The Soon-to-Be No. 1 Song Underscores Why We Need a Moral and Cultural Revolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
nicholasG said:
40.png
VonDerTann:
My comment was in the context of the issue of families
Click to expand...
What does family issues have to do with BLM?
Click to expand...
The family as the fundamental cell of society is troublesome to Marxists such as #BLM, and so they seek to “disrupt” the family and ensure that father, mother, and children are not celebrated but blocked from nurturing one another in the model of the Holy Trinity.
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
“The truth is that the sexual revolution of the 1960s has scarred us more deeply than we imagine. We literally wallow in moral and sexual pollution. Not only so, but we glory in it. Filth has become a path to fame.”
Click to expand...
The only problem with this is that novels written by a Roman Catholic priest, Father Greeley, contain a lot worse language than we see in this song.
 
Last edited:
Vulgar lyrics are nothing new, even in hit songs. Even almost a hundred years ago, there was a sub-genre of blues called “dirty blues” which often contained highly explicit material, utilizing thinly-veiled double entendres. Even Mozart wrote songs with dirty lyrics.

I’m definitely not defending this tasteless song, and the fact that it’s rising to #1 doesn’t reflect all that well on current society. But, it’s nothing new or groundbreaking.
 
I don’t know the lyrics to the song, nor do I wish to know them. Father Andrew Greely’s novels contained what I would consider gratuitous sex scenes, but I don’t recall that the language was foul or vulgar. I could be wrong. The fact that a Catholic priest wrote such secular novels was a scandal at the time. Today, I might consider it a step forward if the public actually read novels instead of attending to pop music and videos.
 
JimG said:
I don’t recall that the language was foul or vulgar.
Click to expand...
Do you consider the mf word to be OK? You are going to see this in the novels of Father Greeley and as well many other words and descriptions which I hesitate to mention here. And in his novels, the characters of Father Greeley use the word Jaysus as an interjection, which is close to blasphemy no? It is a so called bye expression, where you don’t use the actual word, but something very close to it.
JimG said:
Today, I might consider it a step forward if the public actually read novels instead of attending to pop music and videos.
Click to expand...
The step forward to immoral and vulgar language was in the acceptance of foul language and lewd expressions in the novels of a Roman Catholic priest.
 
Last edited:
I only read one of his novels, so I’m no authority on Greeley. I agree with your assessment of the words used. But a novelist is granted more leeway than a two minute song. If Fr. Greeley did two minute videos using an excess of bad language, he probably would have been laicized. As it was, he was pretty much ignored by the magisterium. I wonder if the pop video audience would even last through two chapters of Fr. Greeley’s or anyone’s novel. Words on a page can induce axiety and boredom for modern sensibilities.

ETA: Fr. Greeley’s novels were in fact another aspect of the sexual revolution, though milder than what was to follow.
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
: Fr. Greeley’s novels were in fact another aspect of the sexual revolution, though milder than what was to follow.
Click to expand...
Honestly I cringe if I am watching PG-13 movie and they casually use the Holy Name of the Son of God in vain. But why do we see a bye expression like that used in a novel of a Catholic priest?
Muslims protest energetically at the slightest misuse of the name or figure of their holy prophet. Why don’t Catholics do the same for Our Savior?
 
JimG said:
The fact that a Catholic priest wrote such secular novels was a scandal at the time.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it was the right thing to do. OTOH, it should be mentioned that Father Greeley donated a very large portion of the profits from his pop novels to charities such as orphanages. And it was a substantial amount of money.
 
CTBcin said:
Vulgar lyrics are nothing new, even in hit songs. Even almost a hundred years ago, there was a sub-genre of blues called “dirty blues” which often contained highly explicit material, utilizing thinly-veiled double entendres. Even Mozart wrote songs with dirty lyrics.

