and your influence on underaged girls

mitt-europa  asked:

Hey, Sonja, how you're doing? How was NYC? I hope it was good! So, about Kiwi: I'm seeing a lot of people talking about it, and I just want to say that it's important that we cover all the possibilities. With that being said, I keep going back to when Harry said that SOTT is the only literal song on the album. And it makes a lot of sense to me, particially because I'm a poetry kinda girl, and so is Harry. When I listen to the album, Charles Bukowski's influency on the writing, to me, is HUGE

However, I’m not excusing anything related to that, I’m not judging anyone that thinks that the song is about underage girls. I’m not, and there’s no need for that. We all should be discussing things openly, without being hateful of course. I just wanted to offer a different point of view to the discourse that I think it’s valid. I hope I’m not upsetting anyone, especially victims of abuse, that’s not my intention. Feel free to publish it if you want!! How’s the cold, btw? Feeling a lil better?

—-

it was good! and i’m feeling much better now actually thank you <3

i think, as per usual, the discussion has gotten warped and twisted along the way and the people hurtling the cruelest accusations at other bloggers are neglecting to actually read what’s being said (again). 

no one is saying that harry’s singing about how he himself sleeps with underaged girls. i don’t think anyone is taking the line or the song period to be literally about him (the real him or his het image).

but the person in the narrative of his song is still singing about hard candy and that’s still a really big red flag and something people are allowed to be upset about without being called disgusting or sick.

no, not everyone has to agree or interpret the line in the same way. but my problem is with people ignoring the mountains of evidence linking the hard candy line to the culturally accepted meaning of the term hard candy as it refers to grown ass men sleeping with underaged girls.

you can think it’s about the drink, that’s fine. but you don’t KNOW that it’s about the drink. your interpretation isn’t the right one by default. at the very least, accept that people have a right to be upset because there’s a 50/50 chance that line is offensive AF (and as has been pointed out like a million times - even if he did mean the drink, he should have 1) chosen a different scandalous sounding drink and 2) CLARIFIED THE *SECOND* THE UNDERAGED GIRL INTERPRETATION CAME UP.

(also charles bukowski’s works are littered with misogyny so he isn’t exactly the best person to be basing anything on. the fact that his influence is all over harry’s writing isn’t really a great thing either imo.)