Return

In response to sugargirl_tn's comment: certainly, the BDSM references in this song (and that the narrator is the bottom, though it's not clear that this is by voluntary choice on his part) are pretty bloody obvious! OTOH, I strongly suspect that not all of Robert's lyrics (even those written in the first person) actually express his perspective. (He does, after all, have a glorious sense of irony.) While he's a much more private person than are more typical celebrities — for example, AFAIK he has never discussed his sexuality with the media even in very general terms — he strikes me as someone who, if he should indeed be into BDSM, would probably be a switch — and whatever his preference, I doubt he would wish to be labelled as either a "top" or a bottom (or perhaps even as a "switch"). The basis for this speculation is that Smith has always struck me as someone who doesn't care what others think, who rejects labels, categories, etc. Rather than joining some preexisting group, he has always been one to choose his own lifestyle, motivated not by fashion or fad but by what he finds most appealing. (Of course, he rejected particular styles only to find himself becoming one of the people whom others imitated: most famously — and ironically — he was the unwitting model for the "goth" style.) Binary role divisions (like top/bottom) and other categorisations are examples of the type of social conventions that he (often quite bravely) rejected. I expect many Cure fans have heard the story of how as a boy Robert once wore a dress to school: I believe this is an example of the sort of refusal to be lumped into categories (in this case, gender). I also recall that he did not like it when people tried to describe The Cure as falling into various categories like "punk," "post-punk," "goth" etc.

Of course, even for those who do not like this type of category, it does seem that in general we don't get to choose our sexuality: either something turns you on or it doesn't! Still,

Whether or not Smith is expressing his own preferences, it's a very sexy song!

The element of this song that I find most curious is one that was left out of the lyrics as given above: the speaking clock. It's hilarious, mind you, but I have no idea whatsoever what it might mean or symbolise. Indeed, the only reason I can't quite bring myself to dismiss it as being included purely for its admittedly vast humour value is that the time is given as 3:01AM at the beginning and 2:57AM at the end of the song. "Return" is about three and a half minutes long, so this would be perfectly innocuous if it weren't for the, err, directional issue. One can see why the narrator would be having a sense that something a little bit peculiar is going on. I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this, even in light of the small number of comments on this song.

I won't rule out the possibility that this is one of those odd little accidents that sometimes happen, like such song titles as "Inbetween Days" and "Lovesong." (In both these cases it seems that a space was unintentionally left out, but even though it was present in some other places, the quirky titles have pretty much become the accepted forms, instead of "In Between Days" and "Love Song.") It might be that the backward time was the result of this sort of accident. But that doesn't mean we can't come up with some rationalisation for it! (Remember: you can go a day without sex, but can you go a day without a rationalisation?)