|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 4, 2014 11:42:34 GMT -5
Not really. Go by what's on the page, it's not like it's a nuanced song.
It'd be like asserting that Mix a Lot was singing bout anything other than his love for big asses in Baby Got Back.
I'm all for deconstuction of works with multi-layers.
This ain't one. It's a lame danceclub song
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 11:46:39 GMT -5
I think it's also what people consider rape, and well, consent in general, and consent is the issue people complain about. He hates these blurred lines. He believes this girl wants to get with him, but doesn't really know definitively. Taking someone else who is in a relationship with another person is one thing, but it seems that he's placing his thoughts and beliefs onto what he wants and what he thinks she wants to do. If she did want him, there wouldn't be any blurred lines, there would be obvious pictures. So let's get off the subject of the song for a second and go to the bar. A guy is pursuing a girl, and he thinks that, based on how she's dressed, how she's dancing or whatever, or even if she's dancing with the guy, that must mean she wants something. The issue people have with the song is there doesn't seem to be any indication of the girl wanting anything to do with him. It's all assumptions, and that's the crux of argument. He doesn't care what the girl wants or doesn't want, it's just what he assumes she wants, and that's where the consent issue comes into play, where her consent is irrelevant I have heard other arguments as well like the objectifying with the animalistic talk, but a lot of songs have that. I also do know about people who have been raped quoting the lyrics to this song as what their rapists said to them, but I also do admit that can be an argument from emotion, in saying, this song is bad, look, rape victims. People say it's about rape, well, it's not necessarily, but it starts out like it's potentially a rape that is going to happen eventually, based on how he clearly wants to have sex with the person, and the only thing we know about the girl is, well, nothing. We just know what Robin Thicke thinks he knows. It bugs people because a lot of girls deal with harassment like this all the time. Sometimes it just ends with them telling the guy to f*** off, other times, it doesn't end well. It's also that rape, a lot of the times the victim is blamed for say, the way they looked. Maybe it was those jeans she had on, and like, what are dreams for when she has them on? Girls are blamed for potentially leading the guy on, like maybe the way they grabbed the guy. She must want to get nasty, right? Now, as brought up before, I think it probably would have gone away and have all been a big misunderstanding if Robin Thicke got the criticism, and he doesn't. He's shown himself to be a misogynistic douche, so that just adds meaning on top of it. Especially if it's supposed to be about his wife, and now that she's gone, he clearly has boundary issues. The meaning I think mostly comes from him, and how he acts. I will admit that I was told about the story before hearing the song, which may make me bias. Funny story. I was in the car, and me and my girlfriend were listening to the radio. And this song comes on, and I'm like, what is this shit, this sounds terrible. And my girlfriend says, "That's Robin Thicke". And I'm like, "oh, the rape guy". Again, the controversy of the song would go away if Robin Thicke wasn't such a misgyonist douche and people could actually see him not giving a f*** about the girl's consent. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to put blame on the woman in the song. She's not being raped, she's being pursued after suggestively grabbing a man she's not in a relationship with. That's not potentially leading someone on, that's leading someone on. Why isn't the focus on how people conduct themselves in public? The discussion has completely removed her agency. Also, how is her consent irrelevant if he's saying "go ahead, get at me?"? T.I. even says he'll be "watching and waiting" for the woman to make a move for him after he gives her the green light. I'm glad you admitted your bias, that's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. EDIT: I was thinking when writing that post there as well that, well, a lot of songs just give the viewpoint of the singer. But, then I remembered, oh wait, he hates these blurred lines. He thinks he knows what she wants, but doesn't truly know and he's just like, well, I'll just continue hitting on her anyway. It's again with people who report or have issues with this, I told him no, but he didn't believe me. He says, "I know you want it." This works from the assumption that she is indicating "no". She hasn't indicated yes, clearly either, that's the whole freakin point. Why does it then go to the idea that if she said no, he would still pursue? There are definitely a lot of women who are harassed after making it clear they aren't interested in someone, this isn't one of those times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 12:05:06 GMT -5
