Defending porn stars won’t be a politically advantageous hill for the anti-Trump crowd to die on. Rudy Giuliani’s brazen swipe at the credibility of Stormy Daniels might fly in the face of everything Oberlin College teaches in Introduction to Women’s Studies, but it probably resonates with a bipartisan chunk of voters who reasonably question the morality of women (and men) who make their livings in the porn industry.
Not to sound flippant: I believe Stormy Daniels, and I think Giuliani’s comments are hypocritical coming from a legal representative of this particular president, who’s never seemed to have much of a problem affiliating with people who make money with their bodies.
But where those comments veered into more objectionable territory is actually getting less attention. “Excuse me, but when you look at Stormy Daniels …” Giuliani said in the interview. “I know Donald Trump. Look at his three wives. Beautiful women, classy women, women of great substance. Stormy Daniels?” he asked in disbelief.
Why is the president’s lawyer comparing the physical appearances of his wives to the physical appearance of his alleged mistress? It’s an unserious argument with little relevance that makes Giuliani look gross for promoting. While I’m sure Marla Maples is flattered, the contention that Stormy Daniels is simply too ugly for Trump to have engaged in a sexual relationship with is probably better left to people not acting in the capacity of attorney for the president of the United States. Yes, Daniels is a porn star who makes money off her appearance. That doesn’t make it appropriate for Giuliani to publicly compare her sexual appeal to that of the president’s wives.
If men in politics could learn to refrain from publicly sharing their thoughts on women’s physical attractiveness, it would save us all at least twenty minutes of cringing a year.
