Those exceptions are once at the end of Lil Pump’s verse, when he resumes the chorus, and once at the end of Kanye West’s verse, when he says “bitch”. In both cases Givens us reacting to being called a ho and a bitch but is fine dancing along to the music when the men are talking about other women in a way that she feels is unacceptable to talk about herself.

This likely represents the conflict that many women experience when listening to rap music. Which is to say that they have to navigate a complicated middle ground between wanting to partake in and enjoy the music while at the same time opposing the way women are talked about in these songs.

Men, on the other hand, feel comfortable mischaracterizing their relationships with the women in their lives in front of other men, and even the world, but never to the faces of those women themselves.

Think that seems like a stretch? Not when you consider that the end of Kanye’s verse, where he calls Givens a “trifling ho bitch” and her reaction to being addressed as one, is almost certainly a reference to a famous Key and Peele skit with that exact premise.

Skip to 1:40 in the music video and then watch the clip below to see for yourself.

Sparkling or still?

The theme of misjudging the power dynamic of relationships re-emerges in Kayne’s bizzare monologue at the beginning of his verse:

When the first time they ask you if you want sparklin’ or still? Why you tryna act like you was drinkin’ sparklin’ water ‘fore you came out here?

This, to me, is the funniest joke in the video. This monologue a parody of the outsized importance that many rappers place on the material benefits they provide the women in their life. And in doing so act like the luxury lifestyle that they provide women makes it inconceivable that they would want to be with anybody else.

What is she supposed to do? Leave Kanye and go back to drinking still water like some sort of peasant?

This exact kind of attitude can be heard in Pusha T’s verse on Runaway, a song from West’s 2010 album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.

24/7, 365, pussy stays on my mind

I-I-I-I did it, all right, all right, I admit it

Now pick your next move, you could leave or live wit’ it

Ichabod Crane with that motherfucking top off

Split and go where? Back to wearing knockoffs, haha

Knock it off, Neiman’s, shop it off

Let’s talk over mai tais, waitress, top it off

In which Pusha laughs at the idea that the woman would leave him because he can’t imagine somebody being able to give up a life of luxury to “go back to wearing knockoffs”. But Pusha gets a pass in this instance because Kanye specifically asked him to play the part of a douchebag for the song.

In the interview Pusha says that he was coached by Kanye to play the part of the douche for the song. And that West continually pushed him to be more braggadocios to get the effect he wanted.

This is important because it tells us that Kanye West has a history of using the rappers he features on his songs as bit characters rather than musical features. Which brings up another important question:

Why Lil Pump?

This, in my opinion, is the hardest piece of symbolism to solve. I have no problem rationalizing why this video appeals to Kanye but have a much harder time believing that Lil Pump joined the project because he wanted to be a part of an almost imperceptibly subtle criticism of his peers.

A Lil Pump song. For reference.

It could just be that Kanye genuinely really just likes the new generation of mumble rappers. That’s certainly possible. But that runs counter to the theory that Kanye was so calculated about the rest of the piece. And the content and quality of the verse itself seems to be in opposition to the fact that most rappers deliver some of their best performances ever under West’s guidance.

So the inclusion of Lil Pump must represent something. But what that something is is hard to decipher. It could be that Pump’s age and cockiness represents the exact bravado that I Love It is satirizing. It could be the hypocrisy in Pump calling women hoes while, at the same time, delivering lines like:

(I’ma fuck a bitch, tell her cousin)

Your boyfriend is a dork, McLovin (dork)

(McLovin; ooh, ooh, ooh)

I just pulled up in a Ghost (Ghost)

Fucked that bitch up out in London (up out in)

Then I fucked up on her cousin

Or her sister, I don’t know nothin’ (uh-uh, woo)

See also the Genius annotation of this line:

In this three line, sex-related rhyme scheme, Lil Pump claims to have had sex with a woman and then either her cousin or sister whilst out in London. Though there is nothing to back this up, it is completely possible.

My theory is that, whatever the reason, Pump wasn’t actually in on it. When you watch the video it seems fairly clear that he’s doing his best to follow Kanye’s lead. And while Kanye dances energetically during Pump’s performance, Pump does little more during Kanye’s than mouthing along to his verse.

That said it doesn’t mean that Lil Pump’s exclusion from the subtleties of the narrative was done maliciously. It only means that Kanye likely had a vision that he hid from most people, including the person singing the chorus of the song.

As we’ll discuss shortly it’s also very possible that Kanye West included Lil Pump in the song and video simply because he knew that the pairing would garner attention from the industry and the public. Or that he is featured for the reason any artist is featured on a song — in hopes that it will make the song more popular.

Why the outfits?

This has been the main focus of most articles and analysis of the video. It’s possible that West is reviving the mid-2000s video style of Missy Elliot and Ludacris. Which would make sense considering some of those iconic videos are directed by Spike Jonze, one of Kanye’s long time collaborators who directed many of the iconic videos in that era.

It’s also extremely likely that Kanye found himself agreeing with the attitude of David Byrne of the talking heads, who has said a lot of things that wouldn’t be out of place at all had they have come from Kanye himself.

thanks to /u/tennisfan93 on Reddit for the reference.

But the answer could be more simple than that. The outfits give people a reason to watch and share the video. Kanye West is an iconic director who knows how to get his work shared and in the public eye. Without those outfits the video concept wouldn’t been notable at all. The satire would have either been too obvious or too obtuse for anybody to pick up. And to assume that the concept could be conceived of independent of the outfit choice is doing a disservice to the idea itself.

If nothing else Kanye is a marketing genius who knows how to get attention on his work. And by making the video for I Love It so unavoidably divisive and memeable he shows a masterful understanding of how the internet works.

The seemingly ridiculous video ensures that the song spreads far beyond the network of people who would usually take notice of his work because it’s being shared both by people who love it and are critical of it in equal measure. So the video is ubiquitous and unavoidable regardless of which side of the argument you are on.

And clearly it worked. I Love It broke the record for the most Youtube views in a single week for a hip hop video and quickly became the #1 song on the Billboard top 100 chart. The previous record holder, mind you, was Childish Gambino’s video for This Is America — a video whose social commentary was widely recognized, discussed, and praised, in a way that I Love It never will be.

Perhaps symbolism and satire are only appreciated when they perform subtlety. And the works that are genuinely subtle are doomed to be taken on face value.

The question is really whether or not Kanye, who has young children of his own, is acting irresponsibly by making a video and song that is both guaranteed to be shared widely and to be misunderstood by most of the people sharing it?

That depends on whether you believe an artist is ultimately in service of their audience or their message. But all indications are that Kanye has never cared about people understanding the statements that he’s tried to make with his art.

Do I really believe that I Love It is actually a complicated satire and not just exactly what it seems to be? I’m not sure. But it seems like there are too many coincidences for it to be entirely untrue.