrone the famous from their pedestal which hovers above them: the glorified pedestal of an elite class from which such famous figures urinate upon their heads. That’s why we’re so fascinated with the downfall of the Demi Moores and Mel Gibsons.

In the popular dialogue, people formulate it typically that many Americans like to see celebrities “crash and burn.” And, that’s accurate. But, there’s a psychological and sociological process behind that desire.

Schadenfreude: Pleasure From Another’s Suffering

I’m arguing that it’s a type of Schadenfreude (a German term meaning pleasure derived from another’s misfortune: see last paragraph of this link)… a unique Schadenfreude… occurring when a celebrity is disgraced. No one can question the public interest in the downfalls of Winona Ryder, Gary Coleman, Britney Spears, Robert Downey Jr., Lindsay Lohan, Mel Gibson, Eddie Murphey, Hugh Grant, and so on.

While the psychological aspects of this are elaborate, we can safely say that much of the American public (possibly global public… certainly European public) enjoy seeing celebrities disgraced: that’s to say celebrities brought down from the famous status and dumped squarely into the stigmatized class (read: scroll down to status, group, and honor … Weber’s formulation… it makes me wonder if it might be useful to think of celebrity as a caste in addition to a status). The terminology of status, caste, elite can get a bit fuzzy because academics use the terms differently. But, all that really matters is just the general concept behind these terms.

Returning to the pleasure many feel when seeing a celebrity disgraced,  consider this: if you enjoy the view from a mountaintop, you will drive to a mountain and then climb it. This is more enjoyable then just looking at a picture. It’s the process that makes it enjoyable. And, if you thrill to celebrity disgrace… if you love seeing celebrities ripped from the unfair and vulgar ethereal realm of their celebrity status, how can you very consciously take part in this process at will?

The Power To Stigmatize The Elite At Will

 

And, that’s the key. Possession of the CSTs and PPs is essentially owning that reification (of an elite being disgraced) and making it real through the video! That’s to say…that the CSTs and PPs give the viewer the ability to stigmatize the elite, famous class at will. And, the ultimate triumph of this psychological process is participating in it to an orgasmic conclusion. That is not just the body’s climax but also the viewer’s schadenfreude climactic fulfillment. For this to work, of course, sexuality and nakedness need to be a stigmatizing factor. In American society, women’s nakedness, sexual enjoyment and gratification is stigmatizing. A discussion for why that is would become too long for this piece. However, I think any American considers this to be an obvious truth which requires no further elaboration.

And, as hinted at earlier, it finds its roots in 17th century Puritan America. That’s why the CSTs featuring Karissa Shannon, Britney, Kendra Wilkinson, Pamela Anderson, Shakira, Angelina Jolie, J Lo, Britney Jones, et al. are always going to have a fundamentally different ontology than ones which feature Tommy Lee or Vince Neal. You’ll notice that there aren’t many CSTs which feature males. And, the ones that exist are not very stigmatizing. In fact, they can actually elevate the elite status of the males (though that’s also the subject for another essay.)

I think I’ve supported my position for explaining the appeal of the CSTs. Now, this essay is more concerned with PPs, so why did I spend so much effort explaining the CSTs?

Psychological Function Of The Porn Parody

 

It’s because the two function in a similar way, and it’s easier to explain the PPs by first looking at the CSTs. The PPs as mentioned, function similarly, but the process is slightly more complicated. It goes back to childhood and the manner in which childhood instills an innocent (in some cases almost sacred) view of certain iconic figures. We all know how kids view figures like The Little Mermaid, Dora The Explorer… or Spiderman, The Incredible Hulk, Batman, Superman, et al.

These figures were burnt very early into a deep recess of our minds, and they were bestowed with a certain sanctified aura. Men, in their fundamental perversity, get a bizarre thrill in denigrating that which they hold deeply sacred. Spiderman conjures up these innocent childhood memories of good guys and villians and the fantastic powers of the marvelous web slinger. Spiderman is supposed to rescue the damsel; however, the idea of Spidey then fucking the damsel doggy and cumming on her face causes a genuine cognitive dissonance.

