I will rape you, if I must. - Lust U Always

I guess I'll have to rape you. - Extralovable

You drive a man to rape, you know you do. - U

Should lyrics like this be censored in future releases?

Poorlovelycomputer said:

Seeing that was where his lyrics were at back then I feel like no is the answer. Even Cobain wrote a song called Rape me. The bootlegs should be left alone.

Firstly, rape was not acceptable in 1982.

And secondly, Prince's lyrics are a little to close to victim-blaming for his actions (in the songs), where as Nirvana's track is done within the metaphorical context of them being the victims.

"A woman every day should be thanked, not disrespected, not raped or spanked"

Release it all as is. It shows a journey of respect and/or enlightenment.

bluegangsta said:

I will rape you, if I must. - Lust U Always

I guess I'll have to rape you. - Extralovable

You drive a man to rape, you know you do. - U

Should lyrics like this be censored in future releases?

.

The fact that you even think about this stuff means you suffer from political correctness.

Can't we see stuff in context anymore?

Is it a millennial thing?

It is the same as the hoopla with Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, every year.

The fake-black Zwarte Piet is perceived as derogatory, discriminatory, etc by some idiots.

Yet in the historic context nothing is wrong with these figures.

udo said:

lust said:

udo said:

.

The fact that you even think about this stuff means you suffer from political correctness.

Can't we see stuff in context anymore?

Is it a millennial thing?

It is the same as the hoopla with Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, every year.

The fake-black Zwarte Piet is perceived as derogatory, discriminatory, etc by some idiots.

Yet in the historic context nothing is wrong with these figures.

Taking issue with rape is a bad case of political correctness?

.

If 'rape' mentions 'as is' are reasons for censorship yes.

If we do not consider the context then everything is black and white.

You simplifying reality to this is no good.

.

Do you also intend to censor US history from the slavery period?

.

Umm...ok mate. If that sort of behaviour passes as acceptable in the lowlands, then I'll stick to the high ground.

.

Ethical high ground can not be found anymorein the USA or other places, at least not in the parts where 'government' is present.

bluegangsta said:

I will rape you, if I must. - Lust U Always

I guess I'll have to rape you. - Extralovable

You drive a man to rape, you know you do. - U

Should lyrics like this be censored in future releases?

Hell no!

Censorship is an abomination, particularly when it comes to works of art. Songs are stories. Stories are fiction. Fiction has to depict despicable things every once in a while because such things are part of the human reality.

If those songs ever get released, and I hope they will, they must be released as such.

The mere fact that we are discussing this shows how disrespected songs are by comparison to other forms of art. If Prince were a writer or a movie maker and we were talking about releasing an unreleased short story or a short film, it wouldn't cross anyone's mind to ask that question. Songs are not necessarily autobiographic: not every Prince lyric does reflect real thoughts or real personal experiences. Some do. Some don't. Unless proven otherwise, songs are to be treated as works of fiction ans, as such, left alone.

smokeverbs said:

I've seamlessly edited out the rape parts of Lust U Always and Extra Lovable, and I don't miss them.

.

It's you who needs to get on living with that blasphemy.

As with live shows, I need stuff uncut, uncensored.

They were not released at the time and they should not be now. If he chose to release them that would be his decision, for others do demand their release after their death is another matter.

They are out there. You can listen to them if you want to. I like U and have no problems listening to it. I don't want to hear the original extraloveable and I don't want it released posthumously in his name when he would not have wanted that. It triggers levels of anger in me that I don't want to deal with. When I was kidnapped, I thought I was dead. I wanted to hurt the man but I also wanted to leave forensic evidence - his skin under my nails, imprints of my teeth in his face etc. The word rape doesn't trigger these memories or this anger. The description in extraloveable does. It went way too far and is repulsive.

smokeverbs said:

NorthC said:

smokeverbs said:

I've seamlessly edited out the rape parts of Lust U Always and Extra Lovable, and I don't miss them.

That's like watching a Quentin Tarantino movie with all the violence and the n-words edited out.

But not even Tarantino has protagonist rapists that suffer no consequences.

The argument regarding Prince not choosing to release the tracks in his lifetime is absurdly irrelevant. Following this logic then nothing from the vault, studio or live, should ever be released. And why not after all? But who would we be to decide which content is politically correct and which isn't? A few months back, an engineer reported Prince had some tapes erased over the course of the last few years. If true, that would have been Prince's prerogative, and maybe those songs are among the erased tapes. Everything he left us, he knew could potentially be released at some point after he passed.

.

And I fail to see how Prince's legacy could possibly be tarnished by 3 songs out of hundreds. Oh if those songs are released there will certainly be a few idiots and integrist feminists to make a fuss, but when you are familiar with Prince's body of work and the principles he defended all his life, it cannot be denied that he stood for feminist and egalitarian values his whole life. Certainly some songs he wrote are sexist, mostly songs written for The Time in fact. Works of fiction. Just like those few tracks (Extraloveable, after all, is said to have been made for Vanity to sing, which puts the rape line into a completely different perspective).

.

If certain people have emotional issues or a sensitivity that make certain works of art disturbing to them, they're free not to read/listen to/watch them. I know some people who get sick at the sight of gore: they stay away from horror movies, but they don't ask for horror films to be banned. Those among you who are uncomfortable with the rape lines, fine, just don't listen to the songs or edit them if you have to (as long as you don't share your fanmade edits online), I totally respect that. But do respect those of us who can deal with the shit and let us enjoy the songs if we must.

.

I personally find it intellectually unacceptable to ask for any sort of censorship on works of art. That's what totalitarian states do. That's what obscurantists do. And the problem is once you open that door, even if you say u're gonna draw the line reasonably, you acknowledge the validity of a principle that can and will, sooner or later, be used abusively.

