Lines are blurred as #THICKE parody video pulled for being #OFFENSIVE

**Alpha** · 09-02-2013, 02:13 AM

So this is doing the rounds in Middle Earth today, and I thought I'd share and provoke some discussion.

A Blurred Lines parody video performed by some girls and guys at Auckland University's law school was today removed from YouTube after only a few days (and 300,000+ views) for being too offensive*. The 'feminist' interpretation of the video is essentially a role reversal of the original, and can be seen here for the time-being:

NSFW (language, dance moves may offend, may upset patriarchy)

The original (removed): YouTube
The original context was a yearly revue, as part of a series of comedy videos and performances prepared by students. The intention was first to be funny, and second to make a point. But mainly to be funny (from the girls' own mouths in interview I watched 3 hours ago).

* Or maybe for breaking copyright, but the people who made the video said copyright was not cited in YouTube's explanation. And parody constitutes fair use.

So, why do you think this video is too offensive, but the original is allowed to amass millions of views? Bit of a double-standard. Seems like the point was made.

**Halie** · 09-02-2013, 12:16 PM

I saw the video on tumblr yesterday and I thought it was hilarious, I don't understand why it was taken down. The only person I can see it being offensive to is Robin Thicke himself, and in all honesty I feel like he deserves it. The lyrics to his song are creepy and uncomfortable, and his video is even worse.

I don't know how accurate this is, but I've read that he actually said the intention of the song was "to degrade women as much as possible".

EDIT: There's now a petition to have the actual Blurred Lines video taken down from YouTube in response to the parody being taken down, which is only fair I guess.

**Rowan** · 09-02-2013, 09:46 PM

Well because patriarchy, amirite? Girl power, yay.

but seriously,

"It is likely that a bona fide parody, as opposed to satire, that does not usurp the market for plaintiff's work or unfairly free ride on plaintiff's work will be protected as a fair use. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 US 569 (1994). Courts have held that the fair use defense can protect a parody of a copyrighted work from an infringement claim. However, that does not necessarily mean that all parodies will be protected. In the case of a parody where the defendant raises a fair use defense, the courts will run through the four part fair use analysis just as they would with any other fair use test.

While it is problematic to try to predict what a court will decide in any fair use case, it is likely that in the case of a parody the court will focus on the fourth factor of the inquiry, which requires the court to ask what effect the parody has on the potential market for the copyrighted work. If the parody usurps the market for the copyrighted work, then there is an increased chance that the court will find that the use is not fair. If the parody dampens the market for the copyrighted work as a result of its implicit criticism of the work, such a negative effect on the market does not render such use unfair. "

Its not fair to steal someones work and use it to promote yourselves. law suit is justifiable.

Both versions of this song suck and I dislike them both for causing this gender shitstorm once again.

edit:
Is there anything wrong with the video? Absolutley not.

Its cute.

**Alpha** · 09-02-2013, 11:51 PM

Your argument would be a good one, Rowan, but there are two problems with it.

1. Copyright was not cited as a reason for the video's removal. The people who made it are studying to be lawyers, they are very aware of copyright. (That's not to say that it isn't possible, and indeed I think it explains a lot of it.)

2. There are a whole bunch of Blurred Lines parody videos still available on YouTube. I could go find you ten of them if you don't believe me. I don't even think this is the most popular.

Personally I think if they dropped the dildo/vibrator then they'd be alright. But then surely there'd be no videos about dildos and fleshlights, etc. etc? ...but there are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

**LocoColt04** · 09-03-2013, 12:01 AM

The topic is skewed. You ask why I think this is offensive, but in light of the actual music video, this is not even the least bit offensive - and even if I had never seen the trash that was #Thicke I would still have laughed at this because the lyrics are so relevant.

Now, I could see lots of things that other people could find offensive, but I live in an era beyond 1970 and am strongly of the opinion that women are people too.

~ Sent from my Galaxy S2 via Tapatalk 4

**Rowan** · 09-03-2013, 04:32 AM

I've only actually heard this song in passing (I'm reffering to the original, not the parody) and I don't know the lyrics. From what you're saying and from what is obviously a mimic of his video in matriarchal fashion, what exactly does the song talk about? I would look up lyrics myself, but or the sake of forum activity yada yada yada

**charlesgo** · 09-04-2013, 01:22 AM

Sorry could not view the video. can you share a youtube link?

**Alpha** · 09-05-2013, 10:41 PM

Er what. What kind of a bot are you, you don't even have links to click on?

So I read this today. And because no one clicks links because of all the mediocre bots, I'll just quote the whole thing:

American singer-songwriter Robin Thicke, along with rappers Pharrell Williams and T.I., have together released a subversive parody music video in which they present an absurd alternate reality where women are the subject of male objectification and sexual entitlement.

