Remember when I wrote that I don’t think Blurred Lines is about rape? I included this still from the “Blurred Lines” video, and said there is a lot of social commentary inherent in it:
… but that is another more complex story, which deserves its own blog post.
At Feminspire, Rachael Kay Albers essentially wrote the blog post I intended to write: Why I never play hard to get. (She didn’t mention Robin Thicke).
“When we structure romantic relationships so that one party is considered a prize of conquest, won only by someone strong enough to fight past objections and overcome enough Nos to reach the Holy Grail of Yes, how can we expect that this blurred view of consent won’t bleed into our sexual relationships, as well? If No means Maybe, I don’t know, I mean… at a bar, in a text, or on a date, when does it starting meaning No again?”
From a young age, girls are taught that to get a guy to like you, you should dress to get attention, and then play hard to get so he won’t think you’re too into him. So not only are we teaching guys that girls are confusing and don’t mean what they say, but we are teaching girls that no means yes. And that’s stupid for so many reasons, but it can also be flat out dangerous. If you say No, Maybe or I really shouldn’t when you mean YES – what are you supposed to say when you mean No, Maybe or I really shouldn’t?
Related post: I don’t hate Blurred Lines
According to Julie 
Pingback: I don’t hate “Blurred Lines”–an imagined conversation with the internet | According to Julie