Originally Posted by Bill Draper
But I just repeated what FD said. Sorry, didn’t mean to pile on. What the audience hears….is the writers responsibility…if the general language is perceived as sexual….that is the writers fault, if that was not the overall intent.

Your message is….we hear what we want to hear…I know. But only because you explained that. No?

PS
Good hook? =

Didn’t mean to pile on

Thanks, Bill. That's actually thoughtful feedback, and I think I understand what you're saying.
You're right that if most listeners hear the song one way, that's something the writer has to pay attention to. I don't disagree with that.
Where we may differ is that, in this case, I intentionally wrote the lyric as a double entendre. I wanted listeners to project their own meaning onto "it" rather than me defining it. So if one person hears love, another hears a melody, and someone else hears something sexual, I don't see any of those as "wrong." To me, that's the experiment.
You also make a fair point about whether the deeper idea comes across without my explanation. That's something I'll think about. Maybe the song succeeds simply as a playful double entendre, and maybe the philosophical layer is too subtle. Either way, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your thoughts.