Are We Skewing The Meaning of (Beach Boys) Songs?

[Rick5150]

I have read a few comments about some of the Beach Boys "inappropriate" lyrics or "grown men singing about being in school chasing girls" and such.

I agree that if you know the ages of the guys singing, it can be weird. But is it possible that the songs are/were written in a manner where the listener is supposed to assume an age-appropriate relationship or desire? Or that the writer is reminiscing a bit?

It is only the listener that adds the creepiness factor to some songs by assuming the song is about old guys chasing young girls. People like the girl/boy songs. Older songwriters music - if written with an age appropriate pen - would probably be lost on the younger generation. By singing "young" it enables the listener to relate if they are in the younger age bracket, or if they are older, they will remember the way it felt to be chasing girls rather than worrying about getting enough fiber in their diet.

Music is an escape and the writer can be anyone he/she wants. We are the ones projecting age-inappropriate thoughts.

[HeyJude]

I have read a few comments about some of the Beach Boys "inappropriate" lyrics or "grown men singing about being in school chasing girls" and such.

I agree that if you know the ages of the guys singing, it can be weird. But is it possible that the songs are/were written in a manner where the listener is supposed to assume an age-appropriate relationship or desire? Or that the writer is reminiscing a bit?

It is only the listener that adds the creepiness factor to some songs by assuming the song is about old guys chasing young girls. People like the girl/boy songs. Older songwriters music - if written with an age appropriate pen - would probably be lost on the younger generation. By singing "young" it enables the listener to relate if they are in the younger age bracket, or if they are older, they will remember the way it felt to be chasing girls rather than worrying about getting enough fiber in their diet.

Music is an escape and the writer can be anyone he/she wants. We are the ones projecting age-inappropriate thoughts.

That's one way of looking at it, and certainly I don't think the potentially weird/creepy lyrics the band sang had any nefarious motives behind them.

But I think it's ridiculous to say that it's *all" on a fan or listener for thinking, say, "Hey Little Tomboy" or "Lazy Lizzie" are creepy and arguably inappropriate. I think even most fans who might find the songs kind of objectively creepy ultimately cut the band and Brian some slack because we know how he was writing those songs from a place of almost stunning obliviousness as to how someone might find them weird.

But it's actually more the band's *performance* of songs that aren't necessarily age-appropriate that, in my mind, is more open to criticism than the writing of those songs (in the sense that they could have given the songs to age-appropriate artists to sing, in theory in anyway). In the case of songs actually written *during* their youth, there's certainly a lot more leeway and understanding for why they wrote them that way then and even, arguably, why they continued to perform them into their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, etc.

But when the BBs were around the age of 40 writing songs like "Lazy Lizzie", I don't think it's just a reflection of a listener's mind to point out how objectively it's creepy. I think the writer is open to criticism, especially from a simple "music criticism" point of view. Nobody is saying the cops should have broken down Brian's door and questioned him about the song or anything. It's simply a matter of "Um, yeah, that's a little weird. Devoted and scholarly fans will tend to understand Brian's level of obliviousness in writing from a teenager point of view, but can also note how objectively and perhaps even to some of our own individual tastes, some songs are weird and not always easy to listen to."

Back to one of the original questions posed above, I certainly HOPE the point of writing songs from a teen point of view when they were in their late 30s or early 40s (or later) was that we're supposed to assume the singer/speaker is of the correct age. I have to assume Mike nor Brian were suggesting their 37-year-old selves were going to teach the little tomboy "to ki-hi-hisssss" or that they were going to show her how to "feel just like thi-hi-hissss." I would assume and hope Brian at age 34/35 was projecting back to being a teenager and not assuming listeners should picture a 34-year-old Brian Wilson following Lizzie as she was walking home from school.

I think there are cases where lyrics are ambiguous enough and not obviously inappropriate where maybe we are indeed seeing more the psyche of the person analyzing the lyrics. "A boy bumped into her wonderful", or even the apparent now-antiquated meaning of "making love" as described in that other thread, might fall into this category. But especially with something like "making love", I think that's more simply a case of a lot of people not being familiar with the etymology or history of that term.

Other things, like the aforementioned "Hey Little Tomboy" or "Lazy Lizzie", do not. And yes, I do know those are two of the more extreme examples.

[Will C.]

Yup, seems pretty innocent to me 

https://youtu.be/tfLDXv9cdWU?t=20m46s

"I'd Like To Pick You Up..." is this a revelation that "I Wanna Pick You Up" from Love You is indeed more dirty-minded than some think? Perhaps we'll never know...

