Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wants to leave, and he tries to convince her to stay and engaged in intimacy despite her continuing protests. At the very least, it's questionable and uncomfortable rather than romantic. Not a song I enjoy at all.

+1

Just because it is from a different era doesn't mean its meaning is any different.

But she doesn't want to leave. She only thinks she should go because of what others might think. If anything is wrong with the song it's that it takes place during an oppressive, overly puritanical time.

Anonymous wrote:She wants to leave, and he tries to convince her to stay and engaged in intimacy despite her continuing protests. At the very least, it's questionable and uncomfortable rather than romantic. Not a song I enjoy at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wants to leave, and he tries to convince her to stay and engaged in intimacy despite her continuing protests. At the very least, it's questionable and uncomfortable rather than romantic. Not a song I enjoy at all.

+1

Just because it is from a different era doesn't mean its meaning is any different.

Anonymous wrote:She wants to leave, and he tries to convince her to stay and engaged in intimacy despite her continuing protests. At the very least, it's questionable and uncomfortable rather than romantic. Not a song I enjoy at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Already discussed extensively here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/347602.page

Soooo what? I wasn't there to discuss it. I'm sure other posters weren't either. No bfd, get you know?

On a side note, don't you HATE it when the forum patrol searches through the archives to resurect a three year old thread trying to get people to post there instead, then reports the thread to Jeff and asks him to lock the new thread?

I mean, I understand it there are two threads started the same day or week pointing it out and directing people there.

But pulling up a thread that is years old is just stupid.

Please PP, stop doing that with mundane topics like this. No one but you wants to join a thread about a Christmas carol or a kid's runny nose from 2013.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Already discussed extensively here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/347602.page

Soooo what? I wasn't there to discuss it. I'm sure other posters weren't either. No bfd, get you know?

On a side note, don't you HATE it when the forum patrol searches through the archives to resurect a three year old thread trying to get people to post there instead, then reports the thread to Jeff and asks him to lock the new thread?

I mean, I understand it there are two threads started the same day or week pointing it out and directing people there.

But pulling up a thread that is years old is just stupid.

Please PP, stop doing that with mundane topics like this. No one but you wants to join a thread about a Christmas carol or a kid's runny nose from 2013.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Already discussed extensively here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/347602.page

Soooo what? I wasn't there to discuss it. I'm sure other posters weren't either. No bfd, get you know?

Anonymous wrote:^There is nothing erotic about dubious consent. More like repulsive.

Anonymous wrote:Already discussed extensively here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/347602.page

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^There is nothing erotic about dubious consent. More like repulsive.

The song is not at all about dubious consent. You are having comprehension issues.

In fact, in the original.portrayal of the song, the version that was most forceful was when the woman was seducing the man. When they man sang to the woman they were either equals or she was the one with the power, not the man.