Um... You should check your shakespeare again. Often, if not always, the bard was skeptical of notions like love--not surprisingly in a historical context in which romantic unions were largely overdetermined by economic and political structures. If we look at the most overripe and oft mentioned love story Romeo and Juliet it is apparent that the protagonists' "love" is whimsical and fleeting as well as dangerous. If you are looking for more genuine relationships in Shakespeare I'd check the male ones i.e. Romeo and Mercucio, The Two Noble Kinsman etc. This is not to embrace a Shakespeare is gay argument but to suggest that representations of sexual relationships, elegant or otherwise, can be very complex once you take into account narrative, irony, metaphor and other figurative tactics.

To relate this to your condemnation of explicit lyrics, the urge to purge is problematic. The examples of James Brown and Rick James boils down to how direct the language is and the only answer to such a criticism seems to be censorship. Put another way, the objectification of women in the form of vulgar language does not seem, neccessarily, any more damaging than when it is manifested as the content of inocuous love songs about possessing or having possessed a female love object--both render women the property of men. This is not to say that there are no differences or that these differences do not matter but simply condemning bad language seems to miss the point.