'Baby, It's Cold Outside,' Seen As Sexist, Frozen Out By Radio Stations

[zorq]

But others are calling it a "date rape" song, and those calling it a "little bit rapey" are using the same misleading label. Rape is different from seduction and persuasion.
It is a criminal act. Trying to proposition a woman can be rude and inappropriate, but it is not the slightest bit "rapey". Not even a little. Forcing sex on an unwilling partner is. This song does not even get close to crossing the line, and, as you hint, there are far worse songs out there. A vast number actually.

The line you are drawing here is rape. But the trouble is that the song DOES get close to crossing that line, but it doesn't cross it. Which is why it is being described as "a little bit rapey."

Does date rape often involve one person intent on having sex regardless of the opinions of the other person? Yes. Does this song involve one person intent on having sex despite a LONG list of objections from the other person? Yes. Does date rape sometimes involve disabling the other person with drugs to make them more compliant and less likely to resist? Yes. Does this song hint at the same tactic? Yes.

The male vocalist REPEATEDLY refuses to accept her refusals to stay the night. That is approaching the line. The line isn't crossed, but in a different dark mirror universe, this song could have the same beginning and middle, but a very different ending.

There is nothing wrong with describing the song as "a little bit rapey" because it is.

One more example: I might call the holiday family comedy movie Home Alone "a little dark-ish." It's not "dark" but it has a lot of dark disturbing implications if you think about it. It doesn't cross the line, but it is convenient to describe an artistic creation close to a classification line as "a little _____."

 

[RavenSky]

That seems to have been Kavanaugh's strategy. (Wait! Wasn't he a millennial? Sorry, Poli. ) It is true that there is some playful banter about a drink. The woman asks for half a glass more ("Well maybe just a half a drink more") and then says coyly "Say what's in this drink?". At the end of the song, she asks for another drink. That wasn't about getting her too drunk to resist or slipping her a Mickey. It was about getting her to feel less inhibited. She knew exactly what was in the drink, unlike Cosby's victims.

Here is what Frank Loesser's daughter, Susan Loesser, said about the "drink" issue (See ‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside’ composer’s daughter: ‘It’s not ‘a date rape song’):

“I think it would be good if people looked at the song in the context of the time,” she said. “People used to say ‘what’s in this drink’ as a joke. You know, ‘this drink is going straight to my head so what’s in this drink?’ Back then it didn’t mean you drugged me.”

It is a coercive act.

Sadly, not far enough removed from "persuasion" in the minds of date rapists.

This song simply treads close to the divide between "persuasion" and "coercion". That's why some of us are calling it "a little bit rapey" rather than a "date rape song".

And to be clear, this song is not at all the only one, nor the worst one. It is simply the one someone started a thread about.

But others are calling it a "date rape" song, and those calling it a "little bit rapey" are using the same misleading label. Rape is different from seduction and persuasion. It is a criminal act. Trying to proposition a woman can be rude and inappropriate, but it is not the slightest bit "rapey". Not even a little. Forcing sex on an unwilling partner is. This song does not even get close to crossing the line, and, as you hint, there are far worse songs out there. A vast number actually.

Plying someone with alcohol to get them "uninhibited" is not "persuasion". And if you watch the various film clips of the song, the entire thing from start to finish is the man restraining her from leaving while he is "persuading".

Again, I fully realize that the song is from a very different time, but by today's standard there is simply no reason for anyone to be defending lyrics like this:

Ah, you're very pushy you know?
(I like to think of it as opportunistic)
I simply must go (Baby it's cold outside)
The answer is no (But baby it's cold outside)

She flat out says "no"

Whether she *really meant it* or not is not the point.

 

[ruby sparks]

Whether she *really meant it* or not is not the point.

Isn't it?





Aside from that thorny question, to repeat what I offered earlier, it is possible to read this scene/song as rapey, harmless, neutral, sexy or even progressive. As an example of the latter:

"The song, which is a back and forth, closes with the two voices in harmony. This is important — they’ve come together. They’re happy. They’re in agreement. The music has a wonderfully dramatic upswell and ends on a high note both literally and figuratively. The song ends with the woman doing what she wants to do, not what she’s expected to do, and there’s something very encouraging about that message."