The Sexual Paradox of Cognitive Dissonance

Now cognitive dissonance is normally not an experience that one courts. It’s, generally, an unpleasant experience that one will use a psychological strategy to minimize. However, as many psychologists have discussed, in the sexual realm, let’s say, all bets are off: and the irrational is often the guiding principle. (If nothing else, I think this is certainly clear in the intangibles of sexual attraction.)

So, yes, if you’re still following me, I do think that the CSTs and PPs do allow one to dethrone an elite symbol into a stigmatized one: and, through the masturbation process a unique sexual satisfaction is gained via the cognitively- dissonant experience of achieving an orgasm inspired by a contextual ontology that is not supposed to provide the possibility of such a satisfying experience. This most poignantly applies to the porn parody masturbatory experience because the contrast between the normative (the standard version of the show) and the essential masturbatory defilement is most pronounced.

And for a little extra zing, add to this some of the sentiments found in our most popular religion:

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

Kim Kardashian As An Example

Returning now to Kim Kardashian, who, while strongly self-marketing based on sexuality, is still a figure not popularly seen fornicating. And, it’s my argument that the masturbatory experience and reward is similar while using Kim or Superman and Lexi Belle. It’s just that the porn parody context provides the reward in a way that is psychologically the same, but more intensified.

Kim has a certain public—nonsexualized in the most explicit way—persona. The same applies for Jessica Simpson, Madonna, Rob Lowe, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Fred Durst, John Edwards, Jenna Lewis, Vince Neil, Carrie Prejean, Katie Price, Vern Troyer, Tila Tequila, Tonay Harding, Amy Fisher, et al. Believe me… list goes on and on. (note: a similar process also partially explains the public’s desire for pictures of celebrity nipples, vaginas, etc.) And, the fantasy of copulating with Kim does provide a contrast from what may be seen by conventional means (Mtv, etc.).

Conclusion: Libidinous Satisfaction of Degradation And Stigma

The CST and PP provide the same type of unusual libidinous satisfaction achieved by degrading and stigmatizing a conventionally, sexually-unattainable person or concept (as in the parody of a movie or show). While the object of stigmatization likely is sexualized prior; it is in a way that does not involve fornication and explicit exposure of the vagina…and, in particularly, does not involve the vagina being penetrated. The more tame and restrained, normative sexualization is actually a very helpful prerequisite to amplify the salaciousness and intensity of the yet-to-come masturbatory gratification.

That’s why to begin to understand the appeal of celebrity sex tapes and pornographic parodies, we must think of it as an experiential process rather than a categorical noun. That’s to say…the appeal shouldn’t be understood as there being video footage of a certain time length that features explicit sex with the implicit, almost subconscious, taken-for-granted understanding that men like explicit sex.

The categorical noun conception works fine for—what might be called—traditional pornography. In other words, it works like this:

This model is easy to understand because, while it does have a process, the process is conventional: so easy to understand that we don’t really even notice the process. In plain language: horny men want extremely sexy women to fantasize about while they masturbate. It’s sort of like when we see someone eating a hamburger. We don’t really process it that this man has a stomach and signals are being sent to his brain which indicate hunger and thus he’s chewing food. It’s just taken for granted. However, if we see this same sort of man searching all over town for a particular brand of cookie, it makes us wonder (or at least it should.)

And, that analogy is useful in understanding the capitalistic success of celebrity sex tapes and porn parodies. It’s a given that heterosexual men like pornography. I’ve yet to meet an exception to this platitude. However, while participating with conventional pornography, the desired woman is a pornographic starlet, and thus she is stigmatized by definition. Masturbatory participation with video images of a celebrity copulating allow the viewer to enjoy the perverse Schadenfreude thrill, as he experiences and participates in the stigmatization of the desired woman; while, simultaneously, of course, enjoying the transition from the typical, dichotomous normal/elite relationship to his own fantasy elite status and the celebrity’s transformation to the stigmatized class. The pornographic element mediates a fantasy status reversal.

In the case of the porn parody, the general process functions in the same way. The additional layer involves the childhood-formed conceptions of the object of the parody. That’s to say… superheros hitherto had a unique, almost sanctified (and certainly nonsexual) position in his mind, and there’s the additional thrilling jolt of cognitive dissonance to intensify the orgasmic conclusion.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

id="comments">Comments