I was talking with a friend about the recent debate regarding the Ohio University band and the song “Blurred Lines.” When he said, “I'm so sick of debating 'Blurred Lines,’ It's just a song,” I couldn’t help but recall a man I knew whose sister was raped in high school. He told me once that the question that haunts him is how anyone could think that raping his sister was okay. In fact, when questioned by police, his sister's rapist seemed baffled by the fuss. “Nobody got hurt,” he insisted, more than once.
The question becomes, of course, how somebody could commit a rape and defend himself by claiming, “nobody got hurt.” When exactly did rape no longer constitute grievous hurt? Where did not only this idea, but his certainty, come from?
This is where I come back to the lyrics in “Blurred Lines.” The song assures a “good girl” that she is “an animal,” and she must want it because wanting it is “in her nature.” Later, she's informed by the (male) singer that he's going to “give [her] something big enough to tear [her] ass in two,” and even though the singer is “a nice guy,” she's going to get it. While I'm sure the tastefulness of these lyrics could be debated, what isn't being debated enough is the potential dehumanization it imposes, and what that means. When “Blurred Lines” becomes “just a song,” then what it proposes becomes normalized: consent becomes a blurry issue. She wants it. It's in her nature.
So am I saying that “Blurred Lines” is directly responsible for anybody’s rape? Am I saying that anybody is listening to it and consciously thinking to themself, “Hey, this must mean violence against women is okay?” No. What worries me is far more insidious. Violence is an action, but it is born from an attitude. And the problem with attitudes is that we too often fail to recognize that we have them, until the recognition blows up in our faces. What worries me is that we aren’t talking about the attitudes that perpetuate violence, and where those attitudes are coming from. In fact, I’m seeing a strange sort of fury at anyone who even tries to initiate such a discussion. I don’t think this is an issue that only belongs in a classroom, because it isn't just in the classroom that we’re seeing the effects.
Am I arguing, then, that nothing that might be deemed offensive ought to be allowed? Again, no. What I want, simply, is awareness. I suppose what I’m suggesting is that, instead of insisting “it’s just a song,” and changing the subject, why don’t we try figuring out why those who are concerned are willing to argue otherwise, and just maybe, consider how they might have a point. Am I tired of talking about “Blurred Lines?” Sure. But I'm even more tired of what is NOT getting talked about.
But what do I know. I’m just an animal.
Amanda Hayes is a graduate student studying English.
