what's wrong with blurred lines tho?
- See, at it’s base, the song Blurred Lines is essentially, about rape, the “blurred lines” being the line between “No, I don’t want to have sex with you” and “Yes, I want to have sex with you.” The blurred lines means oh you don’t mean to say no, you mean to say yes.
- Thicke has openly stated that he “loves to degrade women”
- "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”
- here he’s referring to a woman as a wild animal, therefore dehumanizing her. Oh and that she should let him “free” her.
- Because nearly every goddamn lyric is something rapists have repeatedly used on their victims
- In this shot we see the girl full frontal with her breasts exposed, totally bare and vulnerable and nude, whereas he is in a full suit, an outfit most commonly associated with power. He’s in charge here.
- just this
- not once in the whole fucking video do the models look like they’re enjoying themselves. They have a dead eyed look and are constantly posing. Tyra’d give them the bottom two for that.
- So hit me up when you passing through
I’ll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two
- I had actually never stomached the entire song until writing this and watched it through for the first time and literally gagged.
- This. He follows the women around during the video. If a guy followed you on the street or in a club, what would you think? A person’s first response would be to leg it out of there or search for the nearest possible weapon.
- Plus Robin Thicke is a fuckin creep. Seriously, he’s is like that guy on the bus who always wears parkas even in summer and keeps asking what you had for breakfast.
- Also Pharrell and TI how dare you trick this poor deluded white guy into thinking he’s cool/hip.
- Also fuck off with the hashtags we get it, it’s a 36 year old dude trying to be modern
This isn’t as clever or concise as most wonderful metas on that fucking video. But they’re out there.
Meanwhile, watch Mod Carousel’s version, I guarantee it’s a million miles better.
NOT challenging you, but idgi: using paintings from the western canon does *not* show changing standards in which women's bodies are considered attractive in western context???? What am I ignoring/missing???
ok context I don’t mean DOESNT SHOW CHANGE AT ALL (it uh, does show change in standards) but doesn’t show NEGATIVE (i.e. WORSE) change or MORE standards. In fact, there have always been LOTS OF STANDARDS and art history usually involves a hell of a lot of talking about those standards.
when people show me something like this
WOW REAL BODY WOMAN LOOK CURVES AND BELLY SO REAL WHY CAN’T WOMEN NOW BE HELD TO THESE STANDARDS?? WHAT HAPPEN, SO CONFUSED.
i inevitably more or less bite back a very nasty mental stream that goes because you dumbass, that isn’t a real body either, much less a “real” woman.
- what in the ever loving fuck is her musculature doing
- HER SPINE IS TOO LONG IT IS LITERALLY NOT HUMANLY POSSIBLE
- HER SPINE DOES NOT CONNECT TO HER HIPS PROPERLY
- yes she has a rounded belly but are you kidding me right now that was ALSO a beauty construct contemporary to the time that was intended to represent a perfection that no mortal average woman could achieve and sure they were HONEST about it but this was not a real person, not even a little bit.
- even the models would not have looked like this
- i mean holy shit her breasts looked like they were slapped on like playdoh
- literally this is the equivalent of pre-photography photoshop. this is not a real human being. this is an idealized version of a goddess/woman whom no one is supposed to come close to. the anatomy is physically impossible. she is white, blonde, and hairless. her breasts (while poorly rendered) are perfectly round and perky with outtie nipples. She has an appropriate flush on her cheeks and knees. There is not a single blemish on her skin, and there are no wrinkles, only necessary skin folds.
- ps as soon as photography was invented, people altered images of people’s bodies but basically this is just as bad as photoshop is so using it to prove your point is a horrid idea.
remember the cartoon: Born in the Wrong Century that was supposed to be about Fat Acceptance Positivity…
but has the woman in question was admiring Rubens Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus?
**people who try to argue that rape just meant abduct in the baroque period can fall off a cliff these mean were kidnapping women and ripping off their clothes IN THE PAINTING ITSELF and were stealing them to MAYBE marry them and DEFINITELY rape them.
art history is a long long history of women’s visual identities and bodies being moulded and crafted BY men, idealized BY male standards, attacked and deformed and demonized BY men. when people try to pull this “look how rubenesque and great this is! fat isn’t bad!” stuff on me, an ART HISTORIAN, i have to laugh.
Who is this better for?
- those images still represent sexual violence against women much of the time or idealized nonrealistic women that men of the time period held actual human woman to this standard
- they are largely (read, like: 90% of the time) white if they are “beautiful”. if they are not white they are eroticized and demeaned for the White Male Gaze.
- any real models used for these — were possibly mistresses, models, or prostitutes who may have been taken advantage of — and even then their bodies were altered to rid them of “imperfections”
- like 99% of the time people who try to use this for body pos acceptance are white women who literally have never sat down for two seconds to consider the implications that these paintings are done by men in order to control female body perceptions and female sexuality to demean women of color, to sexualize them, to normalize rape and assault and violence in association with female sexuality — these people don’t. really care about any of the deeper meaning of anything!!!! straight up tell me how a naked hairless blonde white lady from the 1700’s is ANY DIFFERENT from a naked hairless blond white lady from 2013.
- and people who don’t think art or image criticism through naturally annoy me because this is my job it’s what i do i study a whole hell of a lot of naked people. trust me friend: oil on canvas pornography or prints from the 18th century are not more body positive than porn today.
- basically if ur feminist body pos movement focuses on using images from the longstanding canon of the Male Gaze in Art History then ur feminist body pos movement is very white, very shit, and not very well thought out, sorry.
all women were bigger and stronger than you
and thought they were smarter
women were the ones who started wars
too many of your friends had been raped by women wielding giant dildos
and no K-Y Jelly
the state trooper
who pulled you over on the New Jersey Turnpike
was a woman
and carried a gun
the ability to menstruate
was the prerequisite for most high-paying jobs
your attractiveness to women depended
on the size of your penis
every time women saw you
they’d hoot and make jerking motions with their hands
women were always making jokes
about how ugly penises are
and how bad sperm tastes
you had to explain what’s wrong with your car
to big sweaty women with greasy hands
who stared at your crotch
in a garage where you are surrounded
by posters of naked men with hard-ons
men’s magazines featured cover photos
of 14-year-old boys
tucked into the front of their jeans
and articles like:
“How to tell if your wife is unfaithful”
“What your doctor won’t tell you about your prostate”
“The truth about impotence”
the doctor who examined your prostate
was a woman
and called you “Honey”
you had to inhale your boss’s stale cigar breath
as she insisted that sleeping with her
was part of the job
you couldn’t get away because
the company dress code required
you wear shoes
designed to keep you from running
And what if
after all that
women still wanted you
to love them.
For the Men Who Still Don’t Get It, written 20 years ago by Carol Diehl.
She wrote a post about the history of this poem that is worth reading.