[KDS]

In all honesty, the only song in the BB catalog that I would label as creepy is Summer of Love.  The way Mike sings the verses sound to me like a guy who's not allowed to give out Halloween candy. 

[Emily]

Hey Little Tomboy is creepy no matter what the age of the protagonist. Lazy Lizzy is only not creepy and stalkerly if you imagine Lizzy and the protagonist are good friends or family, which is a stretch of a read.

[filledeplage]

Hey Little Tomboy is creepy no matter what the age of the protagonist. Lazy Lizzy is only not creepy and stalkerly if you imagine Lizzy and the protagonist are good friends or family, which is a stretch of a read.

Emily - Boomers (and those generations earlier) would often refer to a girl who would climb a tree (generally reserved for the "boys") as "tom boys."  It has more to do with athleticism in girls and women which was not accepted as widely as today.  It was almost a term of endearment, back then, even if it is not considered in that way now.  One would overhear aunts, uncles, even grandparents lamenting that a girl would be doing what the boys were doing, and should go "put on a dress" and be a "young lady" rather than engage in what was perceived as "boys only" activities. They would have preferred that girls stayed in and played with their Barbie dolls.

It was, in my view a prefiguration, in the literary sense of girls breaking the glass ceiling in sports (and other areas)  and the basis for Title 9, in the school/academic context in the US to provide girls equal opportunity in athletics.

"Tomboys" have more to do with a breaking with sex stereotype than a "mind in the gutter" connotation.  It reminds me of Brian's "The Waltz" (also authored by Van Dyke Parks) which is also a throwback concept of "girls in their angora sweaters" - which someone from the 50's or early 60's would readily understand.  I get that younger people would find it creepy but support that Brian was coming from a very innocent place.  That is not to say that the sexual innuendo thing was not present in some of the music.  It was.  But, these two Brian songs are very innocent.  There is an interview on Youtube where Brian discusses the genesis of the song.

Too bad the boys had "to wait for the girls to grow up and put on a dress" - in the meantime, they could enjoy the company of young ladies who had manifest a level of athleticism, which was less accepted as an acceptable concept for girls.  

Girls were breaking athletic stereotypical barriers, climbing trees and playing baseball.  

[Emily]

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

[HeyJude]

The potential sexism or gender stereotyping found in a song like "Hey Little Tomboy" is one thing, and some could argue we could cut them some slack for the song being 40 years old (some would argue we shouldn't of course).

But I think, as Emily pointed out, the issue with something like "Hey Little Tomboy" (and "Lazy Lizzie") is *age*, not gender stereotypes.

I think most of us would agree (hopefully) that Mike and Brian (as singers and/or writers) were projecting back to being of the appropriate age. But there's still something unsettling about a guy in his late 30s singing those lyrics. However innocent or oblivious the guys were, it had the appearance of utter creepiness.

That "Hey Little Tomboy" (especially in its unreleased iteration with spoken word interlude that gets even creepier and more offensive) exhibits both sexism/gender stereotyping *and* a weird lewd vibe by virtue of the age of the subject versus the vocalist (and arguably the writers as well) just makes that particular one worse.

I have to imagine the compilers of "MIU Album" (Al being one; though someone can correct me if he had nothing to do with resurrecting "Hey Little Tomboy" from the vaults for that album) just really liked the melody and music on "Hey Little Tomboy", and at least had the sense to remove the spoken word bit. But yeah, the song is still weird. Seriously, in both humorous and serious contexts, I've played these songs to non-fans and they uniformly think the mere existence of these two songs is unbelievable. At least I can tell them they left "Lazy Lizzie" in the vaults. That one would be arguably pretty creepy even if the writer was a teenager.

Thankfully, neither of these songs has the musical wonderment of something like "This Whole World", so if we need a weird offbeat late 70s Brian vibe, we can go to more innocuous stuff like "Johnny Carson" or "Solar System" or "We Gotta Groove."

[filledeplage]

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation. 

   

[Emily]

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.  

  

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

[filledeplage]

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

Emily - if you were called a tomboy - it may have been a recogntion (even an outdated one) that you had a certain parity alongside the boys. 

Even Queen Elizabeth worked on trucks during World War II.  It was a recognition of parity.  Did that make her a tomboy or a greasemoney?  And, I'm not thinking that Brian had an evil sexualization or objectification thing going on and did not get that from that interview. 

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips, rather than Sport Illustrated or swapping Beatlles cards instead of baseball cards.  It was a compliment, I think, because even though she engages in stereotypically male activities, it probably won't last forever.  Sex stereotypes were more profound and articulated, before the 80's.  I think Title 9 was 1979.