The song, titled Blurred Lines, is a direct parody of a video made by a group of University of Auckland law students, which controversially depicts men being paraded with no clothes while they are visually demeaned and have vibrators inserted into their mouths.

That video has been criticized for reinforcing negative gender stereotypes and promoting a destructive consent culture in which males find it difficult to have sex and good girls are discouraged from unleashing their inner desire to bend over for men in suits. The video was considered to be so offensive in some circles that it was briefly banned by YouTube after numerous complaints.

But Thicke’s Blurred Lines music video, released today, now stands as a biting satirical retort to the Auckland law students, and forces them to confront a hypothetical world in which gender roles are reversed, and women are an object of sexual gratification.

Thicke’s video features himself, T.I., and Pharrell – all fully clothed – being flanked by numerous attractive, near-naked women who Thicke asserts “want me,” despite their facial expressions and body language at times suggesting otherwise. At various points in the video, the topless women are seen submitting to the three men on all fours, and providing meaningful assistance as a ramp for Pharrell’s toy car.

The video acts a cleverly-engineered mirror image of the original.

Blurred Lines is already winning widespread praise around the internet, with critics applauding Thicke for using his platform to challenge social norms and encourage people to think subversively about dominant cultural attitudes, such as distaste for vaguely misogynistic undertones and a belief that Robin Thicke is a creepy jerk.

Thicke says that while the video may appear “shocking” or “strange” to some, its intentions are only to provoke discussion.

“I think sometimes we have to challenge the status quo, stand up and say ‘well, you know, what if things were reversed?’” he said. “And as I listen to people talk, in the places I go, a lot of people are saying, they’re saying ‘Wow, Robin, don’t you worry that you’re subtly legitimizing soft forms of rape?’ So I just wanted to challenge those commonly held attitudes that maybe people have never really given thought to before.”

“You know, at what point does subversive objection to the status quo become the status quo itself?” he added. “Kind of interesting, when you think of it that way.

“I think women often get a lot of opportunity to laugh at men or to be all shitty with them for grabbing their ass at the club. To them, you know, behaving like that, it’s just normal, and men just have to put up with that sort of thing, and biologically, you know, that’s just the way of the world.

“But what if we lived in a world where women were considered other from men, or sold as a means of sexual gratification? Or, imagine if we held competitions to determine who was the best kind of woman, and then awarded it to the dumbest, most uncritical women we could find who giggle a lot and know how to best adorn themselves? What then? I think women would think twice about making these sorts of videos if they had that kind of perspective.”

Blurred Lines is already finding its way into academic curricula, with Gender Studies departments across the world adopting Thicke’s video as a brave new take on the viral social media phenomenon created by the Auckland University video.

The release of the song comes a week after a Philadelphia black man was arrested for making a YouTube cover of 2000 Eminem song Kim, in which he explicitly raps about murdering his wife. Police determined that the cover amounted to an aggravated and specific threat against Eminem’s former partner.

**che** · 09-05-2013, 10:56 PM

TIL there's more to life than penetration.

I'm glad we live in a world where people, men and women, are so concerned about each other that they come together and overcome gender roles just because some douche makes a video with naked women in it. Everyone's ****in hot, so I like naked people. It sucks that it's so offensive sometimes. You shouldn't have to do something you don't want to.

PS, about to buy me some calvin klein briefs. Those look comfy.

**Alpha** · 09-05-2013, 10:59 PM

I have four pairs.

**che** · 09-05-2013, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by Alpha

I have four pairs.

Verdict?

**Alpha** · 09-05-2013, 11:08 PM

Positive.

**Clint** · 09-08-2013, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Alpha

1. Copyright was not cited as a reason for the video's removal. The people who made it are studying to be lawyers, they are very aware of copyright. (That's not to say that it isn't possible, and indeed I think it explains a lot of it.)

There are no copyright issues. It's a parody. Even copyrighted material can be parodied, as long as there's no plagiarism involved.

I can see two reason why it was banned. One is because of the "music industry." Producer douche bags don't like when parodies become popular, so they push to remove them. Two is because of society and political correctness. There's a strong dislike for feminism. People see it as women pushing to increase their rights while taking rights away from men, but in reality, the concept of it is simply to obtain women an equal social standing among men.

Whichever reason for why it was taken down, it all has to do with politics, and politics is bullshit.

