Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Sexual objectification of women and feminism. watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No, I don't believe you.
    I'm not really trying to convince anyone, I'm just telling you how I see it. There is absolutely no way he wrote that line and thought "yes now people will know I love choking women and let's reference Jamaica for no reason too."

    He is referencing the fact that he is rich and can travel but he's also cool and down with the kids enough to bring back the premium weed. There is literally no other way of interpreting that line but if you disagree then that's your prerogative. Again, I don't think this particular song is an important feminist issue at all. Especially not now that nobody listens to it anymore.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The song is terrible. I remember loving that song when it came out, and i had no idea what the lyrics meant. Now i do, im cringing
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Ratajkowki's 10/10 natural tits should never be hidden from the world
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps you should have a word with other women a they formed vast majority of the people that bought.
    I'm pretty sure they knew all the words before they parted with their cash.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I laughed so hard, when I saw the two idiots trying to argue on my thread a few days ago about the meaning of words, are now arguing on another thread about the meaning of a song and words. Some people are on studentroom for the direct purpose of arguing.

    'Blurred lines' was a song that should have never been released, and that attempts to normalise rape. If you can't see why a song like that should not have young children singing along to it, memorising those lyrics, well. It has nothing to do with being the authoritative left, it has everything to do with being human, possessing a reasonable degree of common sense, and not wanting women to be portrayed as sexual objects that only exist to gratify men.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kristen2)
    The song is terrible. I remember loving that song when it came out, and i had no idea what the lyrics meant. Now i do, im cringing
    You didn't speak English at the time?

    (Original post by david_94)
    I laughed so hard, when I saw the two idiots trying to argue on my thread a few days ago about the meaning of words, are now arguing on another thread about the meaning of a song and words. Some people are on studentroom for the direct purpose of arguing.

    'Blurred lines' was a song that should have never been released, and that attempts to normalise rape. If you can't see why a song like that should not have young children singing along to it, memorising those lyrics, well. It has nothing to do with being the authoritative left, it has everything to do with being human, possessing a reasonable degree of common sense, and not wanting women to be portrayed as sexual objects that only exist to gratify men.
    GTA, Call of Duty and Battlefield should have never been released because they familiarize young people with killing other people.

    Same logic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    You didn't speak English at the time?


    GTA, Call of Duty and Battlefield should have never been released because they familiarize young people with killing other people.

    Same logic.
    Not at all. That's just your attempt at using the same logic that any reasonable minded person would have, to fit your agenda, in your attempt to make a valid point. As I said in the post, some people are only here on this website to argue, enjoy your life kid.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    I didn't watch the videos but I can tell you straight away from looking at the titles that they are not brilliant debates.
    That's some solid evidence
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david_94)
    Not at all. That's just your attempt at using the same logic that any reasonable minded person would have, to fit your agenda, in your attempt to make a valid point. As I said in the post, some people are only here on this website to argue, enjoy your life kid.
    You haven't answered my point at all.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    That's some solid evidence
    I know.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No, I don't believe you.
    So what does Jamaica have to do with choking then? Hint: nothing.

    Here, since this doesn't quite seem to be penetrating your skull:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    WEED NOT CHOKING OMGGGG STOP SEEING RAPE IN EVERY WORD AND ENGAGE BRAIN.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    So what does Jamaica have to do with choking then? Hint: nothing.

    Here, since this doesn't quite seem to be penetrating your skull:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    WEED NOT CHOKING OMGGGG STOP SEEING RAPE IN EVERY WORD AND ENGAGE BRAIN.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Meh, it's pretty easy to see what I assumed (and probably many people assumed) what that meant. Still don't think it's a reference to weed but hey ho.

    Thanks for that spoiler, so your undermining my intelligence because...? actually don't answer that, I don't care.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    yerr
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HepaxLegomenon)
    Hah. I created this thread for the sole purpose of discussion -- not argument. You're the only person getting hostile.

