Tag Archives: Robin Thicke

Summer School Goes Sexy at Would U

5 Jul
Don't be so quick to say no to Vince. Not without considering True Detective.

Don’t be so quick to say no to Vince. Not before considering True Detective.

By Alexa Day

Not that long ago, Jezebel started a new feature called Would U. I’m kind of in love with it.

Here’s the idea.

Jezebel bills Would U as “an academic forum” in which writer Ellie Shechet reveals her “gross crush of the week” and then asks us, the reading public, whether we’d be willing to have sex with that person. I’m all about that sort of academic exploration. You’ll recall that in recent weeks I suggested I’d be okay with tentacles (more than okay, honestly), and I’ve also taken an affirmative stance on (and under — heyo!) robots and sex with a coach in the room, watching and taking notes.

But what I love about Would U is that it makes this question specific.

Generally, when I’m asking myself — and then asking you — whether you’d consider sex with someone or another, I’m presuming that we are considering the most desirable example that class of people has to offer. In the case of robots, for example, I started our analysis with Yul Brynner’s Gunslinger from Westworld. I, of course, am perfectly comfortable with Gunslinger sex, and I’m also comfortable saying that more women are okay with Gunslinger sex than are not okay with it. (And it’s totally okay to not be okay with this. After all, things do go wrong in Westworld. Sometimes they go very wrong. One would want to have one’s pants on and pulled up when that happens.)

Would U takes this analysis further. The question is not “would you have sex with a bagillionaire?” It’s “would you have sex with Richard Branson?”

There’s a lot to think about, naturally, but Shechet lays out most of the variables so that we can make an informed decision on this important issue. She makes sure we know that Richard Branson has a puckish sense of humor to go with all that money. She shows us that Shia LaBeouf’s rat tail doesn’t always look filthy. She tells us that not everyone responds to the Hot Gorilla with an energetic no.

Shechet also offers readers something I don’t typically address in my own “would you” hypotheticals. She gives us the chance to say yes or no conditionally. We can trade sex with Richard Branson for a moon shot. We can demand that Shia cut that rat tail off.

Perhaps most importantly, I find myself answering the weekly Would U in the negative fairly often. For a woman who’s grown accustomed to answering “would you” questions with an unconditional yes, this is important. It means I’m broadening my horizons enough to discover gray areas.

That’s a good thing. Right?

So today I’m suggesting you indulge in some deep thinking and try out Would U. Enjoy the mental stretch!

And for the record, I’m a definite no to the Hot Gorilla, a definite no to Shia LaBeouf, a solid maybe for Vince Vaughn, and an absolute yes for Richard Branson and Robin Thicke.

If you’re not following Lady Smut, now is the time. Sure, we keep you sharp with all the sexy questions and such. But tomorrow, we’re going to hit you with the details about our sexy summer reading giveaway. You will definitely want to be in the know about that!

So get to following. And feel free to share your most shameful “would you” confessions in the comments. I mean, you must know by now that I am not going to judge you, right?

Who You Callin’ A Bitch Or A Ho? Why I Hate “Blurred Lines”

16 Oct

Emily R

By Elizabeth Shore

I’m going to state right up front that my opinion about the song “Blurred Lines” may be in the minority. After all, it spent twelve weeks atop the Billboard Hot 100 chart, so obviously there are folks bopping along to the catchy beat and thinking it’s a fun little summer tune. But you know what? It’s not. Go ahead and call me crazy, but in my book a song that includes the line, “I”ll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two” isn’t a light ditty about female empowerment and liberation – as some defenders have claimed.

If you read the song’s lyrics – and I did, several times – it suggests that women are simply befuddled, sex-crazed objects who have no idea what they want.  As the song says, we try to be “good girls,” but what we don’t realize is that we’re actually just lustful nymphomaniacs. Who knew! Over and over Robin Thicke chants, “I know you want it,” before going on to say:

But you’re a good girl/The way you grab me/Must wanna get nasty/Go ahead, get at me.

Oh, those pesky “blurred lines.” They make it so darn difficult to tell the difference between a woman who’s saying no and meaning it, versus a woman who says no and doesn’t mean it! Egad, how’s a hot-blooded male supposed to tell the difference? Women are just sex-crazed animals, according to the song, and we don’t know what the hell we want. To wit:

OK now he was close/tried to domesticate you/But you’re an animal, baby/It’s in your nature

Yeah, that’s it. We’re animals. We just want to f**k incessantly – it’s in our nature! You know what else we are? Depending on which version of the song you hear – either the unrated or the “clean” one – we’re either the hottest “bitch” or “ho” in the place, Aww, you  mean it? I’m blushing. Thanks, Robin.

For all that I despise about the song, the video is just as bad. This features Robin Thicke and his male posse with their clothes on, catcalling and ogling the nearly naked women prancing around them. Nearly naked, that is, except for their tiny thongs and occasional strips of clear plastic – yes, plastic – wrapped around them. My favorite shot is the tiny stop sign perched above one model’s pert butt. Why so tiny? Because, as Elizabeth Plank points out in her excellent article on Policymic, “sometimes stop really just means go.” We want it, remember? Don’t forget, ho is shorthand for whore.

In case I had any doubt as to whether I just wasn’t getting the true meaning behind the song and video, Robin Thicke has set me straight. In a GQ interview he admits that he tried to degrade women. Yes indeedy. Thicke says “We tried to do everything that was taboo. Bestiality, drug injections, and everything that is completely derogatory toward women.” To drive home his point he makes certain we know that the video was directed by a woman. So . . . what? Does that somehow imply that it’s been “blessed” by the rest of womankind because one of us chose to direct it? Last time I checked, director Diane Martel had not been appointed our spokesperson.

Thicke has since done some furious backpeddling after the GQ interview came out, saying that what he said was taken out of context and what didn’t come across is the fact that he was joking. People, c’mon! It’s just a funny joke, right? The thing is, though, I don’t see anything blurry about lack of sexual consent. As I pointed out in a Lady Smut post a couple of weeks ago, lack of consent is clearly defined: it’s called rape.

But let’s not let Mr. Thicke get the last word here. For that I leave it up to the Law Revue girls and their hilarious parody. Please remember to follow us, and enjoy!

%d bloggers like this: