The problem with all reactionary art.

The problem with all reactionary art like Brinn's piece is that the ethical surface is the first thing to go and be scrubbed off by the natural deconstructing agents of the Unconscious. What remains is the Suggestion: the visceral content of the prose that against our will and admission seduces us with the example it sets of male behavior. Rape fantasies must not have their origin in Nature but in suggestion, but Art only perpetuates them! The media is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and Jung's words are as foreboding as ever: what you resist truly persists. The craving to rape, stifled by a strong ego but then re-directed as savage aggression towards those who have the nerve to force the fantasy into reality, is not a function of the 'body' but of the 'mind': it is social, for while one public ally condemns the rapist as a scape-goat the condemnation is only impotent and superficial. In truth: that forbidden urge is the Cognitive Dissonance which all moral reasoning strives to resolve: how can it be that there are men (or women) who do this? Sartre enters the picture. Surely the man Must be human, for his behavior is disgusting to Others. Yet that means that what he is doing is an example for all humans or at least all men. So how can I condemn him without acknowledging the validity of his example? It can only be done perhaps by recognizing the potentiality but rising above it, not by projecting that potentiality upon the scape-goat but by owning it as a part of one's self. This is much more difficult than the indignant veneer of condemnation which usually amounts only to semantics on self-defense.

DM.a.a.