    Can't you see how ironic it is that I, a female, am arguing that the 'sexual objectification' of women isn't harmful at all and you, a male (judging by your name), are arguing that women shouldn't be 'portrayed as sexual objects'? No one watching the music video for Blurred Lines is going to come away thinking "So women are just sexual objects that only exist to gratify men!". Ultimately what you're calling for when you say that the song should have never been released is censorship.
    The idea that a song can 'normalise rape' is damn stupid, too. Imagine if we started complaining about songs that 'normalised' murder, suicide, and theft. Not that Blurred Lines is even about rape in the first place.

    As I interpreted it, the song is just about the games we play as human beings where it isn't always certain if somebody "wants it", especially when so many women can be into the "I wanted you to do it anyway" thing. But people over-interpreted it and took it way to seriously. They went nuts over freakin' song that most people don't even know all the lyrics to (and aren't that likely to pay attention to, anyway).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david_94)
    I laughed so hard, when I saw the two idiots trying to argue on my thread a few days ago about the meaning of words, are now arguing on another thread about the meaning of a song and words. Some people are on studentroom for the direct purpose of arguing.

    'Blurred lines' was a song that should have never been released, and that attempts to normalise rape. If you can't see why a song like that should not have young children singing along to it, memorising those lyrics, well. It has nothing to do with being the authoritative left, it has everything to do with being human, possessing a reasonable degree of common sense, and not wanting women to be portrayed as sexual objects that only exist to gratify men.
    This is such a bad post that I just don't know where to start so I won't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    This is such a bad post that I just don't know where to start so I won't.
    'I don't have a valid point to make, so I'll say nothing' brilliant post, well done.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david_94)
    'I don't have a valid point to make, so I'll say nothing' brilliant post, well done.
    I've already made all the points I wanted to in this thread. You were crying about idiots arguing, I'm just pointing out that it's happening because some people are obnoxiously confident about their obviously wrong opinions. You are one of these people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    The idea that a song can 'normalise rape' is damn stupid, too. Imagine if we started complaining about songs that 'normalised' murder, suicide, and theft. Not that Blurred Lines is even about rape in the first place.

    As I interpreted it, the song is just about the games we play as human beings where it isn't always certain if somebody "wants it", especially when so many women can be into the "I wanted you to do it anyway" thing. But people over-interpreted it and took it way to seriously. They went nuts over freakin' song that most people don't even know all the lyrics to (and aren't that likely to pay attention to, anyway).
    And it's funny that many song from the 80s-90s, with their overtly rapey lyrics, have not turned us into mass rapists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HepaxLegomenon)
    Hah. I created this thread for the sole purpose of discussion -- not argument. You're the only person getting hostile.

    Can't you see how ironic it is that I, a female, am arguing that the 'sexual objectification' of women isn't harmful at all and you, a male (judging by your name), are arguing that women shouldn't be 'portrayed as sexual objects'? No one watching the music video for Blurred Lines is going to come away thinking "So women are just sexual objects that only exist to gratify men!". Ultimately what you're calling for when you say that the song should have never been released is censorship.
    Lmao. When you start a conversation attacking someone's opinion instead of simply sharing yours, and explaining it, you are being hostile, it isn't necessary and just reveals your lack of maturity.

    It's not ironic at all, it's just the reality that many young women are okay with music degrading them because some songs are popular. You have a deplorable attitude, and a very fantasized sense of reality, that song normalises rape just as plenty of songs in hop hop and grime normalise violence, and personally I don't support either. So you're entitled to your opinion, but should you have children in the future, and potentially a little girl, just remember it's ignorant people like you that refuse to acknowledge logic, that refuse to stand up for what's right, that make life so difficult to plenty of young women. Well done.

    P.s you can spam me with your nonsense replies as much as you like, I'm not going to read them, I'm done talking to you. I hope you and your one brain cell have a delightful evening, perhaps you can beg for attention somewhere else 😂😂
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    There are more overt songs from like, last year.. One Direction had a song where a girl "belongs to me," and considering that's literally marketed at teenage girls (whereas I'm going to go ahead and say maybe Blurred Lines isn't) you'd think the feminists would be more concerned about that.

    Ariana Grande had a recent song with the line "I know you want it" too.

    Source: when I bought my car it was tuned to Radio 1 and I've literally never bothered to change it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.