**Cyanist** · 09-08-2013, 12:39 PM

Just watched Thicke's music vid.... U___U;
This is why I don't follow the media.
If Mr. Thicke were trying to arouse some sort of reaction in me, he's done so: I am vaguely disgusted. however, not in the least surprised, or intrigued. I'll leave the dissection of the intended effect of his 'work' to more avid minds. As for the current constraints of societal structure and the future impact of his 'message' on the masses... what the fudge is wrong with things as they are, huh, punk?!?
Eh, I'll just consider him a creepy jerk.

The above video wasn't very funny to me. They could've done more with it.

**Rowan** · 09-08-2013, 04:39 PM

Watched the original the other day. Woman bouncing around naked and somehow its a mans fault. Typical.

**che** · 09-08-2013, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by Rowan

Watched the original the other day. Woman bouncing around naked and somehow its a mans fault. Typical.

To be honest, I would get naked and bounce around if a man paid me to do it.

TAKING OFFERS

ps i'm hot on the inside too if you know what i mean

pps (or pss?) that video is almost as clever as the original (which is not very).

**Rowan** · 09-09-2013, 12:07 AM

I found neither video clever. 1st video is just trying to appeal sexually to people (both men and woman) like most other run of the mill modern day popular music does, and the 2nd video was a statement against misogyny by being misandric. Oh funny, the word for misandry isn't recognized in the spell check on both firefox and Microsoft word.

**che** · 09-09-2013, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Rowan

I found neither video clever. 1st video is just trying to appeal sexually to people (both men and woman) like most other run of the mill modern day popular music does, and the 2nd video was a statement against misogyny by being misandric. Oh funny, the word for misandry isn't recognized in the spell check on both firefox and Microsoft word.

I think it DID appeal to both men and women. Thats the problem the second group has with it. Can I have the 60s back? (edit: sorry, in the US)

People are stupid and do not critically think as a whole. These forums in themselves are very rare. You won't find a popular general public opinion about anything. On top of that, that's just not the type of people most of us "hang out with". So you won't find a good argument for that here.

**Rowan** · 09-09-2013, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by che

I think it DID appeal to both men and women. Thats the problem the second group has with it. Can I have the 60s back? (edit: sorry, in the US)

People are stupid and do not critically think as a whole. These forums in themselves are very rare. You won't find a popular general public opinion about anything. On top of that, that's just not the type of people most of us "hang out with". So you won't find a good argument for that here.

So what are you saying?

**che** · 09-09-2013, 01:43 AM

Dunno where I was going with that last "paragraph". Wasn't trying to belittle anyone here, mostly the opposite. Saying we're unique.

But, basically after watching both just now, I'd say the "feminist" (which, I don't think you can call them that, it's kind of an insult to feminists to label them that way imo) version is much more about hating people, kinda like you said Rowan. The original is basically about being at a bar or whatever and people being horny, saying "heyheyhey". The "wanna domesticate you" aka "I don't want you to be a slut anymore, I like your moves" part is pretty ****ing aggravating. Like, that's not an attractive thing to say.

But neither is anything about the lyrics about the second video.

Blah blah blah, she doesn't want anyone to cum on her face or be playful at all or anything. That's cool. For her. Different people like different things, including domination, etc. Men and women, both. So I'M PRETTY SURE THE SONG DIDN'T MEAN THAT, but if we're getting into the "you want a landing strip, you better get ripped" thing (yes that's a lyric from the second video), alright. She (And her audience) are allowed to say whatever, and so is Robin Thicke. But the whole "I'm feminist and this is my point of view" thing is really dumb. I'm pretty sure not all feminists share her single, "close-minded opinion" (my own thoughts) about sex and other things, and we don't really need to hear it as derogatory to a song that isn't even that important of a statement. That's why that video is more offensive than the original.

If anything, she brought MORE attention to the original video than it would have ever got. So great job being feminist and trying to make it less of a "man's world".

**Alpha** · 09-09-2013, 02:30 AM

I disagree with that, but I'm not going into that right now. What I came to say is that the original is now back up on YouTube after the outcry. You can click through to it on the link above the video in the OP.

**che** · 09-09-2013, 08:00 AM

Also, I wanted to mention that "you're an animal, try to domesticate you" is pretty genderless. Even if it is a really douchey thing to say.

Which, I don't even know if that's the worst lyric in there. I doubt it, but I'm also sick of listening to this shitty ****ing song trying to look for shit that's wrong with it.

