Blurred Lines of Interpretation, Part 1

Please note that this post contains profanity and strong sexual content.

In light of the recent outrage regarding the meaning behind Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” single, I’ve decided to weigh in on the hoopla.  I’ll be upfront in saying that I’m challenging what I consider to be a strong instance of group-think that has gotten wildly out of hand.  As the feminist community started alleging that the song had strong implications of sexual assault, I immediately stopped listening to the song.  I felt totally disgusted every time it came on the radio.  And I had even less respect for Miley Cyrus for willingly performing a song that would make rape seem even remotely mainstream or glamorized. 

The problem is that I never looked up these lyrics for myself, and instead bought into this protest of Robin Thicke without having actually critically assessed the (stupid) song first.  Truth be told, I didn’t really give a shit about this song much at all—yeah, I liked the beat, and the tune was catchy.  But other than the occasional listen on the radio, or the tacky rendition at the VMAs, “Blurred Lines” wasn’t on my radar.

It wasn’t until I watched the feminist parody, “Defined Lines,” that I took interest.  In fact, I hadn’t seen the “Blurred Lines” music video yet, so the parody was doubly shocking.  Images of men stripped down to their skivvies wearing bondage and at the mercy of “empowered” women singing about “emasculating” and “castrating” men didn’t sit well with me.  Nor did the image of one of the women in the video shoving a vibrator in the dude’s mouth.

However, I was told that this approach was “totally justified” given the original, unrated version of the “Blurred Lines” video.  That video shocked me as well—bare-breasted women awkwardly standing around in nude panties and making weirdly sexual faces when given a close up from the creepy camera dude.  Throw in some random goats, a “Robin Thicke has a big dick” poster, and you have one strange, pointless music video.  However, when placed in the context of the song being about rape, I didn’t want to raise any questions.  I just wanted to think.

I’ve come up with two points.  First, the argument that the song “Blurred Lines” is about rape doesn’t hold weight.  Secondly, the response from a portion of the feminist community is frankly beneath us:  if equality is what we seek, we can’t do it at the expense of indiscriminately vilifying the entire male population.  Honestly, that tactic is nothing more than a great way to devalue our message of equality.

I understand that my first point is going to raise eyebrows, but I’m asking you to first check out these lyrics for yourself.  “Blurred Lines” is a weirdly sexual song at best—but there is nothing in the lyrics that implies non-consensual intercourse.  Here are a couple excerpts:

OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you

But you’re an animal, baby, it’s in your nature

Just let me liberate you

You don’t need no papers

That man is not your maker

From this, we can infer that Robin Thicke thinks a taken woman is hot, and would really like to engage in intercourse with her.  He doesn’t think that the said woman’s significant other is treating her right—“that man is not your maker.”

You may be thinking, “Well, the fact that he’s giving her unwanted attention is grounds for assault, even if it’s not rape per se.  Unwanted sexual advances is a form of assault.”  Excellent point, especially when we consider the highly controversial line “I know you want it.”  Does she really want it?  Or is he saying that to justify his assault of the woman in question?  Let’s place those lyrics in context:

I hate these blurred lines

I know you want it (3x)

But you’re a good girl

The way you grab me

Must wanna get nasty

Go ahead, get at me

Okay, so he hates the blurred lines of attraction.  She’s taken, and “off limits”, but she’s giving him reason to think she might be into him—“the way you grab me/must wanna get nasty.”  To this, he replies, “get at me.”  Said another way, “I’m putting the ball in your court.”  Perhaps if he had said “I’m coming after you” or “I’m gonna get you,” then maybe my point would be weaker.  As it stands though, we have a-guy-who-wants-a-girl-but-can’t-have-her-but-wants-her-and-she-wants-him-and-he’s-hoping-she’ll-make-a-move.  That’s not rape, that’s human sexuality.

I’m not even sure why this would be the song that grabs at our attention, when it sounds like every other stupid song that talks about wanting to get with a “bad bitch” and “tear that ass up.”  Yes, that’s a crass way to talk about women (though some like that kind of dirty talk, I guess).  No, it’s not implying rape.  If we want to talk about how mainstream song lyrics project a disrespectful image of women, then I’m totally on board.  But calling that “rape” is absolutely invalid—that argument is totally different.

I’ll continue my discussion of this topic later this week in Blurred Lines of Interpretation, Part 2, where I’ll discuss the implications of the “Defined Lines” parody.  In the meantime, I want to open this up for discussion:  what do you think of the controversy?

For further reading:

http://polemiqueoccasionelle.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/blurring-the-lines-of-feminism-a-criticism-of-the-criticism-of-blurred-lines/