Listening While Feminist: In Defense of “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”
http://persephonemagazine.com/2010/12/listening-while-feminist-in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside/

That is not necessarily my take on the song but I offer it as a counterpoint to illustrate that really, at the end of the day, you are expressing your personal interpretation and nothing more, and you have selected only the lines from the song which support your perspective. The song as a whole (and indeed the acting that accompanies it when it's part of a film) is much more nuanced.

I say that while understanding the reasons that you and others who share your view have concerns about the song, which I would also share, oddly enough, but I think that this is basically not a very good song to cite as an example of rapeyness, and objecting to it might even risk trivilalising the real-world issues around actual date rape, partly because many people are going to think that if this song, of all the songs that could be cited, is the one being exemplified as rapey, then the thought police have arrived.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm gonna throw in another controversial point.

People can generally distinguish between fantasy and reality. The film scene involving this song is the former. As such, it is, and more to the point was, 'a safe place' for women (for example) to playfully explore their romantic/sexual desires. It's a non-real seduction scenario. For starters, Ricardo Montalbán, for example, is playing the role of the the sort of uber-eligble trope that many women would just love to seduce them in his opulent apartment (in their fantasies at least and quite possibly in reality) including when he suavely persists despite their reservations. My guess is that many if not most women watching the film scenes probably just love the goings-on, and similar scenes throughout fiction, for that reason.

To me there is no doubt that in fantasy or fiction, and even in reality a lot of the time, women want men to play their 'traditional' gender role (Mills and Boon might never have made much money otherwise) and even exceed it (see: huge popularity of 50 Shades of Grey among women). See also: rape fantasies.

And now to contradict myself, lol.

Maybe people can't distinguish between fiction/fantasy and reality as much as I suggested. Maybe men who went to the movie, 'Neptune's Daughter' in 1949 came away with the false impression that women's token resistance in such situations (which I believe is actually what was fictionally portrayed in the scene and song) is far more prevalent in real life than it actually is, and/or that it's a simple thing anyway (ie as simple as a 'no', even when it is token resistance, meaning an actual 'yes'). Both these mistakes could be problematical. Men typically misinterpret women's behaviour and words when it comes to matters of sexual intent, in the sense of overestimating the number of times that sexual intent (or even just willingness) on the part of the woman is really there. The slightly unfortunate reality, for us easily-aroused straight guys, is that invariably, in real life, when a woman, especially a woman we don't know very well, says 'no', she means 'no', and that even if it's a token 'no', that doesn't necessarily mean it's a green light anyway. In fact, strictly-speaking, 'yes' doesn't necessarily mean 'yes' either. And just to confound things in the other direction, men sometimes offer token resistance too!

A smart seducer probably knows the difference. There are usually clues available. And if a seducer gets it wrong by erring on the safe side, in most cases there is usually scope for them to take a deep breath, reluctantly adjust their underwear, postpone, discuss it afterwards and possibly have another go at another time. As for this poor guy:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za7jQ1s1BV0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Remember, this a song written for a husband and wife to sing at friend's parties that then got used in a film. The song is about two people who want to have sex with each other. This is a fact; not a guess or opinion or interpretation. The characters both want to have sex with each other, but this was during a time when "good" girls weren't supposed to have sex, let alone want to have sex.

Here is just her "side." It is essentially an inner monologue--her thoughts in real time--where she is trying to come up with any rationale/excuse for staying, not leaving:

I really can't stay. I've got to go away. This evening has been so very nice. My mother will start to worry; my father will be pacing the floor, so really I'd better scurry, but maybe just a half a drink more. The neighbors might think. Say what's in this drink? I wish I knew how to break this spell. I ought to say, no, no, no sir. At least I'm gonna say that I tried. I really can't stay, but baby, it's cold outside. I simply must go. The answer is no. Your welcome has been so nice and warm. My sister will be suspicious. My brother will be there at the door. My maiden aunt's mind is vicious, but maybe just a cigarette more. I've gotta get home. Say lend me a coat. You've really been grand, but don't you see? There's bound to be talk tomorrow. At least there will be plenty implied. I really can't stay. Baby, it's cold, baby, it's cold outside.