Not really. Go by what's on the page, it's not like it's a nuanced song. It'd be like asserting that Mix a Lot was singing bout anything other than his love for big asses in Baby Got Back. I'm all for deconstuction of works with multi-layers. This ain't one. It's a lame danceclub song It's basically the discussion of the lyrics in all forms, if we go by the logic of 'it wasn't written to be about rape, or anything to do with sex at all because Thicke didn't intend it that way' then using phrases that people get triggered by in rape discussions is still pretty bad. It'd also mean that anyone at weddings playing I'll Be Watching You over their first dance should be laughed at more openly given if we go with the artist's own interpretation being the only one to go with. Like an ignorant uncle saying something sexist/racist/whatever else, it's still racist/sexist/whatever else to people who have heard such phrases before used as insults prior. Words are important, as much as we can go with the Mike Patton logic of 'lyrics aren't about the words as much as the melody they create' there's still certain lines which are going to f*** with people's heads if they've heard them said in life before. Was it done out of ignorance? Probably, doesn't make the words any less messed up though, and if interpretation of a song with the title blurred lines containing the lyrics of "tear your ass in two" in the non-radio edit then y'know, it's a bit darker than first comes off. Add in the fact 'you know you want it' is a phrase heard in so many rape stories against people of both biological sexes, and as such it's not really that easy to dismiss the song when it's built around that sentence along with a blurred lines chorus. Puts blame on the victim phrase which you can see mentioned in tons of support pamphlets and booklets and such if you ever have to go through/support someone after such incidents. If I've seen people -in person, not online, I've not actually looked up the online side of things as I bet that's a powderkeg of tension- uncomfortable about Blurred Lines being on the radio due to said lyrics then surely others have? I know another person in this thread has said the same so it's worth considering. NOTE: I'm not looking to argue in this thread either, so please don't take this as me trying to provoke anyone reading this. Just my anecdotal opinion on words in songs being important to listen to and such y'know. I've got no beef with anyone of any opinion in here before people assume I'm pissed or want everyone to share my opinion etc.
|
|
MasonK565
El Dandy
Biggest Damian Wayne fan on FAN.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by MasonK565 on Jul 4, 2014 12:15:19 GMT -5
I think it's also what people consider rape, and well, consent in general, and consent is the issue people complain about. He hates these blurred lines. He believes this girl wants to get with him, but doesn't really know definitively. Taking someone else who is in a relationship with another person is one thing, but it seems that he's placing his thoughts and beliefs onto what he wants and what he thinks she wants to do. If she did want him, there wouldn't be any blurred lines, there would be obvious pictures. So let's get off the subject of the song for a second and go to the bar. A guy is pursuing a girl, and he thinks that, based on how she's dressed, how she's dancing or whatever, or even if she's dancing with the guy, that must mean she wants something. The issue people have with the song is there doesn't seem to be any indication of the girl wanting anything to do with him. It's all assumptions, and that's the crux of argument. He doesn't care what the girl wants or doesn't want, it's just what he assumes she wants, and that's where the consent issue comes into play, where her consent is irrelevant I have heard other arguments as well like the objectifying with the animalistic talk, but a lot of songs have that. I also do know about people who have been raped quoting the lyrics to this song as what their rapists said to them, but I also do admit that can be an argument from emotion, in saying, this song is bad, look, rape victims. People say it's about rape, well, it's not necessarily, but it starts out like it's potentially a rape that is going to happen eventually, based on how he clearly wants to have sex with the person, and the only thing we know about the girl is, well, nothing. We just know what Robin Thicke thinks he knows. It bugs people because a lot of girls deal with harassment like this all the time. Sometimes it just ends with them telling the guy to f*** off, other times, it doesn't end well. It's also that rape, a lot of the times the victim is blamed for say, the way they looked. Maybe it was those jeans she had on, and like, what are dreams for when she has them on? Girls are blamed for potentially leading the guy on, like maybe the way they grabbed the guy. She must want to get nasty, right? Now, as brought up before, I think it probably would have gone away and have all been a big misunderstanding if Robin Thicke got the criticism, and he doesn't. He's shown himself to be a misogynistic douche, so that just adds meaning on top of it. Especially if it's supposed to be about his wife, and now that she's gone, he clearly has boundary issues. The meaning I think mostly comes from him, and how he acts. I will admit that I was told about the story before hearing the song, which may make me bias. Funny story. I was in the car, and me and my girlfriend were listening to the radio. And this song comes on, and I'm like, what is this shit, this sounds terrible. And my girlfriend says, "That's Robin Thicke". And I'm like, "oh, the rape guy". Again, the controversy of the song would go away if Robin Thicke wasn't such a misgyonist douche and people could actually see him not giving a f*** about the girl's consent. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to put blame on the woman in the song. She's not being raped, she's being pursued after suggestively grabbing a man she's not in a relationship with. That's not potentially leading someone on, that's leading someone on. Why isn't the focus on how people conduct themselves in public? The discussion has completely removed her agency. Also, how is her consent irrelevant if he's saying "go ahead, get at me?"