[Emily]

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips,

Exactly. That's exactly what's creepy.

[filledeplage]

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips,

Exactly. That's exactly what's creepy.

That might be a fair and absolute concern as a parent of a girl in these days, but in those days, there was no photoshop to manipulate body image. 

There were generally normal (Cybill Shepherd, for example) and average healthy weight models.   Today, I would be concerned about healthy body image but during the era of that music, I don't think that was the case.

The focus and emphasis, was on the clothing and designers, and makeup use, (blue eyeshadow and white lipstick come to mind)  -  more than the unhealthy body image.   By today's fashion standards, the clothing was puritanical.     

[CenturyDeprived]

The potential sexism or gender stereotyping found in a song like "Hey Little Tomboy" is one thing, and some could argue we could cut them some slack for the song being 40 years old (some would argue we shouldn't of course).

But I think, as Emily pointed out, the issue with something like "Hey Little Tomboy" (and "Lazy Lizzie") is *age*, not gender stereotypes.

I think most of us would agree (hopefully) that Mike and Brian (as singers and/or writers) were projecting back to being of the appropriate age. But there's still something unsettling about a guy in his late 30s singing those lyrics. However innocent or oblivious the guys were, it had the appearance of utter creepiness.

That "Hey Little Tomboy" (especially in its unreleased iteration with spoken word interlude that gets even creepier and more offensive) exhibits both sexism/gender stereotyping *and* a weird lewd vibe by virtue of the age of the subject versus the vocalist (and arguably the writers as well) just makes that particular one worse.

I have to imagine the compilers of "MIU Album" (Al being one; though someone can correct me if he had nothing to do with resurrecting "Hey Little Tomboy" from the vaults for that album) just really liked the melody and music on "Hey Little Tomboy", and at least had the sense to remove the spoken word bit. But yeah, the song is still weird. Seriously, in both humorous and serious contexts, I've played these songs to non-fans and they uniformly think the mere existence of these two songs is unbelievable. At least I can tell them they left "Lazy Lizzie" in the vaults. That one would be arguably pretty creepy even if the writer was a teenager.

Thankfully, neither of these songs has the musical wonderment of something like "This Whole World", so if we need a weird offbeat late 70s Brian vibe, we can go to more innocuous stuff like "Johnny Carson" or "Solar System" or "We Gotta Groove."

I wonder if the "shave your legs" section of Tomboy was cut due to someone realizing how creepy that line is, that this line finally crossed the line and went too far... or if it was simply cut for timing, since that part of the original version of the song - regardless of lyrical content - does run on too long, and the song is tighter as a whole with those bars removed. Maybe it's a case of both reasons simultaneously, but I could almost believe that it was a song timing issue, and nothing more. I wonder...

[Don Malcolm]

At the risk of raising hackles in several directions at once: aren't these songs examples of Brian's lyrics? And don't both these tracks ("Tomboy" and "Lizzie") originate from the full-court press that was "Brian is back," a point in time when his overall aptitude and judgment regarding song composition might well have been, er, a bit "compromised"?

I think one could concoct a theory that Brian tossed these tunes out as a passive-aggressive, parodic paw-swipe at Mike and his desire to take the band back into a "teenage" zeitgeist that had long since played out in terms of innocent "fun fun fun." After all, we know that Mike loved another salacious track--"Roller Skating Child"--so much that he insinuated himself into the (role of) lead lecher ,--er, lead vocal.

Never underestimate Brian's ability to play his own brand of mind games with Mike. Watching Brian explain "Hey Little Tomboy" in the filmed interview I sense he is in vintage "put on" mode, with the over-earnest, slightly sweaty apologetic explication of the song's lyrics...it's just another way for him to create some quiet mayhem on his own while reinforcing the band's status as the downright strangest major rock band of all time.

[Emily]

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips,

Exactly. That's exactly what's creepy.

That might be a fair and absolute concern as a parent of a girl in these days, but in those days, there was no photoshop to manipulate body image. 

There were generally normal (Cybill Shepherd, for example) and average healthy weight models.   Today, I would be concerned about healthy body image but during the era of that music, I don't think that was the case.

The focus and emphasis, was on the clothing and designers, and makeup use, (blue eyeshadow and white lipstick come to mind)  -  more than the unhealthy body image.   By today's fashion standards, the clothing was puritanical.     

I'm not talking about body image. I'm talking about a male lurking around a not-yet-sexualized girl prodding her toward 'feminizing' herself to be more sexually acceptable.

[filledeplage]

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips,

Exactly. That's exactly what's creepy.

That might be a fair and absolute concern as a parent of a girl in these days, but in those days, there was no photoshop to manipulate body image. 

There were generally normal (Cybill Shepherd, for example) and average healthy weight models.   Today, I would be concerned about healthy body image but during the era of that music, I don't think that was the case.

The focus and emphasis, was on the clothing and designers, and makeup use, (blue eyeshadow and white lipstick come to mind)  -  more than the unhealthy body image.   By today's fashion standards, the clothing was puritanical.     

I'm not talking about body image. I'm talking about a male lurking around a not-yet-sexualized girl prodding her toward 'feminizing' herself to be more sexually acceptable.

It does not strike me in the same way. It is more of an aspirational wishful-thinking mode. 

The tense is in the present progressive /bordering on the future "I'm going to...

and you "could" does not suggest immediacy but at some future time.   Wishful thinking.   

[Robbie Mac]

[Robbie Mac]

This is a guy who married an underage girl (yes, he was 22 - but she was still underage). This is a guy who also wrote "Girl Don't Tell Me" and "The Little Girl I Once Knew". Brian, in song, had a thing for jail bait. At least back in the 60's.

I can totally buy his middle-aged jailbait songs as passive-agressive put ons directed toward his developnentally arrested first cousin.

[Emily]

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips,

Exactly. That's exactly what's creepy.

That might be a fair and absolute concern as a parent of a girl in these days, but in those days, there was no photoshop to manipulate body image. 

There were generally normal (Cybill Shepherd, for example) and average healthy weight models.   Today, I would be concerned about healthy body image but during the era of that music, I don't think that was the case.

The focus and emphasis, was on the clothing and designers, and makeup use, (blue eyeshadow and white lipstick come to mind)  -  more than the unhealthy body image.   By today's fashion standards, the clothing was puritanical.     

I'm not talking about body image. I'm talking about a male lurking around a not-yet-sexualized girl prodding her toward 'feminizing' herself to be more sexually acceptable.

It does not strike me in the same way. It is more of an aspirational wishful-thinking mode. 

The tense is in the present progressive /bordering on the future "I'm going to...

and you "could" does not suggest immediacy but at some future time.   Wishful thinking.   

creepy, grooming, wishful thinking.

[filledeplage]

Yeah. I knew all that. Thanks. None-the-less, a song about sexual interest in a not-yet-matured girl and coaching her in how to sexualize herself is creepy, no matter how you cut it.

Emily - if you listen to Brian in his interview, it might be difficult to arrive at that conclusion.  The guy is on "the sidelines" - and at equal ages, boys would look at athletic girls as "tomboys." And, no, you don't "know all that," if you didn't hear it firsthand, in it's innocent context.  Think of Norman Rockwell.  It is that kind of connotation.    

I do 'know all that' as I was frequently called a 'tomboy' when I was young. I don't object to calling someone a Tomboy. I object to the *guy* (no matter his age) training the *girl* how to sexualize herself. It's gross.

It was more like waiting for the girl to read Seventeen Magazine, for the latest fashion and makeup tips,

Exactly. That's exactly what's creepy.

That might be a fair and absolute concern as a parent of a girl in these days, but in those days, there was no photoshop to manipulate body image. 

There were generally normal (Cybill Shepherd, for example) and average healthy weight models.   Today, I would be concerned about healthy body image but during the era of that music, I don't think that was the case.

The focus and emphasis, was on the clothing and designers, and makeup use, (blue eyeshadow and white lipstick come to mind)  -  more than the unhealthy body image.   By today's fashion standards, the clothing was puritanical.     

I'm not talking about body image. I'm talking about a male lurking around a not-yet-sexualized girl prodding her toward 'feminizing' herself to be more sexually acceptable.

It does not strike me in the same way. It is more of an aspirational wishful-thinking mode. 

The tense is in the present progressive /bordering on the future "I'm going to...

and you "could" does not suggest immediacy but at some future time.   Wishful thinking.   

creepy, grooming, wishful thinking.

Sorry I don't think that way about Brian.  It looks innocent enough and not predatory as you suggest. 

[Lonely Summer]

This is a guy who married an underage girl (yes, he was 22 - but she was still underage). This is a guy who also wrote "Girl Don't Tell Me" and "The Little Girl I Once Knew". Brian, in song, had a thing for jail bait. At least back in the 60's.

I can totally buy his middle-aged jailbait songs as passive-agressive put ons directed toward his developnentally arrested first cousin.

