Robin Thicke’s song, “Blurred Lines,” achieved international recognition in 2013. But the lyrics were also heavily criticized as promoting sexual violence by celebrating “blurred lines” around sexual consent. Indeed, the song and video prompted an online photo essay in which women and men are depicted holding up signs with words they heard from their own rapists — some of which were almost direct quotes from Thicke’s song. The song received a great deal of negative and positive press all at the same time.
It’s not a new argument to suggest that many elements of what feminist scholars refer to as “rape culture” are embedded in seemingly pleasurable elements of pop culture, like songs, movies, and television shows. And Robin Thicke’s song served as an example to many of how we not only tolerate rape culture, but celebrate it and render it “sexy.”
Recently, Rebecca Traister discussed just how much rape culture even informs what we think of as “good sex” in her piece “The Game is Rigged.” In it, Traister challenges the notion that all consensual sex is good and shows just how messy the debate about what qualifies as “consensual” really is. In many ways, our national discussion around sexual assault and consent is taking up themes raised by feminists in the 1980s about what actually qualifies as consent in a society in which violence against women is considered sexy.
Compared with “Blurred Lines,” Justin Bieber’s newly released hit single, “What Do You Mean?” has been subject to less critique, though it reproduces the notion that women do not actually know what they want and that they are notoriously bad and communicating their desires (sexual and otherwise). In the song, Bieber asks the woman with whom he’s interacting:
What do you mean?
Ohh ohh ohh
When you nod your head yes
But you wanna say no
What do you mean?
The lack of clear consent isn’t just present in the song; it is what provides the sexual tension. It’s part of what is intended to make the song “sexy.”
Sexualizing women’s sexual indecision is an important part of the way rape culture works. It is one way that conversations about consent often over-simplify a process that is and should be much more complex. The song itself presents Bieber nagging the woman to whom he’s singing to make a decision about their relationship. But there are many elements suggesting that the decision she’s being asked to make is more immediate as well — not only about the larger relationship, but about a sexual interaction in the near future. Throughout the song, the click of a stopwatch can be heard as a beat against which Bieber presses the woman to make a decision while berating her for the mixed signals she has been sending him.
Bieber is presented as the “good guy” throughout the song by attempting to really decipher what the woman actually means. Indeed, this is another element of rape culture: the way in which we are encouraged to see average, everyday guys as “not-rapists,” because rapists are the bad guys who attack women from bushes (at worst) or simply get them drunk at a party (at best).
The controversy over the ad in Bloomingdale’s 2015 holiday catalog urging readers to “spike your best friend’s eggnog when they’re not looking” shows that this kind of rape culture is also casually promoted in popular culture as well. But, the larger discourse that Bieber’s song plays a role in promoting is the notion that women do not know what they mean or want. Bieber plays the role of someone simultaneously pressuring her for sexual advance (“Said we’re running out of time”), helping her work through her feelings (“What do you mean?”), and demanding results (“Better make up your mind”). And, like the Bloomingdale’s advertisement, this is not sexy.
Indeed, the music video takes this a step further. Bieber is shown at the beginning paying John Leguizamo on a street corner and asking him to make sure “she doesn’t get hurt.” We later find out that John was paid to orchestrate a kidnapping of both Justin and the woman. Both are taken by men in masks, driven to a warehouse in the trunk of a car, and tied up. Justin is able to free them, but they are still in a room with their kidnappers.
They back up to a door that leads outside the building and see that they are one of the top floors. Justin turns to the woman, holds out his hand and asks, “Do you trust me?” She takes his hand and they both jump out of the building. They jump and fall to the ground, landing on a parachute pillow only to discover that the whole thing was a trick. The kidnapping was actually an orchestrated ruse to bring her to a party that they entered by leaping from the building away from the men who’d taken them. The men in masks all reveal themselves to be smiling beneath. She smiles at Justin, recognizing that it was all a trick, grabs his face, kisses him and they dance the night away in the underground club.
Even though the song is about feeling like a woman really can’t make up her mind about Justin, their relationship, and sexual intimacy, the woman in the video is not depicted this way at all. She appears sexually interested in Justin from the moment the two meet in the video and not bothered by his questions and demands at all. Though it is worth mentioning that he is terrorizing her in the name of romance, indeed the terror itself is a sign of how much he loves her — also a part of rape culture. This visual display alongside the lyrics works in ways that obscure the content of the lyrics, content that works against much of what we are shown visually.
