This statue was placed only a few yards away from the bull with huge testicles. People have been taking inappropriate photos with the bull for many years. It’s a tourist attraction now.
So some drunk idiot puts a knit hat on the Fearless Girl statue and humps it. Inappropriate? Absolutely. Unexpected? Nope. Statues are magnets for stupid drunken behavior and pigeon droppings. Good thing they are metal objects and not real.
Next time use some common sense and put railings around statues that require protection and a guard. Or better yet don’t use kids as model for public statues that will get rediculed by drunks.
The artist should have known better than to use a kid. Now they’ll have to encase this thing in a protective display box. Just to keep the drunks away.
Statues get humped all the time. Or people pose with their hand on the statue’s ass. They just seem to draw that kind of immature attention.
I don’t think that’s the answer. Why should there not be statues of children? Just because there are douchbags in the world? No. Sorry, no. Art is important. Art can be quite evocative and meaningful as I think this statue of the young girl is. A statue like that doesn’t need an armed guard or a fence around it. What’s needed is less fuck-wits in the world. But, unfortunately, they have a right to exist and to express their juvenile buffoonery. And the rest of us have a right to find them vacuous.
How low has our society sunk that a a statue of a fully-clothed girl in a non-provocative pose would be considered “a sensitive subject”?
Hell, we better burn all the books, too. Because… what if a book gave somebody unpalatable thoughts about children or women or dogs or the Senate or Bobby Fischer? Better not chance it.
I’m not worried about any sanctity of the statue, but I sure wouldn’t want to be friends with anyone who thought a “joke” was pretending to grind his dick on little girls.
Why put the protective case? The statue hasn’t been hurt. The only person affected is the drunk who will now probably lose his nob and a fair number of friends.
So, a drunk guy humped a symbol for International Women’s Day. Putting aside that the statue is of a child, can no one understand how that may be different than touching the Wall Street Bull’s balls?
The other factor which didn’t used to enter is as much is that masses of people have now heard of this, which wouldn’t have been the case even relatively recently.
Guy is obviously a complete ass, was very drunk or some combination. But on with life, for me. Why should it make so much more difference to me now than if it happened ten years ago, which it certainly could have, and I’d never heard of it? Note, I would not have the same attitude toward some hypothetical famine that killed millions but the media wasn’t interested in covering so I somehow never heard of it, or even rape of one real person. This is drunken shenanigans by a douche.
And I go from indifference to opposition to the cyber mob when they start with stuff about ‘this is the problem with Wall Street’ or ‘men’, either or both of which may have systematic problems, but again this is one d’bag.
Not talking about responses here particularly BTW, but ones I’ve seen on social media: the constant contest to see who can be most outraged and take out the most ridiculously over broad brush in reaction to everything.
