Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

So yesterday a bunch of statues were placed in major cities by an anonymous art collective of a naked Donald Trump (NSFW).

The statues are unflattering. He's depicted as obese and covered in veins, with a micropenis and no testes.

Part of me sees the statue as a valid artistic statement. The "emperor has no clothes." Behind the vile rhetoric stands an unhealthy, impotent man. His soft, bloated, sickly, fragile body is representative of his lifetime of privilege and hedonism. That makes sense to me.

On the other hand, I see people who disagree with Trump calling this out for mocking and shaming this body type, and equating Trump's hateful ideas with obesity and tiny genitalia. Physical attributes don't indicate moral failure, and this statement muddies the water. Trump shouldn't be mocked for his body, but for his despicable attitudes about race, gender, religion, and contempt for the truth.

I'm torn between both of these views. I think there's validity to both. How do you feel about the stunt?

I have a problem with it from an intersex issues standpoint. A small penis and lack of or lack of appearance of testes are intersex traits. Intersex issues are said to be more common than Down Syndrome, but their issues and bodies are still invisible and highly shameful.

I hadn't thought about that, but it's a good point.

Also, if someone had made Hillary statues, I would be horrified. So I guess I'm guilty of a double standard there.

I feel like the Trump people and Trump himself would feel about as insulted as I'd like them to, but they feel insulted for problematic reasons that I feel uncomfortable perpetuating and reinforcing?

That being said, I think NY Parks did a wonderful job of responding by saying that unauthorized erections, no matter how small, are not allowed in their parks. They actually said that. I just enjoy the "erection" pun.

Cognoscente wrote:Also, if someone had made Hillary statues, I would be horrified. So I guess I'm guilty of a double standard there.

Yeah, I'm not okay with it. Every feminist, liberal, and halfway decent human being would be pissed if a conservative group made unflattering, body shaming statue of Hillary. We would (justly!) call it disgusting and misogynist. So why is it okay to do the same thing to a man? These double standards that work against men are one of the reasons feminists have trouble being taken seriously.

I kind of get it from a "ball don't lie," "what goes around, comes around" angle. He has made fun of everyone for everything, ever. Why shouldn't we make fun of him?

But that's a kind of fifth grader level of morality... You punch me so I "get" to punch you back. I think that Trump opposition needs to show itself to be better than that, otherwise we don't have much of a leg to stand on when we tell him to STFU.

This article pretty well sums up my feelings:https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... dy-shaming

I feel like even a flattering nude statue of heads of state would be weird.

Agreed with emiliana and portia.

Yeah, I was amused at first, but the more I think about it the more it makes me uncomfortable. It's part of a larger trend I've seen in which people basically say "it's okay for us to do all these otherwise-not-okay things to Trump because he is Bad." And I don't dispute his badness. But that sort of logic can lead to some really dangerous places.

I think a line from Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC convention is appropriate here: "When they go low, we go high." Sure, Trump has made a habit of criticizing people based on their physical appearance and attractiveness, but I don't think it's appropriate to respond in kind.

Plus, there are soooooo many more distressing things about Trump that deserve criticism that his appearance shouldn't even make the top 50 on that list.