Part of what makes rape culture so insidious is that violence against women is rendered pleasurable and even desirable. Thicke and Bieber’s songs are catchy, fun, and beg to be danced to. The women in Thicke’s video also appear to be having fun strutting around nude while the men sing. The woman in Bieber’s video is being kidnapped and terrified for sport, sure, but it’s because he wants to show his love for her. She’s shown realizing and appreciating this at the conclusion of the video.
Rape culture hides the ways that sexual violence is enacted upon women’s bodies every day. It obscures the ways that men work to minimize women’s control over their own bodies. It conceals the ways that sexual violence stems not just from dangerous, deviant others, but the normal everydayness of heterosexual interactions. And all of this works to make sexualized power arrangements more challenging to identify as problematic, which is precisely what makes confronting rape culture so challenging.
Originally posted at Feminist Reflections and Inequality by (Interior) Design.
Tristan Bridges is a sociologist at the College at Brockport (SUNY) and CJ Pascoe is a sociologist at the University of Oregon. Pascoe is the author of Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School, and together they are the editors of Exploring Masculinities: Identity, Inequality, Continuity and Change.
Comments 15
Jamie Riehl — November 17, 2015
A possible alternate reading of the lyrics (although I agree the orchestrated kidnapping in the video is creepy). Bieber isn't treating her "no" has a "yes" - he's wondering if her "yes" is actually a "no." There's a real problem, which is part of rape culture, where women feel social pressure to assent to all kinds of unpleasantness including sexual harassment and assault because they have been taught that women aren't supposed to cause a fuss, speak up for themselves, or make any space for their desires. By not just taking her "yes" at immediate face-value, Bieber is considering the possibility that even though she's saying yes she doesn't really fully enthusiastically consent. I teach my women's studies students that a verbal "yes" does not mean consent was present, because that "yes" may have been uttered under duress, or from fear, from differences in power between the participants.
There does exist a general problem, which is part of rape culture, that everyone, especially women, is discourage from speaking clearly and directly about their sexual wishes. Maybe the song could be read not as Bieber endorsing this, but as him speaking against it, and requesting more full and clear consent.
Clint Taylor — November 19, 2015
Taken out of context, Bieber's lyrics do indeed seem to mirror Thicke's theme. However, taking the song as a whole, Bieber seems to actually be echoing the sentiments expressed by Rebecca Traister in the article you linked. Traister writes that in a scarring sexual experience, she said yes, but upon reflection wishes that she had said no. Which is actually the exact question posed by Bieber: "You nod your head yes, but want to say no, what do you mean?"
Thicke's lyrics undeniably support rape culture. I don't think Bieber deserves the same accusation. And an argument can be made that "What Do You Mean" actually supports open communication and consent. As Franchesca Ramsey writes, "Bieber is actually checking in with his partner, making sure everyone's on the same page and cool with everything that's going on." She adds, "Relationships are complicated. It's OK to ask if you can move forward, it's OK to say no, it's OK to have apprehensions!"
I also think you unfairly painted Bieber's lyrics, using terms like "nagging" and "berating." Most of the lyrics don't have a sexual undertone, and are just general, perhaps innocent, questions.
In sum, I think it is easier to interpret the song as frustration with the confusion that often accompanies relationships. To claim that Bieber has made another rape anthem is a stretch.
Ashley Brouder — November 19, 2015
I think allowing him to have the space to express his confusion is WAY better than Thicke's song. And I don't blame him...indecision is misleading and I think part of the fight for consensual sex includes training women to either give it (or not) confidently.
Jessica Keever — November 19, 2015
I do find the lyrics troubling, but not to the extreme in the article.
When I first heard Bieber's song I was getting into that initial hook and I thought: cool hook; way to go, Justin. Then the lyrics kicked in and I was screaming in my car.
I don't know what the origins are, but the idea that every word coming out of a woman's mouth is either spouted for the purpose of manipulation or out of pure indecision needs to go away. I find that in my personal life my own words are negated by this belief, even though there is no validity for it based on previous actions. Women are held down by ideas like this in mainstream music, where all you hear is that catchy hook. It seems harmless and it seems like it's Justin's struggle with communication, but it actually reflects something very common and frustrating with the way women are allowed to express themselves. It is more than frustrating; it is damaging.
