Cracked eisegesis: it's not just for biblical interpretation anymore!

8 Romantic Songs You Didn't Know Were About Rape | Cracked.comN.B. I have reformatted and added links to some of the original material. Furthermore, my defense of these songs is limited to Ian Fortey's (possibly facetious) claim that these songs advocate rape and is not intended to imply agreement with the moral views presented by them.  IOW, just because I think a particular song isn't necessarily about rape doesn't mean that I don't find it morally offensive for other reasons, such as extolling lust and/or casual sex.

#8. "Baby It's Cold Outside" - Dean Martin & Doris Day

Offending Lyrics:

Her: but maybe just a half a drink more
Him: (put some records on while I pour)
Her: the neighbors might faint
Him: (baby it's bad out there)
Her: say what's in this drink
Him: (no cabs to be had out there)

A short list of things left unspecified in the song:

1. whether or not she actually stays
2. if she does, whether or not they engage in sexual activity
3. if they do, whether or not it is consensual
4. that he is preventing her from leaving.  It is possible that she's choosing to stay of her own volitiondespite her protestations that she "really must go",
5. that he drugged her drink or even whether it has alcohol in it (although I would agree that it's safe to assume that it does.  Furthermore, he didn't ply the drink on her- she requested "half a drink more".

Cracked eisegesis: Another reason I dislike this song: to me, it sounds more like listening to two different radio stations at once than a conversation.
And in the link to the lyrics, I'm assuming that "namonia" is supposed to be "pneumonia" (in case they haven't fixed it as I requested).

#7."Summer Nights" - Olivia Newton John & John Travolta

Offending Lyrics:

Girls: Tell me more, tell me more, was it love at first sight?

Guys: Tell me more, tell me more, did she put up a fight?

Cracked eisegesis: Forley chooses the definition of the word "fight" ("physical altercation") that best fits his premise and ignores other, equally plausible meanings.(such as "intense verbal dispute" or "strong resistance").  IOW, Kenickie (the character that sings "did she put up a fight?") instead may be asking "Was she 'easy' or did it take a lot of convincing to get her to go along?".
Just asking: if the two of them married in real life, would that have made her Olivia Newton John Travolta?

#3."My Sharona" - The Knack

Offending Lyrics:

Never gonna stop, give it up

Such a dirty mind, always get it up

For the touch of the younger kind

Cracked eisegesis: First, "young" is subjective, so "of the younger kind" and "above the age of consent aren't mutually exclusive.  Second, he never clarifies what he's "never gonna stop" or how far he's willing to go to achieve it.  Unless this includes force and as long as he waits until she's over the age of consent, then there's no rape.  Third, no matter how much the singer may want to have sex with her, various lines in the song indicate that they haven't engaged in sexual activity, such as  "Is it just a matter of time Sharona?" and his use of the future tense  in the question "when you gonna give it up...?".  No sexual activity = no rape.

#2."Young Girl" - Gary Puckett

Offending Lyrics:

Young girl, get out of my mind

My love for you is way out of line

Better run, girl,

You're much too young, girl

Cracked eisegesis: As in "My Sharona" above, it's clear that the singer is attracted to someone who is likely a minor.  However, it is just as equally clear that they haven't engaged in any sexual activity and, in this case, he's actively resisting such a temptation.  As long as he does so successfully (on which point the song is ambiguous), there's no rape.

In each of the above cases, the fault lies in adding more to the text than is actually written.  For example, in "Baby, It's Cold Outside" merely asks "what's in this drink?".  The cracked eisegesist reads this and assumes that this means not only must he have added something to the drink, but it must be some type of date-rape drug, even though the text itself does not state that he had.

From cracked eisegesis to

skepticism masquerading as scholarship

One way that some skeptics apply similar means in biblical interpretation is their treatment  of Numbers 31 as condoning rape.  Some read that the Isrealites took "women who had not known man by lying with him" as plunder (vs. 35 ESV) and jump to the conclusion that this somehow must have included rape.  Now, while such an action could lead to rape, it doesn't necessarily.  This, however, overlooks two very important facts: first, they took sheep, cattle, and donkeys as plunder as well, but I doubt anyone can persuasively argue that they used such animals for such a purpose as the Israelites are accused of using the women; second, while the plundering of women could involve rape, it does not necessarily do so.  There are other purposes to which the Israelites could have employed the women, such as for servants.