Of Twerkers and Twerkees: An Open Letter to Robin Thicke’s Mother

[This post falls squarely in the “[pop] culture” portion of TFL’s “law, culture, and academia” mandate. Regular programming will resume in due course.]

Hi Gloria. Can I call you Gloria? I understand that you were displeased by the duet performed by your son and Miley Cyrus (as you know, your boy shows up at the 3:00 mark) at the MTV VMA awards Sunday evening.

Specifically, you said:

I was not expecting her to be putting her butt that close to my son. The problem is now I can never unsee it. . . . Him? Loved it! I love that suit, the black and white suit. I don’t understand what Miley Cyrus is trying to do. I just don’t understand. I think she’s misbegotten in this attempt of hers. And I think it was not beneficial.

Gloria, I’m confused about your confusion. I mean, look, the whole obscenity concern trolling thing isn’t my bag. VMA has been doing this for years, and if you wanted to see something else, well, that’s what they have C-SPAN for. But hey, you’re certainly free to know it when you see it. Obscenity, that is.

What I don’t get is why you see it in Cyrus but not in your own son.

To be fair, it’s not just you. All the commenters I’ve seen, from Sean Hannity (“outrageous,” “downright raunchy,” and “inappropriate” for a role model) and Bill O’Reilly (“she’s a troubled young lady” and “out of control”) to Camille Paglia (whose focus is on the philistine rather than the obscene nature of the routine) have reserved their criticism for Cyrus.

A mommy blogger’s open letter to her daughter, warning her not to follow in Cyrus’s footsteps, has gone semi-viral. But not a single Mommy blogger has warned her son against following in your son’s footsteps.

To no one's surprise, Bill O’Reilly blames Cyrus’s twerking on “bad parenting,” and after Miley’s father, country singer Billy Ray Cyrus, defended his daughter, O’Reilly asked whether he should be “shunned.” Even Brooke Shields, who played mom to Cyrus’s Hannah Montana, felt the need to weigh in and demand answers: “I was Hannah Montana’s mother. I do not approve. Where did I go wrong? I just want to know who’s advising her, and why it’s necessary?” (By contrast, Shields remains “shocked” by the controversy over her own performance in the infamous “You wanna know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.” ad campaign, which she shot when she was just fifteen years old (Cyrus is twenty), and which was banned by CBS.)

And yet no one blames you, Gloria, for raising a son whose music and videos are—in addition to being just as "obscene" as Cyrus’s (and just as arguably misappropriating of black culture and glorifying of drugs)—kinda rapey. Following the VMA hoopla, Cyrus's father canceled a scheduled interview with Piers Morgan at the last minute. But free from the burden of having to defend your parenting and your child, you can grant media interviews in which you accept the condolences of a shamed nation and join the #MileyGate pile on. It’s all a little reminiscent of Justin Timberlake, whose image was only barely and very temporarily tarnished by the “wardrobe malfunction” of Janet Jackson (remember her?), which he, too, apparently helped orchestrate. I don’t personally care about either Cyrus’s butt or Janet’s nipple, Gloria. But I am annoyed by the double standard involved in criticizing the female but not the male co-venturers in these manufactured controversies—the twerkers but not the twerkees, if you will—which is why I'm writing. (More after the jump.)

Gloria, you’ve been in show business for decades, as has your ex-husband and baby daddy Alan Thicke, a.k.a. Dr. Jason Seaver. So you must know that your son’s duet with Cyrus at the VMAs was just the latest piece of a tightly orchestrated marketing campaign in which the two singers shot videos sponsored by the same product placements, starring the same backup dancers, and directed and choreographed by the same person.

So you must know why Cyrus changed, mid-VMA performance, into a nude bikini that allowed viewers to more easily imagine her naked. It’s because she was performing a duet with your son on his hit summer single, “Blurred Lines,” which features several women who are actually naked, save for nude-colored g-strings.  

And I know that everyone’s all worked up about Cyrus’s use of the stadium foam finger, including its inventor. But, again, you get why she caressed your son suggestively with that foam finger, right?

It’s because your son made that “degraded” use of the foam finger part of his music video iconography. That black and white suit you like so much? It’s meant to be a pimped out referee’s outfit, and both it and the foam finger go with your son’s football-themed “Give It To U” (on which more below). See, here he is (left) directing an actress to use the identical foam finger in “Blurred Lines.” And here’s a similar scene from “Give It To U” (below).

I can see your point, though, Gloria. I mean, there was your boy, in his nice suit, minding his own business, while Cyrus shoved her wriggling butt up against his crotch. But let’s look at the words he was singing while she did that. 

I can see why Camille Paglia spared your son from her anti-philistine criticism, Gloria. For lo, the video and lyrics of “Blurred Lines” tell a rich narrative. We’re told that before your son, another suitor tried to “domesticate” the object of your son’s affection. Alas, he was thwarted because she’s “an animal,” and "it's in [her] nature" (depicting the women with dogs and lambs and having one meow at the camera is a nice touch, by the way). No matter, your son tells us, he’s “gon’ take a good girl” and “liberate” her. After all, he “know[s] [she] want[s] it.”

And in exchange for this sexual liberation, in addition to “smack[ing] that ass and pull[ing] [her] hair,” there’s just “One thing [he] ask[s] of [her]”: “Let me be the one you back that ass to. I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two.”

Well, Gloria, I can certainly see why you were so taken aback by Cyrus insinuating herself in your son’s personal space at the VMAs. What’s a little violent anal sex with a woman whose consent is ambiguous compared to the horrors of Miley Cyrus twerking?

But every great narrative contains within it the seeds of conflict—man versus man, man versus nature, and so on—and “Blurred Lines” is no exception. Apparently your son’s love interest is sending mixed signals. His intended “liberation” of her is thwarted by a teensy tiny stop sign delicately balanced atop her naked buttocks.

Your son’s frustration is poignant:

    I hate these blurred lines
    I know you want it
    I hate them lines
    I know you want it
    I hate them lines
    I know you want it
    But you’re a good girl
    The way you grab me
    Must wanna get nasty

Now, I’ll grant you that your boy remains fully clothed throughout his performance of this song, both in the video and at the VMAs. Congrats; very chaste of him. On the other hand, he’s paying several women to get naked and dance around him (and then profiting from it). Do you really want to hang your hat of misbegotteness on that distinction?

And then there’s his new video for “Give It To U,” which was just coincidentally released at the peak of the  post-VMA hoopla. “Give It To U” features not only numerous half-naked women your son directed to twerk around him, but also—in case it isn't clear that your son is apparently a butt man—a giant “Ass Float” (comprised of one black cheek and one white cheek; and yet somehow racial unity eludes us).

If Cyrus’s raunchiness was misbegotten and not beneficial, what do you say about your son, who says to the lucky women of the world in his new video that he has a “big d**k for yah”? (Bonus! He also has “a whip for yah”!) I mean, Gloria, Robin does realize that this was satire, right?

Admittedly, after commanding “on your back, girl” and "shake it like that, girl" (which I'm sure refers to something far less misbegotten than twerking), he does wax awfully poetic: “Life can leave a d**k loved; now you gettin’ this d**k, love.” And of course the inclusion of your three-year-old grandson in the video dressed to match his Daddy as a lothario in training really highlights the importance of family values in a way that Cyrus's performances don't. So maybe that’s the difference.

Rush Limbaugh has said that the VMA duet was “just this side of on-stage pornography.” Well,…ish. According to one well-known distinction, erotica involves sexually explicit behavior by consenting adults, while pornography depicts sexually explicit behavior in a way that objectifies some participants in the sexual encounter (almost always women) and strips them of their agency. One of the interesting things about Cyrus’s “Blurred Lines” duet with your son is that, by distributing the lyrics (if not the quasi-nakedness) equally, the VMA performance was at least a bit more egalitarian than your son’s video. Your son insisted that Cyrus “wanted it,” but she insisted that your son “wanted it” right back.

That distinction is also arguably reflected in a comparison of Cyrus’s work to that of your son’s. Cyrus’s hit summer single, “We Can’t Stop,” depicts her with friends at the tail end of a house party. The sexuality depicted in that video may count as obscene, but not, per the definition above, as pornography, because it’s all consensual free love. (Side note to Cyrus: you are not, in fact, “creating a movement.” I mean, the 1960s called: they want their sex, drugs, and rock and roll back.).

Cyrus’s video also features a skull made entirely out of French fries, and I think if you're honest with yourself, Gloria, you’ll agree that that is pretty creative and really gives the Ass Float a run for its money.

