Possible theory for the ending (spoilers)

I'm slightly exhausted from watching the 5 1/2 hour director's cut, so forgive my brevity and any errors I might make.

Like most everyone else, I was extremely turned off by the ending. It didn't make sense and was ludicrous, not to mention extremely offensive to asexuals. So on a literal level, I'll admit, I hated it.

This is a pretty self-referential and postmodern film, though, and I'm prone to look for deeper meaning.

Early in the film (Vol. 1, I think), Joe questions why Seligman isn't sexually aroused at her sex stories. She says that every other male would be turned on by having to hear a woman bluntly and graphically describe her sexual experiences.

Seligman is the audience for Joe's story. We are the audience for the film as a whole.

In reality, the sad fact is that most, if not all, men, really do lack the capacity to listen to a female talk about her sex life without becoming aroused to some extent. I'm a male. I'll admit it. We're uncomfortable, to some degree, with the fact that women like to have sex just as much as us. That they want to *beep* not be *beep* Our natural reaction to hearing a woman talk about her sex life, no matter in what capacity, is to be aroused by it. We even feel entitled to our arousal.

So here's this film. The story of a woman with a sex drive that exceeds what society would deem 'normal.' It's a serious and disturbing story. But as the audience, we're treated to "pornographic" depictions of sex. I think any given male viewer became aroused at some point by some of the images. That's all anyone talks about when discussing this film- the sex scenes, the "pornography", the nudity. Von Trier has made, what I would consider to be, the best film about feminism I've ever seen, rife with symbolism and hidden themes. The film acts out some of the hardest questions and answers men and women both have to face when coming to terms with feminism (albeit, in a jackhammer-to-the-face Von Trier style). It's an important film. But have you heard anyone talk about anything other than the graphic sexual content when discussing this film?

As men who can sympathize with the message, we all want to identify with Seligman throughout. We want to be That Guy who can have a discourse about women's sexual needs and desires without our own coming into play. Because, it's this simple- ours has no relevance in those situations. Was there a single male audience member who wasn't aroused for even a second while watching this film, though? I was. I'll unfortunately admit it.

I think, for Von Trier, Seligman is directly meant to represent the audience of this film (particularly the male audience), who, as much as they may be digging the movie, wouldn't mind another shot or two of nudity. Nearly every male (and many females) will be aroused or excited at some point during this film.

Seligman is us. Who can't listen or watch a woman talk about her sex life without being turned on, objectifying her, or feel like she's inviting us to take part in her sex life. Because if a female is talking to a male about that, it must be for our benefit, right?

It's a harsh truth, but Von Trier pulls no punches. If you're a male, and if you were only aroused by the sexual content of this film for even a second, you're Seligman. Or a potential Seligman.

In real life, in discussion with a female, the vast majority of men can deal with this inappropriate arousal by recognizing it as such, end of story (though it's still there). A sizable minority would maybe say something out-of-line. But there is a frightening number of men who are Seligman, and think that hearing a woman describe her sex life means she wants to have sex with you, and that you're entitled to it for listening. Von Trier obviously chose to go with the worst-case-scenario, which, unfortunately, for too many women, is the most realistic one. This isn't a #notallmen argument. If you're a male- even if you're not Seligman, you bear the cross of every Seligman out there.

Long story short, I think the ending was a jab at the male audience of the film, who will inevitably get caught up in the images of the film and find arousal in the story of a female which is, in no way, meant to arouse us. I think it was self-referential.

Is there anything to this?