.

And just to make things clear before anyone gets tempted to lecture me, I have been sexually abused, so I'm as legitimate as anyone in taking a stand in this debate.

[Edited 11/6/16 5:39am]

databank said:

I personally find it intellectually unacceptable to ask for any sort of censorship on works of art. That's what totalitarian states do. That's what obscurantists do.

.

And millennials because their safe spaces...

bluegangsta said:

luvgirl said:

bluegangsta said:

I will rape you, if I must. - Lust U Always

I guess I'll have to rape you. - Extralovable

You drive a man to rape, you know you do. - U

Should lyrics like this be censored in future releases?

I think so, out of respect for him. That is what he would have wanted since his views had changed.

His views had changed regarding profanity and overtly sexual content, but let us be careful not to imply his views had changed towards rape, as in "he considered it acceptable in 1983", which of course he most certainly didn't. I'm not saying you are implying it but I wouldn't want your words to be misunderstood by some.

udo said:

The fact that you even think about this stuff means you suffer from political correctness.

Can't we see stuff in context anymore?

Is it a millennial thing?

It is the same as the hoopla with Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, every year.

The fake-black Zwarte Piet is perceived as derogatory, discriminatory, etc by some idiots.

Yet in the historic context nothing is wrong with these figures.

Oh, bullshit. I'm a comedian and writer, I spend a good portion of my life spiting political correctness. Don't make assertions about other people when you clearly haven't a damn clue.

Those lyrics I quoted are specifically about victim-blaming for one of the worst acts of violence in our society. If it's politically correct to call it out as unaceptable, well fine.

The history defence is not valid in this case.

bluegangsta said:

udo said:

The fact that you even think about this stuff means you suffer from political correctness.

Can't we see stuff in context anymore?

Is it a millennial thing?

It is the same as the hoopla with Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, every year.

The fake-black Zwarte Piet is perceived as derogatory, discriminatory, etc by some idiots.

Yet in the historic context nothing is wrong with these figures.

Oh, bullshit. I'm a comedian and writer, I spend a good portion of my life spiting political correctness. Don't make assertions about other people when you clearly haven't a damn clue.

Those lyrics I quoted are specifically about victim-blaming for one of the worst acts of violence in our society. If it's politically correct to call it out as unaceptable, well fine.

The history defence is not valid in this case.

.

Context!

History!

Both for the Prince stuff and for Sinterklaas they are fit. Showing 'black' people in a 'subjugated' role is PC-ness for people that do not understand they have gone too far.

Same for the censoring of old Prince songs.

Where would one stop? Discussing fights? Discussing guns? Discussing War? Politics?

All very evil things, especially the latter at this point in time.

You tell the world how your pink glasses would make it look like.

udo said:

Context!

History!

Both for the Prince stuff and for Sinterklaas they are fit. Showing 'black' people in a 'subjugated' role is PC-ness for people that do not understand they have gone too far.

Same for the censoring of old Prince songs.

Where would one stop? Discussing fights? Discussing guns? Discussing War? Politics?

All very evil things, especially the latter at this point in time.

You tell the world how your pink glasses would make it look like.

I was wondering how long it would take for the 'where do we draw the line' argument to come up. If you haven't conceded a valid point so far in the conversation, I doubt you ever will - you're clearly too busy stereotyping young people with insults to assess your own intellectual and social shortcomings.

NorthC said:

Taking issue with rape is one thing, taking issue with song lyrics is another. I'll just quote George Clinton: "Censorship is far worse than anything anybody might have to say."

The world is not a "safe-space". Those that are triggered should not listen. Problem solved.

bluegangsta said:

udo said:

Context!

History!

Both for the Prince stuff and for Sinterklaas they are fit. Showing 'black' people in a 'subjugated' role is PC-ness for people that do not understand they have gone too far.

Same for the censoring of old Prince songs.

Where would one stop? Discussing fights? Discussing guns? Discussing War? Politics?

All very evil things, especially the latter at this point in time.

You tell the world how your pink glasses would make it look like.

I was wondering how long it would take for the 'where do we draw the line' argument to come up. If you haven't conceded a valid point so far in the conversation, I doubt you ever will - you're clearly too busy stereotyping young people with insults to assess your own intellectual and social shortcomings.

.

Where dow we draw the line is important.

So we decide to censor Prince's lyrics.

Then what is next to censor? What matter insults someone?

So we censor that one too.

And next... Etc. If you cannot grab that reality then there is no discussion possible.

.

Then the millennials.

Especially from the former US of A news reaches us that millennials in schools over there behave quite childishly.

This is no insult but a matter of fact. I see stuff about safe spaces, snow flakes, etc.

This not by choice but by a different type of upbringing, a different type of family environment than previous generations. This situation shaped their behaviour.

.

I then see a parallel between the 'need' to censort works of art (P's lyrics) and the intents of some extremist millennials.

databank said:

udo said:

bluegangsta said:

Oh, bullshit. I'm a comedian and writer, I spend a good portion of my life spiting political correctness. Don't make assertions about other people when you clearly haven't a damn clue.

Those lyrics I quoted are specifically about victim-blaming for one of the worst acts of violence in our society. If it's politically correct to call it out as unaceptable, well fine.

The history defence is not valid in this case.

.

Context!

History!

Both for the Prince stuff and for Sinterklaas they are fit. Showing 'black' people in a 'subjugated' role is PC-ness for people that do not understand they have gone too far.

Same for the censoring of old Prince songs.

Where would one stop? Discussing fights? Discussing guns? Discussing War? Politics?

All very evil things, especially the latter at this point in time.

You tell the world how your pink glasses would make it look like.

The way P wanted his legacy to look. He clearly wanted his vault material released after his death but do you think he wanted that released?