Note that no one is plying her with alcohol. The "drink" is not alcoholic. That's the joke. She wishes that it did have alcohol in it so that she could use that as her excuse. Again, that's a fact, not an interpretation. We know this from the songwriter's own daughter. And it is she who first asks for more regardless (just after noting the top of the hit list; her mother and father and what they will be thinking is going on).

In regard to saying "No," she first tells herself that she ought to say "no" which is immediately followed with "At least I'm gonna say that I tried."

Everything in the song is tied to repressive sexual/social mores--mainly for the woman--and her internal struggle with them. I want to stay and fuck, but "my mom and dad would flip, my sister will be suspicious, my brother will be there at the door waiting for me and my maiden Aunt's mind is vicious and what will the neighbors think"? But then in response to that side of the argument she's having with herself, she also says fuck all of that, I'll take another half a drink; I'll stay for just one more cigarette.

And then--finally--she goes back the other way and the social mores win. You've been great, but everyone will talk about it tomorrow--implying something far worse than what the two of us have--so I really can't stay.

And then they both sing: Baby, it's cold--meaning, the sexually repressive world outside--baby, it's cold outside. Double entendre.

Just add in his line from the very end (in parentheses):

I really can't stay (get over that old out)
Baby, it's cold
Baby, it's cold outside.

Get over that old excuse. It's cold (sexually repressed). Then they end in perfect harmony (for the first time in the entire song), saying: Baby, it's cold outside.

It's both physically cold outside AND the sexually repressed mores of their day are outdated and old and both agree. Which is why it's such a brilliant and clever and empowering song (ironically) for women and men of that era. It's saying that two consenting adults should be free from the "old outs"--all of the worries about family and society and "vicious minds" that will imply something sinful was going on--when in fact it's two people having a wonderful time together wanting to have sex without any judgements from society.

To perhaps a lesser extent, the male character is also playing his role in the socially enforced and thus pointless dance that they both know they are doing, but not in any "rapey" sense at all. They are both wanting the cold old world of sexual repression (religious oppression) to leave them alone and let them be free to have sex with each other.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe we could agree on 'seems rapey to some' or if that's asking too much of those expressing concern how about 'carries slightly rapey themes when deconstructed, even if not intended by the writer'?

I confess that I'm quite a fan of postmodern deconstructions and unpacking invisible knapsacks, so long as such things don't go too far.

As far as I'm aware, concerns about the potentially.......iffy.....aspects of this song were raised in previous years. I think that #metoo, the internet age generally and maybe 'The Bill Cosby thing' in particular may be partly to 'blame' for the (arguably too much) fuss being made about it this time around and that there's now a certain amount of distortion and misunderstanding involved.

As for the writer's daughter, Susan Loesser is entitled to her opinion, but really neither she nor even her dad get to own the meaning of the song, even if it was written for a husband and wife to sing at parties, in other words, just because there was no intention to be iffy, which I think we can assume there wasn't. The writer, performers and audiences of the time may have thought it was harmless, sexy and charming. There may even have been an intention by the writer to be progressive, to push boundaries.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Maybe we could agree on 'seems rapey to some' or if that's asking too much of those expressing concern how about 'carries slightly rapey themes when deconstructed, even if not intended by the writer'?

I confess that I'm quite a fan of postmodern deconstructions and unpacking invisible knapsacks, so long as such things don't go too far.

As far as I'm aware, concerns about the potentially.......iffy.....aspects of this song were raised in previous years. I think that #metoo, the internet age generally and maybe 'The Bill Cosby thing' in particular may be partly to 'blame' for the (arguably too much) fuss being made about it this time around and that there's now a certain amount of distortion and misunderstanding involved.

As for the writer's daughter, Susan Loesser is entitled to her opinion, but really neither she nor even her dad get to own the meaning of the song, even if it was written for a husband and wife to sing at parties, in other words, just because there was no intention to be iffy, which I think we can assume there wasn't. The writer, performers and audiences of the time may have thought it was harmless, sexy and charming. There may even have been an intention by the writer to be progressive, to push boundaries.

