Now when I call Mr. Thicke a prophet I am not suggesting that he is a prophet in the traditional sense of the word. He is more like what I would call an anti-prophet. An anti-prophet is one who utters, or rather embodies, a certain truth about where things are in the world at the present moment, and where they may be going. In other words, as far as I know this man is not out there performing in order to communicate what God wishes him to say to everyone, nevertheless he does reflect some kind of truth about what is going on in our culture. He embodies what is written in the stars (or by the stars), if we continue to go on the road that we are presently on. This sort of "prophet" is able to be one, not because he is brave like a real prophet, but because at this time evil is so prevalent that he is able to be as brazen he wants. "Ha ha ha, look what I can get away with because no one has enough moral courage to stop me!" That is not to imply that there are not those who will still react negatively to such behavior, however, more often than not such a response is toothless and winds up redounding to the benefit of the profiteer (especially when it's a man) rather than hurting him.
But in what sense is all of this libidinous activity truly "prophetic"? In this sense. The title of the song really does tell you just about everything you need to know about its larger significance. And in some ways Mr. Thicke himself seems to get this completely:
"'Blurred lines' refers to the moral ambiguity of flirting with a girl that I know isn’t single. Even if she’s in a committed relationship she’s a “wild animal” with independent thoughts, and thus her significant other doesn’t own her, so is it really all that wrong?"When you blur the lines of truth and you blur the lines of what you think is right or wrong, you may as well have no lines at all. To do so it is a lot like turning life into one gigantic impressionistic painting, or a Rorschach test, where the reality becomes whatever you are inclined to see at any given moment. Consequently, once those lines are made sufficiently vague the only real purpose for their existence at all is to create the impression that there is still some sort of moral standard, when in truth the standard has been essentially overturned. For this reason, when events occur like the one on MTV the other night, many are quick to call it immoral, when the fact is they no longer have any rational basis for doing so. Why shouldn't people simulate sexual acts on stage? Because it's gross? Because we don't want to see it? Because kids might watch? Why? All this moral outrage is well and good, but since we are so fond of blurring the lines, and creating "50 Shades of Gray", we should also recognize that ideas have consequences, and just because something doesn't personally "float your boat" doesn't mean that another's boats is not made sufficiently buoyant by the whole experience.
When asked about the contents of his controversial song, Mr. Thicke is predictably coy. For example, on the Today Show he responded in classic fiendish style, declaring that he was only trying to "stir a conversation about what's important". I thank him for his kindness in this regard, and I trust that the conversation that he envisions is one in which truth and virtue dance in perichoretic union with one another. It is well worth noting that in these interviews he often feels the need to mention (like some bizarre red herring) how long he has been married to the same woman, as if mentioning his marriage should make us all feel better about the fact that he is treating some other woman like she is on the receiving end of some Deliverance-like experience.