I’m definitely not defending this tasteless song, and the fact that it’s rising to #1 doesn’t reflect all that well on current society. But, it’s nothing new or groundbreaking
Click to expand...
Yeah, the “sub-genre” of the blues absolutely did contain double entendres related to sexual behavior. But the very fact that the words chosen hid their meaning with a second implication (that’s what’s meant by the term “double entendre”) tells us something important. And that is, for the sake of decency, certain things should not be referenced directly. Why? Well, first of all lyrics move the song along a rhetorical trajectory of meanings that delight an attentive listener. And secondly, there is actually an artistry involved in creating lyrics that imply a second meaning through a careful choice of words. It’s called metaphor. It’s the work of poetry. The lyricist who uses double entendre - even in the realm of human sexuality - expresses both a respect for common decency and, at the same time, employs a cleverness that is embodied in the freedom to express the earthiness of common experience. This quality in songwriting is actually something to be honored and valued. It gives the Blues as a genre much of its vitality and even its joy for the careful listener.

As for Mozart writing “dirty lyrics,” I’ve responded to that in an earlier posting. The accusation is unfounded.

The bottom line, however, is this: Cardi B’s lyrics are pornographic and brutal. Any kind of double entendres contained within her song are intentional assaults against human dignity and an attack against the sacredness of human sexual expression.

Here’s an example of how “B” uses the “trick” of double entendre in her song WAP: “I want you to park that big Mac truck right in this little garage. Make it cream, make me scream. Out in public, make a scene.”

This is not innuendo. The lyrics are openly and frankly sexual. There is nothing hidden or implied. There is no beauty to be found here. It is pornography plain an simple.

Our children should not be subject to such an assault. Cardi B’s song, WAP, should be condemned for what it is. It is sinful and immoral and, in the end, hateful. There is no love to be found there.
 
Gyro said:
This is not innuendo. The lyrics are openly and frankly sexual. There is nothing hidden or implied. There is no beauty to be found here. It is pornography plain an simple.
Click to expand...
What so you think of the view that this song is an example of women (these 2 artist in this case) exhibiting control over the presentation sexuality? In effect, breaking norms by displaying women being sexually aggressive, a typically male domain.
 
There’s nothing empowering about killing yourself before your enemies in war do it. Harmful, shameful actions like killing or disgrace of the beauty of sex aren’t empowering. Sinking to the level that society has taught men to go to isn’t empowering. Empowerment is being better than what society expects of you, and showing you’re capable of that. I see nothing empowering here.
 
Last edited:
The stopping point will happen when society fasts, does acts of penitence, converts to Catholicism and prays (a lot)…
 
Last edited:
Gyro said:
But the very fact that the words chosen hid their meaning with a second implication (that’s what’s meant by the term “double entendre”) tells us something important.
Click to expand...
Agreed… although the meaning is often pretty blatant, hence why I said “thinly veiled.”
Gyro said:
As for Mozart writing “dirty lyrics,” I’ve responded to that in an earlier posting. The accusation is unfounded.
Click to expand...
Really? I did not know this.
Gyro said:
The bottom line, however, is this: Cardi B’s lyrics are pornographic and brutal. Any kind of double entendres contained within her song are intentional assaults against human dignity and an attack against the sacredness of human sexual expression.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Gyro said:
It is sinful and immoral and, in the end, hateful.
Click to expand...
Sinful and immoral, sure within your moral framework I can see that, but hateful? You may not like it, but it’s not attacking anyone, it’s a frank, some might say blunt description of her sexuality, but I can’t see how you can even begin to get to hateful.

Also could someone explain to me why this song is worse than the previously mentioned My Neck, My Back (Lick It) by Khia or Ticket To Ride by my hometown boys The Beatles?
 
Inquisitor85 said:
Also could someone explain to me why this song is worse than the previously mentioned My Neck, My Back (Lick It) by Khia or Ticket To Ride by my hometown boys The Beatles?
Click to expand...
It’s more descriptive and vivid than other songs you’re thinking of. Therefore more of an “assault” to the morality of many others here.
 
The silver lining is that we’ve increasingly dispensed with euphemism and the veil of respectability is removed from lust, so we can see it plain in all its ugly banality.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure I’d call My Neck, My Back (Lick It) less descriptive but I get your meaning so thank you for answering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top