Every once in a while, Jezebel will post something that gets me thinking. This one did.
It seems that this parody of Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines by was removed from You Tube for a short time and then put up again after comments were made.
Called Defined Lines, the video was made for the University of Auckland’s Law Revue by Adelaide Dunn, Olivia Lubbock and Zoe Ellwood.
Basically, these ladies took the premise of the original video and flipped it to make some pretty cogent points, IMHO.
What I can’t understand is why it got taken down. I’ll be honest, I hadn’t seen the whole Blurred Lines video, so I went looking. I found two versions. One made for regular airplay and a notably unblocked unrated version (warning, NSFW).
So, what. Is it okay to say naughty, sexual, innuendo filled things to and about women while grabbing your crotch — but saying naughty, sexual, innuendo filled things to and about men while simulating coming on their face (with whipped cream) is not?
I saw comments to the effect that use of the words “emasculation” and “castration” may have been at issue, but artistic license was used in both cases.
Either way, I’m sharing the video because I found it to be clever and because I believe that, unless you find both videos equally offensive (at their base, it’s the same issue of exploitation and sexualizing) you really can’t find wither offensive.
Heck, I don’t even think the unrated version of Burred Lines is offensive. Well, not in the traditional sense. Seems to me, if you’re going to have women running around topless and almost naked in your video, you should do something more interesting thank just make them walk around like models on a catwalk.
Parody video is after the break. Warning. Tune is catchy.