Saturday, September 21, 2013

Back in the Action - Blurred Lines

It's been a long time since I made an entry in the blog, and I miss my brainier, esoteric side. I think it's because I needed a tipping point to get back into the swing of things. That tipping point came in the form of the new controversial song "Blurred Lines"

I saw the original video, and then saw a parody shortly afterwards. The comments surprised me. It seemed like so many people were outraged by the original video, when I didn't see a huge problem. Yes, it involved nudity, but it was done in an almost artistic style. That prompted me to look into the issues, Blurred Lines's directors (surprising) intention for the song, and two songs.

So take this for what it's worth: I urge you to take an open-minded approach to controversial issues in mainstream news and form your own opinion.

Original - Unrated:
Original - Rated:
My post:

"I find it slightly ironic that the parody and original video both have the same goal of female sexual liberation, although they see it from different sides of the same coin.
The original video was a surprisingly classy (considering the topless models) R&B song where the artists attempted to convince a good girl to stop feeling oppressed by the judgment of society or their inhibitions and go 'bad'. The ladies in the video take a bold, sexual stance and the admiring men have to 'chase after' them. If you take a closer look at the lyrics ("let me liberate you," "the way you grab me") the criminal according to Robin Thicke and crew is the society that judges women, calling them 'sluts' for having sex frequently or in a more raw, 50 Shades of Grey style.
The parody concurs that the criminal is society, but also answers why these women are sexually inhibited: fear and resentment. It's obviously not a direct response to the 'wrongs done' by Robin Thicke alone, but of the masculine R&B, rap, and hip-hop music genre he represents in the song. It plays like the built-up frustration over the years of womankind getting groped at the clubs and catcalled on the streets spilling out through the only voice bold enough to speak it- feminism.
The response video takes the most pervasive, sexually aggressive 1% of mankind and tells them point blank- "This is unacceptable." If this minority is corrected, women won't have to be afraid of being sexually harassed. Women are treated with respect rather than sexual playthings. They preserve their independence, correct the double-standard, and in turn are sexually liberated.
Which is the same goal of Robin Thicke, T.I., and Pharelle Williams. It just requires a societal shift in the sexual dynamic"

1 comment:

  1. I am conservative. Which means that I look for the dead hand of past generations for the rationale of societal norms. My conscious life has been under the sexual liberation movement. For the US, the removal of restrictions on birth control and abortion was billed as liberating sex for the consequences - babies.
    Rapidly both Herpes and AIDS spread, but have been somewhat reduced in breadth over the last years.
    The norms that you are concerned about arose before the sexual revolution and have been in competition with the popular culture portrayed in the US by Hollywood. The Sookie Stackhouse (That HBO's True Blood is based) books portray that dichotomy. Sookie is constantly saying what a good girl she is, then falling for someone new and getting passionate. She feels the pressure of society, but follows her passions.
    None of this is really new. Society has special stigmas for the woman since she is the one that pays the most. Unexpected pregnancy, VD and infertility all hit the woman harder. There have always been women that flew in the face of this norm. The consequence depended on class. Usually middle class suffered the most opprobrium.
    Sex is intensely pleasurable and intimate. Interestingly some studies have found that the respondents who indicated the highest frequency and greatest satisfaction with their sex life were married Christians. I think that comes more from the intimacy of the act and the fact that you are talking about two people that know each other well.
    The pleasure of sex is what draws everyone to it. I think the flaw of the free love movement was in not recognizing the power that intimacy has. Is the person who cheerfully breaks the old norms and has many partners happier than someone that is in a happily monogamous relationship. The answer is not always clear. I think it depends on the personality. For some the grass is always greener and they are constantly on the prowl. The trouble is when that runs into previously monogamous relationships. The prowler may be briefly satisfied with a new partner before moving on, but the trust in the monogamous relationship is ruined.
    The societal shift happened starting 40 years ago - the jury is out.
    Ultimately, the purpose of a society is to ensure its continuance. That means that all norms need to be viewed through the prism of the effect they have on children. That points towards the requirement that parents be monogamous. The young can fool around to their hearts content until a child is born and at that point the overwhelming evidence points to two parents in the home