? T.I. even says he'll be "watching and waiting" for the woman to make a move for him after he gives her the green light. I'm glad you admitted your bias, that's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. EDIT: I was thinking when writing that post there as well that, well, a lot of songs just give the viewpoint of the singer. But, then I remembered, oh wait, he hates these blurred lines. He thinks he knows what she wants, but doesn't truly know and he's just like, well, I'll just continue hitting on her anyway. It's again with people who report or have issues with this, I told him no, but he didn't believe me. He says, "I know you want it." This works from the assumption that she is indicating "no". She hasn't indicated yes, clearly either, that's the whole freakin point. Why does it then go to the idea that if she said no, he would still pursue? There are definitely a lot of women who are harassed after making it clear they aren't interested in someone, this isn't one of those times. I do agree with this, there should be attention that is paid to her action as well. There could also be the situation where just wants to fool at the party. But also, maybe what she wants isn't sex. That happens all the time. We shouldn't assume that they will pursue if she was to say no, but we also can't assume that what she wants is sex. Not every person is into getting laid in situations like that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 4, 2014 12:30:12 GMT -5
Not really. Go by what's on the page, it's not like it's a nuanced song. It'd be like asserting that Mix a Lot was singing bout anything other than his love for big asses in Baby Got Back. I'm all for deconstuction of works with multi-layers. This ain't one. It's a lame danceclub song It's basically the discussion of the lyrics in all forms, if we go by the logic of 'it wasn't written to be about rape, or anything to do with sex at all because Thicke didn't intend it that way' then using phrases that people get triggered by in rape discussions is still pretty bad. Except there are no set terms that trigger someone that people need to avoid. Anything at all can and might cause an issue with someone during a traumatic event. The entire issue is by person to person. It's no fault of the song or any phrase, but a symptom of the event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 12:41:08 GMT -5
He's a really bad musician, whose song only got airtime because it has Pharrell in it. He's also a blatant misogynist, and a moron.
I have no sympy for someone like that getting dogpiled on.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 4, 2014 12:49:38 GMT -5
He's a really bad musician, whose song only got airtime because it has Pharrell in it. He's also a blatant misogynist, and a moron. I have no sympy for someone like that getting dogpiled on. People keep using that word. I did not think it means what they think it means.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jul 4, 2014 12:55:54 GMT -5
He's nothing more that a talentless hack. He's this year's Douche du Jour....He'll be gone and forgotten soon, hopefully.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 13:13:43 GMT -5
He's a really bad musician, whose song only got airtime because it has Pharrell in it. He's also a blatant misogynist, and a moron. I have no sympy for someone like that getting dogpiled on. People keep using that word. I did not think it means what they think it means. Dislike for women? I don't think he's too subtle about it. If, on the other hand, he just has a sexual fantasy of fake degradation of women, he can save that stuff for the bedroom, not broadcast it to all and sundry via his music video and subsequent interviews.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 13:23:43 GMT -5
I don't think it's at all inappropriate to put blame on the woman in the song. She's not being raped, she's being pursued after suggestively grabbing a man she's not in a relationship with. That's not potentially leading someone on, that's leading someone on. Why isn't the focus on how people conduct themselves in public? The discussion has completely removed her agency. Also, how is her consent irrelevant if he's saying "go ahead, get at me?"? T.I. even says he'll be "watching and waiting" for the woman to make a move for him after he gives her the green light. I'm glad you admitted your bias, that's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. EDIT: This works from the assumption that she is indicating "no". She hasn't indicated yes, clearly either, that's the whole freakin point. Why does it then go to the idea that if she said no, he would still pursue? There are definitely a lot of women who are harassed after making it clear they aren't interested in someone, this isn't one of those times. I do agree with this, there should be attention that is paid to her action as well. There could also be the situation where just wants to fool at the party. But also, maybe what she wants isn't sex. That happens all the time. We shouldn't assume that they will pursue if she was to say no, but we also can't assume that what she wants is sex. Not every person is into getting laid in situations like that. I agree with you, especially the second part. But to me, that's what the song was about: him trying to find out what she wanted. He believed she wanted sex and gave her the invitation to initiate if that's what she wanted. Whether people find that pervy/creepy/etc. is up to them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 4, 2014 13:54:42 GMT -5
People keep using that word. I did not think it means what they think it means. Dislike for women? I don't think he's too subtle about it. If, on the other hand, he just has a sexual fantasy of fake degradation of women, he can save that stuff for the bedroom, not broadcast it to all and sundry via his music video and subsequent interviews. So, he has such a dislike of the female gender, he paid women to be in the video, got a female doctor to put it together, and is currently trying to get back with a woman he was close with?
