Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Centers 1

Cody Centers Professor Androne English 112 25 September 2013 A Criticism of a Criticism The first time I heard the song Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke on the radio, I did what most normal people would do, and I danced my ass off. However, just after the song rose to the top of the charts, a bunch of criticism followed citing sexual harassment, slut-shaming, and victim-blaming. These were only a few of the artists apparent offenses. I didnt really understand the problem with the song, partially because I could never quite make out all of the words, so I decided to look up the lyrics. While doing so, what I found was shocking. I started reading the lyrics, fully expecting to arrive at the bottom, being ashamed that I had ever thought it was a catchy tune.

However, what shocked me were not the lyrics. What shocked me was that I didnt find the lyrics offensive at all. In fact, the more I thought about it, I actually started getting irritated at the feminists who were criticizing it. It seemed like they were just a trigger-happy mob that was spreading slut-shaming ideas, and criminalizing all male sexuality.

I think in order to understand why I dont find the song offensive, we have to ask what the song is really about. Everyone seems to think its about a guy slinging a helpless girl over his shoulder, or dragging her home by her hair. Not even close. It is, in a way, about a guy trying to steal a girl from her boyfriend for some hanky-panky. Knowing this, the song is no more offensive than You Belong with Me by Taylor Swift. (Although as a side note, I would argue that the latter is actually MORE offensive. Look at her lyrics: She wears high heels/I wear sneakers... She wears short skirts/I wear tee shirts. Shes implying that the clothes she chooses makes her more down to earth, and therefore more worthy of the boys love. Now THAT is Grade A slut-shaming, and I dont see anyone batting an eye.)

Now lets compared this to Robin Thickes lyrics: Ok now he was close, tried to domesticate you/But youre an animal, baby its in your nature/Just let me liberate you/You dont need no paper, That man is not your maker. This sounds like a womans liberation anthem to me. Ive seen tons of articles that discuss how a lot of women in relationships are seen as a mans territory. This is exactly what Robin Thickes character is saying. That man is not your maker hes saying that her boyfriend

Centers 2

doesnt own her. Granted he is also saying that he wants her to stray from her relationship to be with him, but essentially hes reminding her that shes an independent person who can make her own decisions about her sexuality, regardless of whether she has a boyfriend.

The reason I wanted to write about this was because the reactions I saw were becoming increasingly offensive, and extremely inaccurate. What really put me over the edge though was the controversial feminist parody created by the Law Revue Girls. The way this group is taking words out of context is insane, and its dangerous to make statements like these without anything to actually back them up.

I found the feminist parody of the song, Defined Lines by the Law Revue Girls, to be extremely repulsive. However, just to be clear, I do not think the video should have ever been banned, as I dont believe in censorship of any kind, but I disagree with the way they presented their ideas. This comes from the fact that while Thickes song never talks about actually hurting or forcing anything on a sexual partner, the Girls song does explicitly. The lines let me emasculated you and castrate you are extremely immature and strip any truth from the discussion of sexual equality. The entire point of equality isnt to weaken the males, but to empower the female. Two wrongs dont make a right. Not to mention, I almost broke my monitor when she forced the dildo into the male models mouth. According to the video, the perfect way to respond to violent sex crimes is with more violent sex crimes.

Its seems like they didnt even read the lyrics of the original song that they were making fun of. Its a parody, right? So theyre supposed to be saying the opposite of what the song says, right? What about the line where the law ladies sing Not fucking plastic. I guess thats supposed to be the opposite of Thickes line where he implies a woman is plastic. Wait, no, his line is Youre far from plastic. Gee, it almost sounds like hes telling the woman shes NOT an object. Another good one is when they say you cant just grab me, thats a sex crime. Oddly enough, in Thickes version, he doesnt grab anyone. Its actually the women who grab him. So lets do a recap. How many times do Thickes lyrics and video actually support feminism?

1. Just let me liberate you/you dont need no papers/that man is not your maker he is stating that women are sexually independent beings. 2. Youre far from plastic claims that women arent objects who can be owned by men.

Centers 3

3. Go ahead, get at me invites the woman to make the next make. Consensual much? 4. The women in the video strut around confidently the entire video, and show no objection to being there. This is not subjugation.

So a total of four times. Thats not bad considering that most of these lines are repeated several times throughout the song. And how many times do the so-called feminist reactions actually do the opposite of Thicke?

1. Implies that women never say yes to sexual advances 2. Implies that a naked woman is automatically degraded (no sexual liberation) 3. Implies that no women would consensually agree to being spanked / having hair pulled. 4. Mimics acts of violent rape on a male, as a joke.

So a total of four times. These ladies may need to take a few lessons from Thicke on how to treat a sexual partner