• Mon, Sep 10 2012

‘Sexting’ Statue Pushes Her Luck, Will Likely Be Banned From Playing With Other Statues In The Park

Dear pervy statues: you can be naked all you want, if that’s your thing, but you can’t “sext.” If you do, you will be kicked out of the park and demolished behind the closest building. Do we make ourselves loud and clear?

As we should all be well aware by now, sexting is bad. It is never OK behavior. For those of you who think it is, you are deviants, heathens and guys with the last name Weiner. How it is that an artist would think that a statue (entitled “Accept or Reject”) depicting such vileness would be an OK idea is mind-boggling. Just as how a town in Kansas would think it appropriate to put the statue in the eyes of innocent children is perplexing on all the senses. Bare breasts plus camera equals the work of the devil.

Kansas resident Joanne Hughes has taken it upon herself to fight the devil. She’s started a petition (got over 47,000 signatures!) to have the statue removed before her kids get any funny ideas. While she said that Michaelangelo‘s David is “beautiful,” according to Hughes, the difference between David and “Accept or Reject,” is that David isn’t taking a photo of himself. But why isn’t he? Oh, because there weren’t cameras back then.

Look at David! If he had a camera at his disposal, do you really think he wouldn’t be sexting himself left and right all day? Huh, Ms. Hughes? He has a slammin’ physique; he’d absolutely be taking photos of himself every chance he got and running out of batteries and chargers in the process to do so.

Hughes has managed to compile the necessary amount of signatures to get this case taken to the grand jury to decide on the matter. She wants that sexting statue out of the park and put some place where it can’t harm children or influence others.

Personally, I know I’ve been influenced by the statue. I just sent about 30 sexts out to random people — to numbers I’m not even sure exist! So if you got a nude photo of a woman holding a pizza box, for artistic effect naturally, sent to your phone this morning, it was me. I’m not going to apologize though, because the statue made me do it.

 

Via Huffington Post

What We're Reading:
Share This Post:
  • Nancy

    I really hate to admit it, but I’d agree with Hughes on this one. I really like the statue, though, but I’d be worried about kids getting ideas, too. Though, they probably already have those ideas anyway… Wow, I’m old enough not to be able to totally relate to internet kids. Shit.

    • Amanda Chatel

      It’s kinda like that moment when you’re watching My So-Called Life and you realize that you’re actually agreeing with the mom more than Angela…

    • Renee

      I doubt this will give kids ideas they didn’t already have. If anything it might make them think a little more about what it means. Putting it in the context of classical art might help de-stigmatize it enough for people to have rational conversations about it with the kids that everyone is so worried about.

  • Renee

    Why do we think sexting is so bad? Why are we so worried about ‘the children’? Are we worried that we haven’t taught them enough body/sex shame yet? Because obviously the nude human figure is gross/disturbing/evil/depraved right? And sex…well. I think it is safe to say that we are all looking forward to the time when sex is no longer a necessary or legally acceptable activity.

    Personally, I don’t sext. But I hate the idea of any kind of artistic censorship.

    • Ellen

      I think what parents are more worried about is what happens if sexting photos end up all over the school/community/internet, and there are a lot of potential consequences if that happens.For example, it might be hard to get a job (other than in Hollywood or porn) if there are nude photos of you as a teen splashed all over the internet, and the justice system will prosecute teens who sext for producing/having child pornography. (They may be less willing to do it now than they have been in the past, but I bet they still do it.)

  • Meghan Keane

    That statue has a serious pair of bolt-ons, huh?

    • Amanda Chatel

      It would appear that way, yes. Reminiscent of a Tori Spelling situation, to be honest.

  • Lemona

    I’m not worried about the kids, but I think there are way better statues out there. This statue used her boobs to get to where she is today, and that makes me sad for all of the other statues who used their heads. Am I the only one bothered that this statue has no head? Something interesting and risque could have been done with the expression on the statue’s face –does she snap a pic with gleeful abandon? an icy stare? But alas she has no thoughts or feelings, only boobs.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jen-Clark/100000568225513 Jen Clark

    I’m one of those people that actually thinks the healthy human body makes for beautiful art, and am not in the least bit offended by it, we actually have local people that pose as living statues, completely naked (in a more private setting of course) at our art shows during the summer. This lady shouldn’t be offended by it either, nor should she be teaching her kids to be. Of course her kids are going to get ideas, art is MEANT to give you ideas and make you think and to help influence people about life, and it’s not like it portrays any ideas her innocent little darlings dont have. I’ve actually seen this statue, it’s created by Yu Chang and was on display at the overland park Arboretum and Botanical Gardens, I live only about 25 minutes away from there and used to visit frequently. I thought it was a wonderful piece, and itself is supposed to portray the incomplete identity expressed in one’s digital self. The nutcase is trying to claim the statue is illegal and subjecting minors to obscenity and pornography, and actually wants the city held legally accountable for a crime. Thankfully, it hasn’t been removed and they have no plans on removing it.