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jul 4, 2014 14:06:13 GMT -5
Guy just comes across as a sleazy creep. Like, he is about as sleazy as the Joey Ryan gimmick. I'd watch Robin Thicke on a rocking horse in slow motion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 14:31:52 GMT -5
Dislike for women? I don't think he's too subtle about it. If, on the other hand, he just has a sexual fantasy of fake degradation of women, he can save that stuff for the bedroom, not broadcast it to all and sundry via his music video and subsequent interviews. So, he has such a dislike of the female gender, he paid women to be in the video, got a female doctor to put it together, and is currently trying to get back with a woman he was close with? Disliking certain people and not interacting with them are two very different things.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jul 4, 2014 15:32:37 GMT -5
I didn't see anything rape-y about Blurred Lines. He's into her, he perceives that she's into him by the way she's grabbing and flirting with him, but he doesn't think she'll do anything about it because she's with her boyfriend. Throughout the song, he's flirting and seeing if he can get her to break away from her less-interesting man and go after him, but in Pharrell's section, he literally says that he's waiting for her to make the move. When we get back to Thicke, the woman and the man have gone off together to do a little weed and get busy, so we can see that she did indeed decide to follow her lust. There's no indication that he's going to force her. He's flirting with her, he believes she likes him, he's waiting for her to make the first move. Sounds entirely consensual to me. The blurred lines aren't consent lines, they're the fact that she's not sure about flirting so openly with him because she's already with someone else. He can't tell whether she's going to decide to be with him or not; it's not as clear-cut as an encounter where they're both single. Yes but, that's reading comprehension and listening. It's much easier to listen to one line in a chorus and prepare the pitchforks.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Jul 4, 2014 16:26:17 GMT -5
The song and the video can be debated to death, so I'm not gonna get into that. So I'm just gonna say this: Twitter is an open platform. If almost all of the press he has received the past year has been negative, surely he had to know on some level that nothing good would come of it. And that's the problem! It's always the one's with the WORST public image that do this shit: this douchebag, Jamie Dimon, Dixie Carter, all people who could easily figure out where they stood with the public at large with a simple Google search.
