The controversy continues to escalate following the triumph of "Per sempre sì" at the 2026 Sanremo Music Festival. The song, performed by Sal Da Vinci, the Italian singer-songwriter chosen to represent Italy at Eurovision, has become a source of cultural and political conflict.
The discussion was sparked by a speech by Professor Barbara Poggio, full professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Research at the University of Trento, published in Il Dolomiti.
The teacher expressed doubts about the relational model portrayed in the song, citing lines like "without you, it's worthless, there's no point in living," which she believed fueled an all-encompassing vision of love. According to Poggio, that type of emotional vocabulary, in some cases, had preceded episodes of violence, including femicide.
The social wave and personal attacks
The academic's words divided the public: on the one hand, it sparked a debate about sentimental language in popular music; on the other, in the days following the victory, there was a sharp escalation on social media.
Sal Da Vinci has been the target of insults and offensive content, including AI-generated videos showing Mount Vesuvius erupting. These attacks, according to various online reactions, have often taken on the character of territorial prejudice, shifting the discussion far beyond music criticism.
Borrelli's response: "Criticism, yes, but this goes too far."
Francesco Emilio Borrelli, MP for the Green and Left Alliance, spoke out on the matter. "Cultural debate is always legitimate, and no one is questioning academic freedom," he stated, "but linking a love song to the topic of femicide is crossing a line."
For Borrelli, "Per sempre sì" "tells of a promise of marriage, a shared life plan, a romantic and traditional love" and "there's no glorification of violence or possession in the lyrics." The MP then praised the singer's artistic career: "He has a long apprenticeship behind him, made of sacrifice, study, and determination. The success he's experiencing is well-deserved."
"Unacceptable hatred, gender violence must be fought with concrete tools."
Borrelli finally condemned the climate that has developed online: "The insults and offensive videos that have been circulating in recent days are unacceptable. Dissent is legitimate, but when it degenerates into personal attacks or territorial prejudice, it abandons civilized dialogue."
"Gender violence is a very serious issue and must be addressed with concrete tools," she added, "not attributing responsibility to a song it doesn't have." She concluded: "Popular music conveys emotions: it can be analyzed, criticized, discussed. But it cannot become the symbolic target of tensions that belong to other levels of public debate."
Source EDITORIAL TEAM
Comments (2)
It seems to me that the issue has been overstated. Not everything can be the fault of a song. The professor may have exaggerated in linking love phrases with violence, but social media responded with insults and territorial prejudices. The politician also seems unclear; the discussion should have been more calm and with fewer personal attacks.
Oh, poor us! First toxic love, and now even femicide! I truly hope the professor didn't mean this, otherwise she should be advised to seek a truly good therapist! Are we to conclude, then, that every man who declares exclusive and unconditional love for a woman, combined with absolute, long-lasting dedication (things which, incidentally, are increasingly rare in today's world), would be at risk of being convicted of femicide? Conversely, the "men" (and I really want to use quotation marks) who constantly insult and discredit many poor women, not to mention those who do much worse, are completely fine in the eyes of the illustrious professor? And furthermore, has the professor never had any objections to the lyrics of various "trappers" and the like, who constantly spew out tons of violence, profanity, and discrimination against women? These lyrics, in her opinion, are perfectly fine, while a song expressing true love and a deep, lasting affection for a woman must be considered dangerous? Must we then resign ourselves to the spread of a completely upside-down worldview? Or, without wishing to be gloomy, could it be that the "problem" lies in the fact that the song is sung by a Neapolitan? I wonder then: would all the criticisms and speculations leveled against Sal Da Vinci, now rightfully considered a masterpiece of surrealism, have ever arisen if the person proposing such lyrics had been a singer, say, from Bolzano, the city where the "eminent professor" teaches? Of course, assuming, with all due respect, that this city boasts a singing tradition...