Sunday, July 28, 2013

Apparently, boobs are the new video thing - Tia

I can not even begin to explain why it's been so long since I've blogged. (work, the Trayvon verdict, birthday) So I won't bother. Just know that I'm back now.


I'm fairly conservative. But I'm no prude. However, I'm wholly uninterested in looking at another woman's naked breasts. I have my own. I've had them since I was 11. I know what they look like. For the most part they all pretty much look the same. If you've seen one pair you've seen them all. And frankly, I don't see the appeal. (I think guys are just obsessed with breasts because they don't have any.) They're sacks of fat, that sometimes make your shirts fit weird and are used to feed babies. Personally, I don't think women should get boobs until they have a child. It would level the playing field and eliminate a lot of hassles. (Anyone who's bigger than a D cup knows what I'm talking about when I say "hassle.") In this "no boobs until kids" scenario if you chose not to breastfeed you would immediately become flat chested again after giving birth. I'm telling you, flat-chestedness for all would solve so many problems.


I say all of that to say boobs appear to be having the best summer ever.  I feel like every time I turn around some woman's nekkid breasts are being paraded across the TV or interwebs. But this post isn't just about random boobs. It's about the boobs all over the Robin Thicke and Justin Timberlake videos.

The first time I saw both of their respective videos I thought the same thing, "What the hell does all of this nudity have to do with the song?" I'm honestly so confused by the presence of the boobs in both of their songs. Robin's video I almost get. The song is very cheeky. So I guess I can almost sort of follow the logic behind the nudity. I think...I'm not sure...Never mind...Nope...I don't get it.

The thing about "Blurred Lines" is the song is not any better with the boobies. If you watch the clean version and then the unrated version, the bresticles literally add NOTHING to the song. In fact, if I'm being honest, the clean version is better. Why? Because I don't have to spend 4 1/2 minutes wondering what these naked chicks have to do with the song. In the clean version I can just watch the video and enjoy its delightful poppiness.

See for yourself. Tell me the clean version isn't better than the unrated version.
(By the way, I shouldn't have to tell you that this entire post is NSFW. So don't watch this at work. This post is probably already blocked by your job. I've used the words: breasts, boobs, naked, etc. If those aren't work red flags then I don't know what is.)

And then there's Justin Timberlake's "Tunnel Vision." Is he serious with that mess? That video wins the prize for the most useless addition of breasts of ALL TIME!!!

The first time I heard "Tunnel Vision" I imagined the video going a completely different way. (Yes, I immediately think of video treatments the first time I hear songs I like.) He and Timberland could have done so much more with the video. But instead they shoot 7 minutes of naked chicks dancing moving in smoke. The boobs are utterly unnecessary. And dear readers, it takes a lot of talent to render life giving breasts pointless. But that is was JT did. Congrats Justin. Your video sucks.

One has to wonder what the thought process was behind both videos. Both Robin and Justin have largely female fanbases. So what did they hope to accomplish by putting naked women in their videos? Surely they didn't think that these videos would endear them to their female fans? Were they both trying to win over more male fans? Were they tired of having mostly ladies screaming at their shows? Did they want to do the fellas a solid? I don't know. And at this point I don't care. I don't have to watch the videos to hear the songs. So the nekkid chichis are free to flash and gyrate on Youtube/Vevo for all eternity. I'll just stick with the cds/MP3s.

Oh and one final thought:  It's interesting that the unrated version of Robin's video is not available on Youtube but Justin's is. I read that initially Justin's video was banned because it violated the nudity policy on Youtube. But later the same day it was released it was found to have "artistic" merit and was added back to the site. Two things: 1. How the hell is 7 minutes of slow dancing naked women in smoke "artistic"? Call me crazy, but to me it seems like porn. At least the chicks were kind of bouncing around and having fun in Robin's video. The fun vibe made it feel less porn-ish...well not really. But the slow gyrating in Justin's video feels very "back of the video store, you need to show I.D. to get in here." 2. I wonder if Robin were a bigger star would his video have been banned? I'm just saying. JT is on tour with Jay Z and has a big tour of his own coming up in the fall. (Side Note: The Jay Z/JT show was EPIC. It was better than Beyonce's show...Yep... I said that.) JT has another album coming out this autumn. I'm sure when the bigwigs behind the machine that is Justin Timberlake heard that his video was banned there were some angry calls made and emails sent to get that video back on Youtube. I mean, what makes JT's video more artistic that Robin's? Someone explain it to me. I'll wait...

1 comment:

Spitfire said...

Utterly POINTLESS. I just don't understand! I need them to do better.