One to Nothing — November 19, 2015
I thought the masked intruders were Anonymous come to expose the crime. (No kidding.)
Anyway, thank you for this. The musical syntax also supports your reading: The repeated line, "What do you mean," is used as as a closing phrase, and it resolves harmonically, very securely (sometimes preceded by a similar phrase that does not). It makes it a non-question, since a question is married to resolution. (One could argue that that happens in Where Have All the Flowers Gone, but still.)
(You're welcome—just cite me if you use that.)
Alongside all the other mechanisms of music video-making in general and this one in particular: he has subjectivity, addresses the camera, while she remains imprisoned in the diegesis. In what you say about the nagging, etc.: he gets to be outside the diegesis, delivering his question to *us*, with its aforementioned harmonic closure, while the mostly separate video—even if they are synced, he is not really talking to her, etc, etc— depicts them frolicking consensually. So he is narrating the supposed in decision while she enacts what she "really" wants? Ew. This enhancement of the separation between song and narrative is pernicious. As is the faux-noir beginning and the faux-kidnapping: we might go to movies (real movies) to enjoy the story even if it has elements of threat, but to stage this fake crime as if a film and taunt with that opening line about her not getting hurt: so instead of going to a movie about crime for entertainment, it's fun to be subjected to a crime (not a false one, in fact—it's a crime) and then go to a party.
Imagine a version of this where she answers his question! Or talks to us. Hard to imagine, isn't it?
Julia Ellsworth — December 8, 2015
Honestly, yes means yes and no means no. But, what happens when a woman is undecided but goes along with sex anyways? If she doesn't speak up and say stop or no, and doesn't give an outward hint of her discomfort, then how can one tell? Men aren't mind readers! If her body language is interpreted as receiving, but she doesn't push him away or say no, then what does it look like? Say, for example, your boyfriend leans in for a kiss, and you kiss him, but you didn't really want to. Can you be mad that you both kissed then? If you just leaned in and reciprocated his kiss but didn't give a hint that you didn't want to, can you be mad and say that he forced it? I think the same thing applies. What if a woman is unsure but goes with it to try it and in the middle decides she didn't want to continute, and instead of saying stop, she just lays silently under him? Is it fair for the guy to use telepathic powers to read her mind in that moment? What if she regrets it after the fact but said yes in the moment? Did he rape her if she was ever eager to do it, but then realizes that she shouldn't have done it? If you drank too much at a party, but regreted it later, does it undo your accountability for that mistake or that you drank under your own free will in the moment? Also, yes should mean yes, if you say yes, or do what ever in that particular context signifies "yes", then it should be taken as yes, crystal clear. If you're unsure or hesitant, speak up and say it, don't say yes unless you mean yes! How fair is it to expect the other person to read your mind telepathically and interpret the subtext of every sentence you speak? This isn't an English class where you're expected to analyze every line! If you tell someone they can have your leftovers in the fridge, but then snap at them once it's eaten saying you really weren't sure, deep down inside, is that fair to the other person? The other has every right to come back with, "but you said yes!" More women need to make their yes, a yes and make clear their intentions. Only then, if he crosses your well-defined boundaries, has he done wrong.
Julia Ellsworth — December 8, 2015
Afterthought: If we're to assume some sexist misogyny is going on, then, I feel the article is actually hinting at their own sexist bias! Who says a woman can't say an enthusiastic yes and enjoy it? Always assuming a woman's yes is a veiled no or hesitation and not a genuine yes, doesn't that imply that women can't enjoy the experience? That it's unnatural and not the norm for a woman to seek pleasure in sex as a man does? If a woman's yes must be interpreted as not a complete yes, and actually a no in her heart of hearts, doesn't that imply that women must not be able to derive the same satisfaction out of the act as her partener? Why not give a woman the credit to be capable of a real yes and enjoy it too!? Why can't she be taught to say what she wants directly and not use her indicision as an excuse to void her "yes"?
Common criminal — January 12, 2016
Interesting. There definitely seems to be a subliminal message in the video that treads the boundary of reality and fantasy. They get taken into a dark and scary place, he is the only one who can free her. He does this by a single flame (one night stand). In this fantasy world he then takes her and tells her to trust him in this fantasy world and jump into the unknown. They are then taken back into the reality of trickery and deception in a club setting.