This kind of shit would never happen to Aaron Paul. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jul 4, 2014 16:31:08 GMT -5
I think it's also what people consider rape, and well, consent in general, and consent is the issue people complain about. He hates these blurred lines. He believes this girl wants to get with him, but doesn't really know definitively. Taking someone else who is in a relationship with another person is one thing, but it seems that he's placing his thoughts and beliefs onto what he wants and what he thinks she wants to do. If she did want him, there wouldn't be any blurred lines, there would be obvious pictures. So let's get off the subject of the song for a second and go to the bar. A guy is pursuing a girl, and he thinks that, based on how she's dressed, how she's dancing or whatever, or even if she's dancing with the guy, that must mean she wants something. The issue people have with the song is there doesn't seem to be any indication of the girl wanting anything to do with him. It's all assumptions, and that's the crux of argument. He doesn't care what the girl wants or doesn't want, it's just what he assumes she wants, and that's where the consent issue comes into play, where her consent is irrelevant I have heard other arguments as well like the objectifying with the animalistic talk, but a lot of songs have that. I also do know about people who have been raped quoting the lyrics to this song as what their rapists said to them, but I also do admit that can be an argument from emotion, in saying, this song is bad, look, rape victims. People say it's about rape, well, it's not necessarily, but it starts out like it's potentially a rape that is going to happen eventually, based on how he clearly wants to have sex with the person, and the only thing we know about the girl is, well, nothing. We just know what Robin Thicke thinks he knows. It bugs people because a lot of girls deal with harassment like this all the time. Sometimes it just ends with them telling the guy to f*** off, other times, it doesn't end well. It's also that rape, a lot of the times the victim is blamed for say, the way they looked. Maybe it was those jeans she had on, and like, what are dreams for when she has them on? Girls are blamed for potentially leading the guy on, like maybe the way they grabbed the guy. She must want to get nasty, right? Now, as brought up before, I think it probably would have gone away and have all been a big misunderstanding if Robin Thicke got the criticism, and he doesn't. He's shown himself to be a misogynistic douche, so that just adds meaning on top of it. Especially if it's supposed to be about his wife, and now that she's gone, he clearly has boundary issues. The meaning I think mostly comes from him, and how he acts. I will admit that I was told about the story before hearing the song, which may make me bias. Funny story. I was in the car, and me and my girlfriend were listening to the radio. And this song comes on, and I'm like, what is this shit, this sounds terrible. And my girlfriend says, "That's Robin Thicke". And I'm like, "oh, the rape guy". Again, the controversy of the song would go away if Robin Thicke wasn't such a misgyonist douche and people could actually see him not giving a f*** about the girl's consent. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to put blame on the woman in the song. She's not being raped, she's being pursued after suggestively grabbing a man she's not in a relationship with. That's not potentially leading someone on, that's leading someone on. Why isn't the focus on how people conduct themselves in public? The discussion has completely removed her agency. Also, how is her consent irrelevant if he's saying "go ahead, get at me?"? T.I. even says he'll be "watching and waiting" for the woman to make a move for him after he gives her the green light. I'm glad you admitted your bias, that's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. EDIT: I was thinking when writing that post there as well that, well, a lot of songs just give the viewpoint of the singer. But, then I remembered, oh wait, he hates these blurred lines. He thinks he knows what she wants, but doesn't truly know and he's just like, well, I'll just continue hitting on her anyway. It's again with people who report or have issues with this, I told him no, but he didn't believe me. He says, "I know you want it." This works from the assumption that she is indicating "no". She hasn't indicated yes, clearly either, that's the whole freakin point. Why does it then go to the idea that if she said no, he would still pursue? There are definitely a lot of women who are harassed after making it clear they aren't interested in someone, this isn't one of those times. There is the potential for suggestively grabbing, but again, I think that's one thing that upsets people is, again, people are always told, you were leading him on, and maybe they were, but that doesn't mean that it's going any further then that. People are saying it's just a dance song, and like, I think it would be if the blurred lines part wasn't put in. I was thinking about an example of a similar song without the same consent context in it, and I was thinking about Uncle Kracker. Not in his song about a failed wrestling group in 2001, but his song "Follow Me". It's pretty much about a guy wanting to be with a girl who would be cheating on her boyfriend, but if she doesn't want to do anything and if she wants to leave, fine, whatever. I think that difference is the X-Factor. The fact is, it doesn't matter if she was leading him on or not. The fact that there's blurred lines means that we don't know her intentions. Recently, I guess in feminist circles, the issue of consent has been talked about as it has to be a yes, like, and if it's not, maybe you should just leave it there. So with the blurred lines, and not truly knowing what she wants, but merely putting what he believes she wants on her, that is what takes agency away from her.
