Metro — What you would not have done to you…

By Erik Jonk · metronieuws.nl

On 27 October 2021, De Balie screened the film Honey Pot by KIRAC (Keeping It Real Art Critics). “Left-wing girl” Jini van Rooijen had put out a call because she wanted to have sex with a “right-wing man” to counter polarisation. GeenStijl had circulated the post and regarded it as a bit of fun.

Eventually, Sid Lukkassen, a cultural philosopher and party ideologue for Forum for Democracy, responded and was selected. In several of Lukkassen’s writings, I see someone who is afraid of being rejected by women and has a kind of social dyslexia, which might explain his conservative attitude. At first I could see the funny side of the film: it was something unexpected from someone as conservative as Lukkassen. Then the reviews appeared.

The reviews seemed to suggest that this might be a clique that had exploited Sid’s weaknesses and thought it could get away with it. Jini withdrew her consent to sex, but Sid’s wish that the footage not be published was not respected. KIRAC’s Stefan Ruitenbeek told NRC: “I do believe you may sacrifice things for the artwork, including Sid Lukkassen.”

Is that how you want to live?

One thing I do not doubt is that the film is art. It certainly is. Art does not have to be ethical to be called art. The question is: is that how you yourself want to live, or do you accept that you will achieve less if you refuse to use these methods?

Of course I try to understand what motivates Ruitenbeek. Having listened to the Boze Geesten podcast, I think I understand some of it. Once it became clear that someone had been sacrificed for art and, in his naïveté, had not foreseen the consequences, GeenStijl suddenly came to Lukkassen’s defence. GeenStijl has itself created victims in the past by publishing revenge porn. You also saw precisely those people who say you should believe victims thinking it was absolutely fine because this was happening to Sid.

KIRAC made GeenStijl look ridiculous, and Sid came across as more sincere than the potential audience. Suddenly, according to the right-wing rebels, you were not allowed to be gratuitously hurtful. And for the left-wing virtue-signallers, consent suddenly no longer mattered. Across the political spectrum, you also saw condemnation of KIRAC, which had become a monster in order to expose monsters. But who, then, is the real monster? Is it Sid, or the person whose moral compass depends on in-group/out-group bias?