D // Gorilla // Bruno Mars

Okay, vocally, Bruno Mars pulls is out on this song in an impressive way. But lyrically...I know when I want to do a reading of a song to my roommates, it's bad. But maybe in a Prince-y way? Cuz on the other hand...maybe I want to send the lyrics to a lover...hmmm...

Ooh I got a body full of liquor with a cocaine kicker and I'm feeling like I'm thirty feet tall
So lay it down, lay it down

You got your legs up in the sky with the devil in your eyes
Let me hear you say you want it all
Say it now, say it now

Look what you're doing, look what you done
But in this jungle you can't run
Cause what I got for you
I promise it's a killer, you'll be banging on my chest
Bang bang, gorilla

Ooh Ooh Yeah You and me baby making love like gorillas

Yeah I got a fistful of your hair
But you don't look like you're scared
You're just smiling, tell me, daddy it's yours
Cause you know how I like it, you's a dirty little lover
If the neighbors call the cops, call the sheriff, call the SWAT we don't stop, we keep rocking while they knocking on our door
And you're screaming, give it to me baby
Give it to me motherfucker

I bet you never ever felt so good, so good
I got your body trembling like it should, it should
You'll never be the same baby once I'm done with you

The question here is really whether this empowers women or subjugates them. At times the song gets that rapey vibe. "You can't run"? "A killer"? "Call the cops"? She doesn't "look" scared? Not great consent practice. And my personal fave, "Once I'm done with you." But at times it seems quite consensual. She's smiling, screaming for him to give it to her, and she's trembling, presumably from pleasure. 

If we assume Bruno Mars is not singing about rape, because it's not what he intended, and is rather about "animalistic sex", as he describes in interviews, then maybe there is no harm other than the perpetuation of a culture that can't help but discuss women without discussing sex or her body, and that does not promote clear lines of consent during sex. Should we hold Bruno Mars accountable for that? Isn't that kind of the point?

Many women enjoy the kind of sex described. I certainly would not want to take good, consensual sex away from anyone. But I can't call this empowering when it feels like Bruno's fantasy more than it feels like his partner's by the virtue of it being from his point of view. If it were a woman singing, it would likely be different. Just read it in the voice of Nicki Minaj but substitute "daddy" with mami. How does it sound now? To me, she'd be taking power, not giving it, and that's a sign that on some level, my subconscious empowers men so that when I listen to this song, any minuscule bit he gives over is considered. *sigh* 

• Does not empower women

Which has some standing in the next question--does this objectify women?

If you want some go-to feminist guidelines on objectification, check this out. But as the wiki makes a little clearer, objectification is treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity. So the antonymous question of whether a song objectifies women is whether or not it dignifies them. I'm going to go with no. 

• Objectifies women

And the easy ones

• Women in relation to man
• No name calling

Many have drawn comparisons to Blurred Lines, which I also gave a D. Part of me thinks I should fail them both. So why didn't I? I mean, I failed Treasure, which seems like a much more vanilla song. But it isn't women enjoying sex, rough or gentle, that the feminist in me is against. Certainly the part of me that values modesty does not like it, but that isn't what this blog is about. I'm against women not having a voice, not being valued (for more than their bodies), lacking power, and violence against women.

Well, this post is long enough. I welcome your thoughts!