***THIS POST IS NOT SUITABLE FOR SOME READERS***
See introductory paragraph for details.
Being at uni has both its good and bad points. Today in this (hopefully) short post, I'm pondering what could be seen as both. If you are of a delicate disposition, are easily offended by swearing or dislike very obvious sex references, I wouldn't bother reading further. I will not be doing any of these things, but the video I am discussing does all of them almost constantly and I do have to refer to it somehow for this post to make any sense.
I was shown a very controversial video on YouTube last night; it's apparently been removed from YouTube once and then replaced there in all its resplendent glory because of the debate surrounding it. In short, it is a parody of the song "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke but in long, so to speak, it's a bit more than that.
[SIDEBAR:] For those of you who don't know the song "Blurred Lines", it's a very provocative song about how women behave around men and how men want women to behave around men. In the words of Beth (who is very nice) "It's a bit rapey".
The parody in question is called "Defined Lines" (don't click the link if you don't want to be exposed to a high level of sexuality and swearing, or if you are somewhere that swearing and sex would be frowned upon, e.g. work) and it's by a group of girls called Law Revue, who appear to be highly feminist to the extreme. And American. But that is irrelevant.* It is a good video; as a parody it's almost identical to the original in its layout, apart from the obvious content change. The words to the song, whilst overly explicit and full of expletives, are actually part of a very good argument about women being treated like pieces of meat and used for sex. However, as mentioned, the video is much more explicit than it needs to be and could have been done almost as effectively without the constant swearing and sexual references.
This then creates a good argument though because, content-wise, the video is very close to the original song (which is probably known to quite a lot of young children) but with the gender roles reversed. Therefore, we must come to the conclusion that the original song is far too explicit to be played on the radio. But this isn't true. YouTube actually did remove this video at one point because of its obvious sexual nature. Law Revue apparently then wrote to YouTube and said "If that's the case, take down the original "Blurred Lines" video on the same grounds." At that point YouTube unblocked the parody video on their website.
So you see, this video does lead to a very good and in-depth argument, which I actually would enjoy having with people who weren't over the internet. And I am actually beginning to have with myself after this post. I hope I haven't caused too much offence with this video/message, I just find it interesting how different the standards are for men and women and how a song which could be conceived as being about rape is actually number 4 in the charts as I write this.
I apologised for any offence caused anywhere in this post, but I gave as much warning as I possibly could, considering that there is no "Explicit" button on Blogger.
*Future Emma believes the ladies are in fact from Down Under. Leave it.