Well, anything can have rapey themes if someone chooses to interpret it that way. I Saw Mama Kissing Santa Claus could be construed as Santa demanding sexual services from a mother in exchange for giving her children presents. The "Hey" at the ends of the lines of Jingle Bells could be read as what the woman yells out as the man tries to "jingle her bells" during a sleigh ride and then he's just "laughing all the way" at her protestations against getting groped. It would be really fucking dumb to interpret the songs that way, but they are interpretations of them. That doesn't even bring up the numerous references in Christmas songs about how it's acceptable to sexually assault someone if they happen to be standing underneath a mistletoe.

The question should never be whether or not it "seems rapey to some", but rather if that's a legitimate interpretation of the lyrics. For these lyrics, it is not a legitimate interpretation and one needs to take some lines in isolation and out of context in order to have that interpretation. It is not a reasonable reading of the song.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Maybe we could agree on 'seems rapey to some'

Oy. The biggest problem--imho--in regard to that line of thinking is that it actually sets the clock even further back on a fundamental element to rape (and "rape culture") that we haven't gotten into yet; namely that rape is NOT an act of sex, it's an act of violence/control/power, so there is a boatload of problems with that line of thinking that are far deeper and much more problematic in that, many people still don't comprehend exactly what that means or why the distinction is so important.

The line gets even further blurred in regard to what this song more closely resembles, which would be date rape. The problem being, of course, that people who are not rapists--e.g., just plain old horny boys--don't understand the difference between wanting to have sex really really really bad and forcing someone to do something against their will.

You, for example, had mentioned "rape fantasies" and alluded to 50 Shades of Gray and the like and it's an unfortunately common misconception precisely because it's nearly impossible to think like a rapist unless you are a rapist.

No woman--no person--has ever had a rape fantasy (unless we're talking about deeply conflicted masochists, but that too is a different psychology).

Let's put it dramatically to prove the point; no person has ever fantasized about someone holding them down against their will and repeatedly shoving a broken bottle up their ass. That is an act of violent abusive control; of power and powerlessness.Now just substitute "broken bottle" with "penis" and you're on the right track to how a rapist thinks and why no person has ever had a "rape fantasy."

Every single fantasy--no matter the "theme"-- is axiomatically consensual (even in ones where the person is fantasizing about not having control). The very act of fantasizing makes the fantasy entirely within the control of the person fantasizing. Whether someone understands the psychology behind it or not, the second you are fantasizing about a situation where, say, some "stranger" is breaking into your home and tying you to the bed to have sex with you (aka, "rape fantasy"), YOU are in total control of every facet of that fantasy (which is why it's a fantasy).

But if that actually happened to you, it would be immediately terrifying and you--as an animal--would immediately understand the mortal danger you were in and (again, barring other extreme psychological conditions), you would not be thinking anything about it is living your fantasy, just exactly in the scenario where a broken bottle is being repeatedly shoved up your ass.

Secondly (back to the song), we know that it is a consensual scenario, so how can it "seem rapey"? That's just misinterpretation and/or ignorance of context. Especially when we have either the artist or the artist's offspring telling us, "You're misinterpreting what this means. Here is the proper context for interpretation." The artist is the definitive source for context and/or meaning of their own work, not the audience.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, anything can have rapey themes if someone chooses to interpret it that way. I Saw Mama Kissing Santa Claus could be construed as Santa demanding sexual services from a mother in exchange for giving her children presents. The "Hey" at the ends of the lines of Jingle Bells could be read as what the woman yells out as the man tries to "jingle her bells" during a sleigh ride and then he's just "laughing all the way" at her protestations against getting groped. It would be really fucking dumb to interpret the songs that way, but they are interpretations of them. That doesn't even bring up the numerous references in Christmas songs about how it's acceptable to sexually assault someone if they happen to be standing underneath a mistletoe.

The question should never be whether or not it "seems rapey to some", but rather if that's a legitimate interpretation of the lyrics. For these lyrics, it is not a legitimate interpretation and one needs to take some lines in isolation and out of context in order to have that interpretation. It is not a reasonable reading of the song.

Yeah. I heard another one. That some concerned parents, I think it was, wanted 'Sleeping Beauty' taken off a school reading list, because the prince kissed her without her consent (her being asleep).

