Is it okay that the object goes before the subject?

People saying this doesn't happen in casual speech aren't being imaginative enough; it absolutely does.

It's topicalization, and it's fine to do in limited doses. "Now those I've never eaten!"

Yeah this is fine.

It's fine sometimes. This can be rearranged to read, "I've never tried girls." These would also work: Corvettes I've never driven. Pecans I can never stand! The government I do not trust. It's not a common usage, but it can be used for emphasis.

it's sort of rushing through this: "Boys suck! And Girls? I've never tried \[them\]"

chappell roan!!!!

I’d use some punctuation here but it is ok

Yes in a poem grammar gets thrown out the window. This flows fine.

That is 100% fine. Also, is that poetry? The rules, which are always relaxed, are even more relaxed in that format.

Word order in English is kind of weird. This isn't to say that word order doesn't matter at all or can't change the meaning but there's a surprising amount of flexibility when it comes to communicating an idea So to use your example, the technically correct way would be "I've never tried girls" but "girls I've never tried" "never have I tried girls" "Never girls have I tried" "Girls never have I tried" Would all basically be understood by fluent speakers to mean roughly the same thing. The 4 technically incorrect versions may sound a little weird but generally an English speaker would understand what you're trying to communicate. Now this isn't to say word order can't change the meaning of a sentence so please try and stick with the word orders that you're being taught. The main reason I bring this up is that because of this a lot of English language poems and songs play with word order to get a certain rhythm or rhyme scheme. Generally it's a good idea to not get too many ideas about grammar from poems or songs

in lyrics and poetry the normal rules and guidelines about grammar are basically optional.

Great question! I’ve never thought about this. I use this kind of construction all the time. Just want to add a few things I haven’t seen in the comments. First, this construction carries a slightly lighthearted, informal and funny tone and in my opinion makes the speaker sound wise. Second, and this is important, this construction is ONLY used when comparing things to other things. If I were to just say “Piano I’m pretty good at.” it sounds incomplete and wrong. A sentence like that HAS TO come alongside something you’re comparing it to. “I can’t play violin at all, but piano I’m pretty good at.” sounds correct. This construction often carries the same implied meaning as if you had used the phrase “though” or “on the other hand” and you can use those phrases as well. “This trail is nice and easy; that one, on the other hand, there’s a lot of steep drops and you gotta be careful.” If someone were to tell me “You, I like.” i know right away that there’s someone else they don’t like. It’s often used to express a personal opinion you are sharing, like you’re letting the listener in on a secret, or advice you are sharing based on personal experience. And as others have pointed out, it’s used for emphasis and indicates that you’re speaking casually and freely about the subject.

I found it easy to think of it as a backward sentence when I was young. While it's common to leave the subject for last, you can introduce the subject of a sentence first without breaking any rules, which can sometimes be better. "I've never done this" Vs "This, I've never done." In this example, "This" is the subject, and in its second use, it takes the role of the introductory phrase to the main clause. Even as I type this, the sentence "which can sometimes be better" can also be written, "which sometimes, can be better", which follows the same rules. Not sure if that clarifies anything.

It's somewhat poetic but not wrong. Word order is important in English because we've lost the inflections that indicate parts of speech, like for direct objects and indirect objects. But in cases like this it's used to get the right poetic meter or rhyming, or just to make it flowery. It's fine as long as it's not ambiguous. Normally the phrase "girls I've never tried" would be a noun with a restrictive clause, defining the set of girls that the speaker has never tried. In this case it means "I've never tried girls."

Yeah very normal

Yoda-speak

It’s okay in poetry and song lyrics but unusual for typical conversational use or anything that isn’t literary/creative.

in a song or poem? yes. but you wouldn’t do that in conversation.

I would discourage using this construction if you can help it. Like someone else said, fine in small doses. 

