And this is the kind of quasi-feminist statement that you keep hoping against hope was made in jest:
This gargantuan mockery of Marilyn Monroe, a real woman whose untimely death froze her as an icon of perpetual youth and sexuality in spite of, because of, her documented struggles with being objectified and exploited, is an invitation for “hilarious” displays of male sexual aggression. The link goes to a photo gallery in which men and boys are pictured standing between her legs giving the thumbs up, standing in a way to be photographed to appear to be grabbing her ass, turning their faces up and pretending to lick her, etc.
She is a a giant, silent avatar of non-consent, posed forever to be a sexual object for the pleasure of passers-by.
Sob.
The statue did not consent, people. So probably those who lick her without consent should be brought to trial for rape.
When I heard the story of Russian millionaires renting halls in the Hermitage museum and filming themselves “grabbing the statue of Michelangelo’s David by the balls”, I knew they were jerks who were guilty of attempted vandalism. I just never realized they were engaging in a sex crime.
Could we also condemn Michelangelo for touching the statue all over without asking for the statue’s consent? He must have done some serious groping while he was creating it.
Don’t you love it when prudishness tries to mask itself as feminism?
Clarissa's Blog 
I’d like to know how she somehow managed to miss the women in that slide show that were taking upskirt pictures of the statue. I guess its only bad when men do it…
LikeLike
This blogger’s selective vision is, indeed, something special.
LikeLike
In a weird coincidence I came across this photo on someone’s website last night. Hmm, what message is the universe sending me?
LikeLike
I also have a funny related picture: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/10/06/great-british-bake-off-viewers-shocked-by-explicit-image-of-male-squirrel/
Where is this thread going, I wonder. 🙂
LikeLike
Hmm, OT but, would you say this is a good representation of Russian history?
LikeLike
I love this video, it’s hilarious. 🙂 And also very true. 🙂
LikeLike
The connection is that it was on the same site that linked to he wall street bull.
LikeLike
Actually it is pretty good! I got a little carried away watching the youtube suggestions after this video. Haha, awesome:) Inspiring, I want to make a video or two now! I love the video game style.
LikeLike
I never believe the bs about objectification. The only reason I can imagine people having a problem with objectification is out of jealousy.
LikeLike
Adi I disagree, I think objectification is a very negative thing. I can’t understand the choice feminists that think a woman should have the choice of working in the porn industry.
LikeLike
What’s there not to understand? Would you rather they had no choice but to work in the porn industry? I’m sure that’s not how you meant but that’s the only alternative to having a choice. Porn is going to exist anyway so it may as well be voluntary and therefore safer. Sure, it’s exploitation of men, but it’s certainly not the only industry that exploits its customers.
LikeLike
I’d like to offer my own posts on objectification:
https://clarissasblog.com/2011/01/30/the-liberating-potential-of-the-burqa-or-the-future-of-gender-studies/
https://clarissasblog.com/2011/07/28/deciphering-shakesville/
LikeLike
That is the most pointless post for a feminist website ever. What is the bet that some member of a minority group eventually posts that in some way they have been ignored in this thread?
LikeLike
And who is thinking of the statue?!?
It is coldly staring at the same spot all the fucking time and everyone walking past it must pass through its line of sexually lusting sight.
Would anyone please think about the children!
Also, if a lifeless object like a statue can and even needs to consent to this, doesn’t the same also apply to vibrators and dildos?
That would produce a couple of really awsome dialogs.
LikeLike
Especially those vibrators that (I almost wrote who) have cute little faces.
Actually, they look very freaky. But still, shouldn’t we treat them with more respect?
LikeLike
…except that she never asks or addresses the question of the statue’s consent. She refers to it as an “avatar” of non-consent. It’s an embodiment, a personification. The violation of the statue isn’t the problem; the lack of value that real people in the real world put on consent is the problem.
LikeLike
The leap from violating statues and violating people is too huge for my liking. For this reason, I gave the example of the statue of David in the hermitage. Should we conclude from that famous episode that there is the lack of value people in Russia place on male consent?
People behave stupidly around statues everywhere and have been for millennia. No matter what those statues embody. There is no relationship between that and sexual consent.
The only issue worth discussing here is what percentage of people is incapable of appreciating art. Both the author of the post I quoted and the people she criticized have this problem.
LikeLike
I agree with Tim, 4:47 The statue simply fosters vulgarity, both in what it depicts and the way it depicts it, not to mention the way in which it forces itself on the observer.
LikeLike
The other thing I note is that they made the statue much skinner than Marilyn was, just in case any modern women get the idea it is ok to be a bit curvier nowadays.
LikeLike