As for this song, on balance I think there's been an over-reaction, and as you say a misinterpretation.

I say that while still slightly disagreeing, because I do think there is a legitimate interpretation of both the lyrics and the scene as being a wee bit.....rapey.

 

[ruby sparks]

Oy. The biggest problem--imho--in regard to that line of thinking is that it actually sets the clock even further back on a fundamental element to rape (and "rape culture") that we haven't gotten into yet; namely that rape is NOT an act of sex, it's an act of violence/control/power, so there is a boatload of problems with that line of thinking that are far deeper and much more problematic in that, many people still don't comprehend exactly what that means or why the distinction is so important.

The line gets even further blurred in regard to what this song more closely resembles, which would be date rape. The problem being, of course, that people who are not rapists--e.g., just plain old horny boys--don't understand the difference between wanting to have sex really really really bad and forcing someone to do something against their will.

I think that in the context of 'grey area' sex, there is scope to consider excessive pushiness as crossing a line.

You, for example, had mentioned "rape fantasies" and alluded to 50 Shades of Gray and the like and it's an unfortunately common misconception precisely because it's nearly impossible to think like a rapist unless you are a rapist.

No woman--no person--has ever had a rape fantasy (unless we're talking about deeply conflicted masochists, but that too is a different psychology).

Let's put it dramatically to prove the point; no person has ever fantasized about someone holding them down against their will and repeatedly shoving a broken bottle up their ass. That is an act of violent abusive control; of power and powerlessness.Now just substitute "broken bottle" with "penis" and you're on the right track to how a rapist thinks and why no person has ever had a "rape fantasy."

Every single fantasy--no matter the "theme"-- is axiomatically consensual (even in ones where the person is fantasizing about not having control). The very act of fantasizing makes the fantasy entirely within the control of the person fantasizing. Whether someone understands the psychology behind it or not, the second you are fantasizing about a situation where, say, some "stranger" is breaking into your home and tying you to the bed to have sex with you (aka, "rape fantasy"), YOU are in total control of every facet of that fantasy (which is why it's a fantasy).

But if that actually happened to you, it would be immediately terrifying and you--as an animal--would immediately understand the mortal danger you were in and (again, barring other extreme psychological conditions), you would not be thinking anything about it is living your fantasy, just exactly in the scenario where a broken bottle is being repeatedly shoved up your ass.

I doubt if any woman (although you never know, there's always a few on the extreme) have ever fantasised about being raped that way (with a broken bottle) but as I understand it rape fantasises are very common. And because it's a fantasy (ie the fantasizer has ultimate control) the fantasies can safely involve imagining being taken against their will. Obviously, you can't translate that into real life. That would be a big mistake.

Secondly (back to the song), we know that it is a consensual scenario, so how can it "seem rapey"? That's just misinterpretation and/or ignorance of context. Especially when we have either the artist or the artist's offspring telling us, "You're misinterpreting what this means. Here is the proper context for interpretation." The artist is the definitive source for context and/or meaning of their own work, not the audience.

I'm not sure I can agree. An artist may have intended an interpretation or meaning, but that is not always the one the audience either has to have or does have.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yeah. I heard another one. That some concerned parents, I think it was, wanted 'Sleeping Beauty' taken off a school reading list, because the prince kissed her without her consent (her being asleep).

The prince is a rich, white guy. He operates in a completely different legal and moral system where this is OK. As a reference, look at United States v Every Fraternity Ever.

As for this song, on balance I think there's been an over-reaction, and as you say a misinterpretation.

I say that while still slightly disagreeing, because I do think there is a legitimate interpretation of both the lyrics and the scene as being a wee bit.....rapey.

Except those interpretations necessitate a massive trivialization of rape along with a fundamental misunderstanding of what rape is. Since those are both needed in order to have these interpretations, it takes away from the legitimacy of these interpretations.

 

[ruby sparks]

The prince is a rich, white guy. He operates in a completely different legal and moral system where this is OK. As a reference, look at United States v Every Fraternity Ever.

True. I forgot that there are different rules for rich white guys, especially royalty, actual genuine royalty, like we still have here.