Yes. It's often used in poetry and song Off-topic, but I love this song! Especially fitting as I'm literally in my 20s going to university in Manhattan hahaha

Yes, there are cases where this is appropriate. One way to think of it is the Object being listed as a category with the rest of the sentence following. In this case, you can kind of think of it as "Girls: I've never tried." It's not the standard sentence structure, but it is commonly used. Something else to keep in mind is that this appears to be a poem. It's very common in poetry to take grammatical rules as suggestions rather than actual rules. Depending on the overall structure of the poem, maintaining the rhythm of the sentance can be more important than having the proper grammar. This line could read "Boys suck and I've never tried girls" but that doesn't have the same meter. If we look at syllabic emphasis, the line here reads: >Boys **suck** and **girls** I've **nev**er **tried** That's iambic tetrameter, a fairly standard poetic form. But, if we look at the option rearranged with the object at the end, it looks like: >Boys **suck** and I've **nev**er **tried** **girls** Of course, the emphasis of the single syllable words can be a bit adjusted in the recitation if the poem was read out loud. But, "never" can't easily be adjusted. We could try reciting it in trochaic tetrameter as: >**Boys** suck **and** I've **nev**er **tried** girls That's functional, but it's a little forced for where the emphasis of the words naturally wants to fall in spoken English. A good performer could probably sell it, but it wouldn't come across naturally when written. In any case, the iamb is the more popular metrical foot in English poetry (it was a favorite of Shakespeare) so it's the more popular choice. The poet uses an iambic meter a lot in this poem. Not exclusively, because they seem to be writing in Free Verse and aren't trying to keep the entire poem in one structure. Based on my quick glance, it seems as though every other line is iambic and under that pattern, it fits for the highlighted line to also be iambic.

It's common in lists, and for exaggeration

Like others have said it’s mainly used for poetic exaggeration. Kind of like “never have I ever”, you’re emphasising what you have NEVER done.

Chappell roan mentioned

This is an unusual but still grammatically correct sentence. Perfectly acceptable in written dialog, novels, stories, and poetry.

It’s fine sometimes. Also this looks to be a poem of sorts, I would generally avoid trying to use to Poems to learn grammar rules and syntax as it’s very common for them to use odd and incorrect grammar for the sake of artistic purposes.

Yes, it's okay in causal speech; I think it might help to see it as a shortening of "(As for) X, I've never tried (X)"

A word of advice. Learning grammar from songs is probably not the best idea since artists will bend the rules for the sake of the art.

These kinds of grammatical rearrangements are common in song lyrics, it allows for flexibility in cadence for lyric setting. Basically, it's allowed because it sounds better than the alternative.

Yep! There's two times this structure can appear, and they're different! So this is what we call "fronting" or "object-fronting", and it's simply to put focus on the object. "Girls I've never tried" just means "I haven't tried girls" but the 'topic' so to speak, is "girls". It isn't so rare but you also won't hear it every day, think of it as "As for girls, I've never tried them" - that's pretty much always how it's interpreted in current English. There's more to it than that though, when you front the object, you focus on the object - this can imply a few things. Primarily, it implies or expresses a contradiction to another object, for example, "I've not visited America, but Canada I've been to" - here I've fronted Canada to indicate contrast, I'm letting the listener know that *even though I haven't been America*, ***I've still been Canada.*** Now I've got to note that in lyrics, this is not what is going on most of the time. If you look at these lyrics, every line ends in a syllable with the same vowel, so this has probably been done just to preserve the rhyme. Lyrics can be tricky because they often use slightly unnatural language, or 'unnecessary' (but not necessarily wrong) grammatical structures to adhere to rhyme and meter. The second time this can *seemingly* appear, is in a phrase like "the life I've led". This sounds like the same thing right? the object (the life) proceeding the rest of the phrase, as if it's fronted, but there's a clear difference. "The life I've led" is formed by the omission of the word "that", not by the fronting of an object. Now a more technical analysis of the differences would be that "the life I've led" acts as a single noun phrase, it is a single constituent of the structure - so I can use this phrase as the subject, object, or (at least grammatically, it probably wouldn't make sense) the indirect object. That's to say, I can say "The life I've led has been hard" or "I regret the life I've led", the former case functioning as a subject, and the latter as an object. This is a different structure to "fronting", because the embedded clause ("that I've led") is modifying the noun "the life" whereas in the former case, the object is simply being moved, nothing it being modified and the phrase with the fronted object cannot function as a single noun phrase, because it's an entire clause in of itself. sorry if I went on a bit! TLDR; Yes it's fine!

The real problem here is the missing comma

You could do “Boys suck and girls? I’ve never tried.” But it’s like something a book character would say