I thought Marilyn was 16 when they married? That is legal age in some states. He wasn't Jerry Lee Lewis, marrying his 13 year old cousin!

[Debbie KL]

I think, as a woman who was experiencing all of this at that time and at that age, I can possibly address this with a certain perspective. Not only was sexism acceptable at that time, it was highly marketable.  I don't think that was lost on the BBs.

I was very clear in the 80's that I not only had to be very bright and hard-working, but that I had to look good doing it to be successful in West LA.  When I worked with stockbrokers in Beverly Hills, I endured one of them coming up behind me (early in the morning when there weren't observers around) and grab my breasts as I sat working at my desk.  I said nothing, and avoided the guy after that.  Later, I had a man grab my thigh as I was walking down a hallway carrying a load of materials for a meeting at another job.  Again, I said nothing and avoided him after that.

Sadly, that was how it was then if a woman wanted to have a good job and keep it.  So the lyrics reflected the times, as awful as that part of it was.  Men could be blatantly sexual in their approach to young women and it was "cute" - maybe even "clever" sometimes.  In fact, it was expected, and selling it with a certain wink and leering expression was also expected.  Funny to them, I'm sure.  And we women were expecting it and dealt with it as best we could.

I think that's why the Cosby's are so thrown by what's happening to them now.  He was a big man and women would do nearly anything sexually to get ahead through what he "required" for their success.  It's horrible, but that's how it was.  The BBs were playing to that vast, dominant audience.

Sexuality is obviously a huge part of what human's are doing, and the BBs addressed that on an obviously regular basis through the lyrics.  I'm not condoning it.  I'm simply saying that they were a product of their times.  There was nothing wrong then with a TV ad for an airline showing hot young flight attendants with a song, "we really move our tails for you."  Another airline had their female flight attendants in hot pants. Male passengers would dump things on the aisle floor so that the women would have to bend over. It's how we lived then.

Be glad that your daughters don't have to live like that.  And make sure that you elect the right people so that they don't have to deal with it in the future.

The BBs lyrics were reflecting the times, and those times would certainly be considered creepy today.

[Emily]

Debbie, I agree. And, on the creepy scale even in current culture this is fairly low.
As someone who's read a lot of history I've come to accept that almost everyone I admire has said or done or written something sexist/racist/classist, etc. because they are all humans living with and being influenced by other humans. I don't feel any need for denial nor do I think it necessarily says much about the person. As you indicate it more often says things about that person's time. Obviously if I was born in Georgia in 1840, I would have very different ideas about race than I do, not because I'm different, but because the culture I live in is different. But surely we can read a document written then, recognize the racism in the document, use it to learn about the times, but not condemn the writer.
I don't throw out all novels written before 1995 and condemn all the writers, even though just about every instance contains sexism. Most still do of course.
Brian Wilson was pressured to write along a formula of teenage boy-girl themes. Someone that age writing such a thing is at risk of creepiness. And, as you said, it was a creepy milieu. And there are worse things written then and now.
So, creepy lyrics; not creepy writer. Has happened before, will happen again.

[Debbie KL]

Debbie, I agree. And, on the creepy scale even in current culture this is fairly low.
As someone who's read a lot of history I've come to accept that almost everyone I admire has said or done or written something sexist/racist/classist, etc. because they are all humans living with and being influenced by other humans. I don't feel any need for denial nor do I think it necessarily says much about the person. As you indicate it more often says things about that person's time. Obviously if I was born in Georgia in 1840, I would have very different ideas about race than I do, not because I'm different, but because the culture I live in is different. But surely we can read a document written then, recognize the racism in the document, use it to learn about the times, but not condemn the writer.
I don't throw out all novels written before 1995 and condemn all the writers, even though just about every instance contains sexism. Most still do of course.
Brian Wilson was pressured to write along a formula of teenage boy-girl themes. Someone that age writing such a thing is at risk of creepiness. And, as you said, it was a creepy milieu. And there are worse things written then and now.
So, creepy lyrics; not creepy writer. Has happened before, will happen again.

Emily - so well-said.  It's cultural.  There are still places on the planet (plenty of them), where women have to wear a burka so that they don't provoke sexual feelings in surrounding males.  Monotheism seems to have focused on sex - and the related desires - as being bad.  Frankly, I think due to that conditioning, we have no idea what to do with it - so we are creeped-out, etc. Because it's been so perverted in our minds over a few millennia, we all have problems thanks to that programming.  It's pretty sad, since it's fundamental to humans, but I'm as screwed up by the programming as anyone else, so I don't have the answer, other than trying to raise our kids/grandkids to be okay with their feelings.