Your son has explained, of his recent work, that a “lot of [his] videos and songs have been so serious—about love and pride and relationships and hope and getting over insecurities and vulnerabilities. But lately, [he’s] just wanted to have fun and enjoy [his] life . . . .”

Director Diane Martel was even more honest in explaining her intent behind the videos: “I’ve been thinking about music videos, marketing, and the Internet for a while. I want to make videos that sell records. This is my main focus right now, not to make videos that express my own obsessions, but to make videos that move units.” Mission accomplished, Diane!

Gloria, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but until your boy started exploiting the public fascination with female nakedness and explicit and edgy sexuality—the same features of Cyrus’s performance that you seem to disdain—no one had heard of him. (I know. Ouch, right?) If you want to defend that Faustian bargain, go ahead. There’s certainly far worse out there than his lyrics and videos. (And “Blurred Lines” is, musically, great.) But like the mother of a pimp who slut shames a prostitute, it takes real chutzpah to defend the twerkee while pointing a judgmental finger at the twerker.

Comments

[anon]

TDM:
Any thoughts on Lady Gaga's latest video?
Scholarly minds want to know if she is depressed, out of control, or just publicity-seeking, and, here in the FL, such information is very much appreciated. In fact, legal academy seems to welcome immaturity!
BTW, have you actually watched Miley's performance?
What about it didn't you understand before reading the author's post?
Is the "context" - that some other person(s) (males) may have done something that can be thought of as equally lewd - even remotely interesting or significant? Demonstrative of some deep insight?
Or, is this "insight" just a junior high school sort of rant about the reason boys aren't thought of as poorly as girls when they behave in public like low life strippers, written in a way that evokes a vaudeville sort of mimicry of black culture, and wrapped in an unjustified attack on another person?
(Read the mother's comment: It hardly deserved this response.)

[TDM]

anon,

Nope, haven't seen it.
If the "she" that you refer to is Lady Gaga, I have no position, since I haven't seen the video.
Absolutely, I couldn't miss the 'N Sync reunion or 15 minutes of JT.
I had not seen Robin Thicke's video for Blurred Lines and therefore did not understand that Miley's performance was a reference to the video. My bad.
That is not the context I was referring to. The context that I found meaningful was the intentional reference of Miley's performance to Robin's video. And yes, I think it does demonstrate a much more meaningful critique of Miley's performance than that offered by the talking heads that Michelle mentioned in her post.
What I do not understand is why you are so threatened by this post that you feel the need to attack not only the author, but everyone who comments on it. If you hate the legal academy so much, why do you continue reading Faculty Lounge?
(And I have, and I think we can all make up our own minds about what kind of response, if any, it deserves. We've definitely heard your opinion.)

[anon]

TDM:
Thanks for the response.
I don't feel threatened at all by the original post, but I have felt it needs to be put in "context" as you say, and I don’t mind debating with those who, like you, think that post was “great.”
You addressed my comment in response to yours, point by point, until you came to the points that challenged the original post. Understandable.
As for your "attacks" on me, instead of the points raised by my comment, I do enjoy reading most posts on the FL and I certainly don't hate the legal academy.
In fact, I think by opposing this post, I am showing a form of loyalty to certain ideals that have perhaps been lost in some of the discourse here on the FL. The original post should never have been posted, in my view, here. (That doesn't mean, BTW, that there isn't a place for this sort of writing.)
Your comment is most telling in your claim (projection, I think) that I am "attacking everyone who comments on [the original post]."
If you are offended by my response to your comment - if you feel that it was an "attack" - then perhaps you can better understand how the person who was actually attacked in the original post - unfairly at that - must have felt (if she saw it, which I doubt).
If you read my comment, I think it is a stretch to call it an "attack" on you. I responded to your claim that the original post was a "great post."
I didn't directly "attack" that ridiculous claim in clear enough terms, it seems: my oversight.
If you believe that this sort of post was "great" then I think I'll leave my response at that; to repeat that claim. You think the original post was "great." At this point, that comment speaks for itself.
Accordingly, I’ll refrain from commenting further in response to those (few, it seems) who might agree with you.

[anon]

Where's your open letter, now?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/geraldo-rivera-selfie-college-canceled_n_3859514.html