|
|
|
Post by eDemento2099 on Jul 4, 2014 16:45:00 GMT -5
I didn't see anything rape-y about Blurred Lines. He's into her, he perceives that she's into him by the way she's grabbing and flirting with him, but he doesn't think she'll do anything about it because she's with her boyfriend. Throughout the song, he's flirting and seeing if he can get her to break away from her less-interesting man and go after him, but in Pharrell's section, he literally says that he's waiting for her to make the move. When we get back to Thicke, the woman and the man have gone off together to do a little weed and get busy, so we can see that she did indeed decide to follow her lust. There's no indication that he's going to force her. He's flirting with her, he believes she likes him, he's waiting for her to make the first move. Sounds entirely consensual to me. The blurred lines aren't consent lines, they're the fact that she's not sure about flirting so openly with him because she's already with someone else. He can't tell whether she's going to decide to be with him or not; it's not as clear-cut as an encounter where they're both single. To paraphrase Konga Dave, "Thank you so much for saying what needed to be said." Too many people have demonstrated inclinations to uncritically respond to how moral entrepreneurs (those who spin moral panics) interpreted the song rather than come to their own conclusions about its meaning. This reminds me of when the general public treated Ozzy Osbourne like public enemy #1 after Tipper Gore blasted the song for promoting suicide (The song is a reflection on alcoholism and the people Ozzy knew who died from their addiction to the substance, not to mention Ozzy's own struggle with drug addiction).
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jul 4, 2014 17:35:21 GMT -5
Not really. Go by what's on the page, it's not like it's a nuanced song. It'd be like asserting that Mix a Lot was singing bout anything other than his love for big asses in Baby Got Back. I'm all for deconstuction of works with multi-layers. This ain't one. It's a lame danceclub song To be fair, "Baby Got Back" does perpetuate the idea that women's existences and identities are equivalent, if not also reducible, to their bodies, and furthermore only to parts of their bodies in particular, namely their posteriors, which are objectified for the very reason that they exist for the visual pleasure of heterosexual men who look at them and, as such, exert a subjectivity over objects through the very action of looking, the idea being that objects exert no agency, i.e. are passive, because they do not act. To say nothing about people of colour and their bodies are hyper-sexualized in media. Case in point: the music video for "Baby Got Back" starts with two white women describing a black woman's posterior, for which Sir Mix a Lot raps about why such objectification and, implicitly, racialization of black women's bodies is okay (indeed, such a lineage dates back to that of Sarah Baartman, also known, pejoratively, as the Hottentot Venus). In addition, the actual enunciation of women's voices in the song "Baby Got Back" occurs only for the fact that they want to ride in Sir Mix a Lot's Mercedes: an economic and status object like a car (especially linked to something like the concept of masculinity) mediates social relations. Sir Mix a Lot only wants to socialize with 'soul sisters' for sex and these women only want to socialize with him because of his money and material goods. It's a fun song, sure, but it's hardly an affirmative picture of interaction between men and women as well.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 4, 2014 17:58:36 GMT -5
Blurred Lines isn't even one of his better songs. I'm surprised Magic and The Sweetest Love weren't bigger hits, that shit was hot.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 4, 2014 18:06:27 GMT -5
Not really. Go by what's on the page, it's not like it's a nuanced song. It'd be like asserting that Mix a Lot was singing bout anything other than his love for big asses in Baby Got Back. I'm all for deconstuction of works with multi-layers. This ain't one. It's a lame danceclub song To be fair, "Baby Got Back" does perpetuate the idea that women's existences and identities are equivalent, if not also reducible, to their bodies, and furthermore only to parts of their bodies in particular, namely their posteriors, which are objectified for the very reason that they exist for the visual pleasure of heterosexual men who look at them and, as such, exert a subjectivity over objects through the very action of looking, the idea being that objects exert no agency, i.e. are passive, because they do not act. To say nothing about people of colour and their bodies are hyper-sexualized in media. Case in point: the music video for "Baby Got Back" starts with two white women describing a black woman's posterior, for which Sir Mix a Lot raps about why such objectification and, implicitly, racialization of black women's bodies is okay (indeed, such a lineage dates back to that of Sarah Baartman, also known, pejoratively, as the Hottentot Venus). In addition, the actual enunciation of women's voices in the song "Baby Got Back" occurs only for the fact that they want to ride in Sir Mix a Lot's Mercedes: an economic and status object like a car (especially linked to something like the concept of masculinity) mediates social relations. Sir Mix a Lot only wants to socialize with 'soul sisters' for sex and these women only want to socialize with him because of his money and material goods. It's a fun song, sure, but it's hardly an affirmative picture of interaction between men and women as well. Heh, totally agree with you on the content; I just picked the song off the top of head that could in no way be misconstrued just what he's singin about.
|
|