You didnt understand at all.
All you managed to comprehend out of it is that I used the hypothetical of a gay artist as an example. You ignored my point to spew garbage. Get on your soapbox with someone else.
The issue is about what the artist was inspired by or thinking of when they create a song versus what a listener interprets the song to be.
You want to make it about the example and homosexuality being "accepted by society" and R. Kelly's criminal acts.
That's irrelevant.
The issue applies overall and my point can be applied in every situation. You take R. Kelly out and plug in anyone else amd my argument remains the same meanwhile your stance is only suited for that one circumstance.
I had to explain this to you since you just want to go off on a spiel that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Revealing an artist's motivation or intent or influence for a song is not going to change what the song means to a listener or their interpretation unless that listener is so rigid in their reasoning that they must adhere to what the artist meant the song to be.
So if you hear a Woman's Threat and think about teenage girls being abused on video tape thats on you. Thats not where my mind will go when I hear the song.
The **** is wrong with Leonard?
All of this is jokes?
This makes it worse for dude given he is a rapist.