**Rowan** · 09-09-2013, 03:48 PM

When trying to compare gender based insults, I can only really see them in the second video. "Prepare for your castration" , really?
Also, I love the way she adjusts her glasses and proclaims she is scholastic, as if glasses somehow make a person intelligent (self objectification, much?)
As well as shoving a vibrator into a guys mouth, I really cant see how its meant to be a positive video for feminism. It makes feminism look really bad, as if the image could get any worse. You can call it a 'joke' or a 'parody' but you can take it seriously enough to petition to keep it up on youtube, really says something about how people really feel toward the video, like its a statement that must be heard by all, despite being a silly parody video. Theres really nothing comedic about it, its just a hate video directed at men, nothing specific relating to robert thicke except stealing the music and basis for the song and using it to promote themselves.

**Unknown Entity** · 09-10-2013, 09:01 AM

I'm going to be completely honest, probably sound very naive, and just going to throw this out there: there are three women in that video, who seem perfectly happy bouncing around ninety-percent naked, and "objectifying" themselves to #THICKLE's song. Let me point out that I don't seriously think they're objectifying themselves - I think people nitpicking and getting butthurt right in the feminism appear to think so.

I really don't view the song/video as offensive as most people. Yeah, sure, you can listen/read to it as it is and form an opinion that it's hateful/degrading/harmful to women, but the meaning is different. It's a freaking over-sexualised joke, that yes, might have gone lyrically too far, but damn. It's a joke. Is it okay for married men to take the piss out of sexuality, especially women? Not really, but I don't think it was done to be malicious. Was he making a joke of rape? No - rape isn't even suggested. It was done to be controversial, and send us a message we didn't want to hear.

Why does sexuality, in this day and age, cause anger or embarrassment or offence? Go back to the Victorian era without television, and you had women being told by their husbands to button up their blouses and cook dinner. #THICKLE is just taking the piss out of our ability to become so easily offended by sexuality. I'm one of the few who views it as a challenge to our attitude towards sexuality. Am I degrading myself if I want sex, or am I objectifying myself by openly admitting my desires? Because I'm a woman? That's offensive. Hasn't he just proved that point with the song?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an offensive song if you go by the literal lyrics. I just think everyone is getting their panties (oh, and boxers, because I don't want to offend anyone!) in a twist over nothing.

**Bubblegum** · 09-19-2013, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by Halie

I saw the video on tumblr yesterday and I thought it was hilarious, I don't understand why it was taken down. The only person I can see it being offensive to is Robin Thicke himself, and in all honesty I feel like he deserves it. The lyrics to his song are creepy and uncomfortable, and his video is even worse.

I don't know how accurate this is, but I've read that he actually said the intention of the song was "to degrade women as much as possible".

Yes it's true. Thicke did it because he thought that degrading women would be entertaining and hilarious.

And agree the lyrics and the song are very rape-y so it's very understandable why so many women are offended by this.

**Cyanist** · 09-19-2013, 10:02 PM

I'm not offended, I just believe that he's trying to usher in more lewdness and indecency to society.

"Vulgar, 'animalistic' women are not unheard of Mr. Thicke, go find a brothel somewhere" - I myself believe that if a girl isn't wary or somewhat embarrassed of physical intimacy (with strangers, I assume) she's got something wrong with her.
Whatever the case, I don't find his argument substantiative enough to excuse his crude behavior

**che** · 09-19-2013, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Cyanista

I myself believe that if a girl isn't wary or somewhat embarrassed of physical intimacy (with strangers, I assume) she's got something wrong with her.
Whatever the case, I don't find his argument substantiative enough to excuse his crude behavior

Isn't it okay if a woman chooses to do that on her own? Like perfectly, consciously makes a decision to dress light and act confident sexually? Like, people are going to judge no matter what, and it may go against our morals, but when Miley Cyrus goes on stage and wears practically nothing and twerks, that's her decision. Sure we can be disappointed in her.

I mean, is there anything wrong with thinking that way? ^

******I'm not trying to offend anyone by asking this and I'm not trying to be snarky. I don't know how else to word this and I would like to get people's opinions so I can help discover how I feel about this more.

**SOLDIER #819** · 09-20-2013, 12:14 AM

Why doesn't this one have a goat in it? :\ There's just no point now.

**HeroZero** · 09-20-2013, 07:28 AM

Needs more goat.

**Unknown Entity** · 09-20-2013, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Cyanista

I myself believe that if a girl isn't wary or somewhat embarrassed of physical intimacy (with strangers, I assume) she's got something wrong with her.

I just can't see why someone should be embarrassed by sex/uality. Come on, we're adults here. You must have had the talk years ago; we would never have existed without physical intimacy. There's a difference between being embarrassed and modest, though. I think modesty can be confused with embarrassment. No means no, and that's a conviction everyone should be comfortable and confident with - no ifs or buts. You can't afford to be shy when it comes to saying no.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just not easily offended, or look for reasons to be offended. I just don't picture rape in these lyrics.