There is an essential question that I want our community to answer. Do we want to come together as a university and dance to “Blurred Lines?” Put aside arguments about if the Marching 110 should play this song or if they should be allowed to play that song. We have seen people differ greatly in their opinions on these issues. We should be “allowed” to.
But do we want to, Bobcats?
Do you want to come together as a university, flags waving, dressed in your colors with OHIO plastered across your chest, and celebrate to the melody of a song whose core message is “I know you want it,” even if you say no?
Do you really want to hear it that badly, Bobcats?
The Marching 110 performs on the premise that these are the songs that OU students know, love and want to hear. I have heard arguments that a melody of an arguably “rapey” song does not promote rape; that the “bra-burning feminists” on campus should stop picking on athletics and the Marching 110. I have heard people question: “Why aren’t they trying to ‘actually change things’ on campus rather than trying to ban a song that we all want to dance to?”
There are many support, education and outreach groups on this campus that help the victims of sexual assault by working to prevent and heal from sexual violence. I am proud that we have an administration that raised a red flag; Ohio University was able to see the message that this would send and call it to our attention. When it comes to reducing — or even eliminating — sexual assault on this campus, we need to ask: “What can we do to remove the threat and establish that saying ‘no’ is where it all stops?” The steps taken to stop sexual violence from happening usually fall on the victim; walk home in groups, don’t drink too much, be smart. But what this controversy is centered around is the question of how we can remove the threat. Students like Allie Erwin and the Ohio University administration are trying to approach this facet of the problem by recognizing the role that popular culture plays in our understanding of sex and consent.
Rejecting sex is not a challenge and “no” does not mean “try again” or “convince me.” Whether the lyrics specifically say this or not is a different argument that I don’t think we need to use in this discussion anymore. On our campus, the situation has evolved to a point where the song represents this message. It is extremely dangerous to assume that lack of consent leaves room for interpretation. A man* cannot “interpret” what he thinks a woman “wants.” There is not ambiguity in consent; if there’s not a “yes” there is not consent. There are NO blurred lines, even if this song argues the opposite.
I hope that we all agree that it would not be beneficial to promote this song. I have enough faith in my fellow Bobcats to believe that we do not think filling the stands with the melody of “Blurred Lines” is a positive addition to our campus environment and that it is the best way for us to celebrate the talent of the Marching 110.
Ask yourself, Bobcats. Is it a good thing to sing this song together? Do you want to dance along with this message while wearing your OU colors and pride?
I don’t.
*Male/female example used in reference to this song. Sexual violence is not limited to this dynamic.
Sarah Shank is a senior studying studio art in the Honors Tutorial College.