Except those interpretations necessitate a massive trivialization of rape along with a fundamental misunderstanding of what rape is. Since those are both needed in order to have these interpretations, it takes away from the legitimacy of these interpretations.

Hm. Tricky. I'm not sure I can express myself perfectly here.....

There is nothing, imo, in the actual song or scene that crosses the line. But the scene is fictional. That said, even if the scene was real, it still wouldn't cross a line. What am I trying to say? I don't know. Lol.

There is a valid issue, which is to do with men in the real world not understanding when no means stop.

I'm not even sure I put that very well at all.

 

[southernhybrid]

I asked a female friend of mine, after we worked out this morning, if she had heard of this controversy. She rolled her eyes and said that she couldn't believe people were making a fuss over an innocent, flirty song about a man trying to seduce a woman. We both agreed that the song had feminist implications, in that it was written during a time when the double standard was extreme. The woman in the song seems to want to spend time with the man but she's worried about the reactions of the society in which she lives. The song has a bit of humor in it too. It reminds me a lot of my favorite pick up song, "Come and Go With Me". Some of you would think that song is rapey too. It's very similar to "Baby Its Cold Outside", but it was a hit in 1978, during the height of the sexual revolution.


I doubt it's just generational. I have a good friend who is thirty years younger than I am. I will see her on Wednesday night and I'm going to ask her what she thinks about this controversy. I've discussed sex with many young women and I seriously doubt a single one of them would have a problem with the lyrics of the song being discussed here. They are all strong, self confident women who have no problem saying no to a man. I really do think some of you are reading far too much into those lyrics, without realizing that it's the woman who has the power in such situations. Y'all act as if most men are rapists, just because they ask a woman to spend some time alone with them. How did this attitude happen?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How did this attitude happen?

It might have been all the rapes.

 

[Politesse]

Existence of rape culture disproven by...

Obsessively trying to prove that the woman's sexual drive, not the man's, is at fault for any perceived unseemliness in a hypothetical situation. Got it.

- - - Updated - - -

They are all strong, self confident women who have no problem saying no to a man?

And are okay with it if he persists after she has said "no"?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And are okay with it if he persists after she has said "no"?

If the persistence was making the woman uncomfortable, then he'd be a pushy asshole. There is, however, a vast and gaping chasm between that and the guy being in any way "rapey". Since the situation in the song wasn't making the woman involved uncomfortable, though, and she was clearly and directly not minding his persistence, it doesn't even rise to that level.

 

[ruby sparks]

Got another one. 'Summer Nights' from 'Grease'. Has been cited online as being about rape.

8 Romantic Songs You Didn't Know Were About Rape
http://www.cracked.com/article_18431_8-romantic-songs-you-didnt-know-were-about-rape.html

Contains the lines:

(boys together) 'Tell me more, tell me more..'
(one of the boys) 'did she put up a fight?'

at 1:38 in the video:

[warning: contains adult content and themes]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW0DfsCzfq4[/YOUTUBE]

Cue eyes rolling and "knock knock, who's there, it's the thought police, we've come to ruin everything"?

 

[ruby sparks]

At least, on the upside, there must have been a lot of improvements on these issues already. How else to explain citing 'not actually all that iffy' songs? Clearly, there has been so much progress that Feminists are running out of things to be concerned about. Which surely has to be a good thing, if you think about it.

 

[Politesse]

I wonder, how many of you here have ever spoken to an actual rapist? Did they think they had committed a crime? If not, what arguments did they use try to justify or excuse their actions?

- - - Updated - - -

How did this attitude happen?

It might have been all the rapes.

Yes.

At least, on the upside, there must have been a lot of improvements on these issues already. How else to explain citing 'not actually all that iffy' songs? Clearly, there has been so much progress that Feminists are running out of things to be concerned about. Which surely has to be a good thing, if you think about it.

There is literally no data to support this conclusion. Reported rapes are on the upswing in nearly all of the countries where this information is tracked.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is literally no data to support this conclusion. Reported rapes are on the upswing in nearly all of the countries where this information is tracked.

I was momentarily being inappropriately flippant.

Of course there's a huge issue about rapes.

And if I'm any good at guessing, I'd say films like Grease have caused some.

Bollocks I've done it again.