>>1070
>You're allowed to like things that have flaws.
Is this kind of material a flaw? I don't think the authors who write it are unaware that the vast majority of people believe rape is wrong. They very likely believe the same, and their readers do as well. Regarding such works as morally flawed misses the intention as not being moral but erotic.

Pornography may also be flawed in the sense that many regard it as artistically flawed for various reasons, but, from the perspective of its erotic purpose, it wouldn't be considered flawed if readers enjoyed it erotically.

Even outside of pornography, too many people seem to want stories that regurgitate their own morality to them, regardless of any purpose the author may have in not doing so. The earlier (Marxist) cultural critics were interesting and had a non-moral interest in trying to uncover deeply concealed ideology within a text or art object, yet "cultural critique" has lately been used as a cover for liberal moral critique, with the assumption that we do or should all believe in such-and-such "progressive" moral system and discipline all fictional works that fall outside of acceptability. The critique is less analytical than inquisitorial.

One could call this "liberal cancer," but, overall (not speaking of pornography and low art alone), it's indicative of the return of moralism to artistic critique, a view that had until recently been regarded as philistine even among liberal critics. Cultural critique is important, I think, but moral critique is a repetition of the current repetitiousness, critique which proceeds no further than the critic's nose.