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

[Copernicus]

not raping someone due to your libido overriding your reason.

I think the point, as regards the song/scene, is that he didn't rape her, that she consented, changed her own mind. Nobody raped anybody in the song, or scene, any version of it, including the ones where the gender roles have been reversed.

As to the song, we don't know if there was any sex involved. It is about a man trying to induce a woman to change her mind. Attempting to get someone to change her or his mind by persuasion is not rape.

Your response, as written, is interesting because it appears to be based on a straw man.

As

Why is Ruby's response based on a straw man, but yours is not? You do realize that the song is a fantasy, don't you? We know everything about what happened to her that we are ever going to know, because she doesn't exist and never did. There is no sex in the song, just oblique references to it. The whole thing is about banter in the context of a harmonious courtship ritual, not a stalker trying to take advantage.

 

[ruby sparks]

Your response, as written, is interesting because it appears to be based on a straw man.

What straw man? That they didn't have sex? That's exactly why I didn't suggest they necessarily did (although it is the implication, I think).

Attempting to get someone to change her or his mind by persuasion is not rape.

Exactly. So what is the problem with the song, since that's all that happened? Well, almost all. What also happened is that she consented. This seems to have been left out of some of the analyses here. As have the implications of the roles being reversed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What also happened is that she consented.

The song is a fiction, though, a not-real story. And a communication about such not real story. Do you want to teach Person B's that it is okay to hear from Person A's no, no, no multiple times because eventually they will consent? Where is the line between a healthy bit of influencing your friend with what you want and inappropriate pressure? How many no's does it take to go from one to the other? And is it good to send a message to keep persisting to be opportunistic?*

*As before, this is only an academic discussion since no one is actually learning anything other than the refrain and title from this song.

 

[ruby sparks]

What also happened is that she consented.

The song is a fiction, though, a not-real story. And a communication about such not real story. Do you want to teach Person B's that it is okay to hear from Person A's no, no, no multiple times because eventually they will consent? Where is the line between a healthy bit of influencing your friend with what you want and inappropriate pressure? How many no's does it take to go from one to the other? And is it good to send a message to keep persisting to be opportunistic?*

*As before, this is only an academic discussion since no one is actually learning anything other than the refrain and title from this song.

This is where I would come in, a discussion of the wider, real-world issues that the song may raise, without actually citing the song as an example of what it is that should be avoided. Because the song is no good for that. Because the song portrays the seducee (male or female, depending on the roles adopted) as happily consenting at the end.

If we edited the ending out, there might be more to discuss about the song itself. Stop the song before the last couple of lines. Discuss.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... the song portrays the seducee (male or female, depending on the roles adopted) as happily consenting at the end...

which is a problem.

Look at Derec's example from GoT, too, also a fictional story. Did Jon Snow and his girl get along great and consent to each other in the end, sure, but along the way, there was imprisonment, kidnapping, conspiracy to murder, etc. It isn't that the ends do not justify the means, it's that the story itself pushes a false, unrealistic message, that ought not be condoned or put in a person's brain as a realistic, appropriate way to achieve that final consensual situation. Likewise, with Blade Runner, which I also brought up and I doubt people remember the scene in question, where Harrison Ford's character forces the female to kiss him. Force. And eventually she "consents." So, we're all supposed to be happy crappy with this fictional story and any messages it sends?*

*As before, this is only an academic discussion since no one is actually learning anything other than the refrain and title from this song from the op.

 

[laughing dog]

As to the song, we don't know if there was any sex involved. It is about a man trying to induce a woman to change her mind. Attempting to get someone to change her or his mind by persuasion is not rape.

Your response, as written, is interesting because it appears to be based on a straw man.

As

Why is Ruby's response based on a straw man, but yours is not?

Because I was not addressing the song. I was addressing the general idea that "no does not mean no". In particular, I was riffing off of Rhea's comments and tacitly rejecting your "contextual" approach.

 

[ruby sparks]

... the song portrays the seducee (male or female, depending on the roles adopted) as happily consenting at the end...

which is a problem.

Look at Derec's example from GoT, too, also a fictional story. Did Jon Snow and his girl get along great and consent to each other in the end, sure, but along the way, there was imprisonment, kidnapping, conspiracy to murder, etc. It isn't that the ends do not justify the means, it's that the story itself pushes a false, unrealistic message, that ought not be condoned or put in a person's brain as a realistic, appropriate way to achieve that final consensual situation. Likewise, with Blade Runner, which I also brought up and I doubt people remember the scene in question, where Harrison Ford's character forces the female to kiss him. Force. And eventually she "consents." So, we're all supposed to be happy crappy with this fictional story and any messages it sends?*

*As before, this is only an academic discussion since no one is actually learning anything other than the refrain and title from this song from the op.

Sure. I am not familiar with GoT unfortunately, but get the gist. As for Blade Runner, I'm familiar with the issues raised about that scene.

I think earlier in the thread, I said something about how the song (the first version, where the man is the seducer) in 'Neptune's daughter' might have reinforced or perpetuated in the minds of straight male viewers at the time, the idea that it is ok to press on even if the woman is ambivalent, or even indeed press on when the woman says no. Which I think is what you are saying.

But even then it's complicated, because to some extent that is what men were expected to do quite often back then, I believe.

 

[laughing dog]

Your response, as written, is interesting because it appears to be based on a straw man.

What straw man? That they didn't have sex? That's exactly why I didn't suggest they necessarily did (although it is the implication, I think).

The straw man is that you completely misunderstood my post - your use of a partial quote indicated as such.

Exactly. So what is the problem with the song, since that's all that happened?

I never said anything was wrong with song. As far as I am concerned, the flapdoodle over whether it is "rapey" or not is driven by too many people have too much time on their hands.

 

[ruby sparks]

I never said anything was wrong with song. As far as I am concerned, the flapdoodle over whether it is "rapey" or not is driven by too many people have too much time on their hands.

Good. Then what did you mean when you said, 'I really do not understand my fellow males on this'?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As far as I am concerned, the flapdoodle over whether it is "rapey" or not is driven by too many people have too much time on their hands.

Yeah. I've been absent for a large part of the thread but I have had a little bit of time to spare this afternoon while I wait for someone to complete something and let me know the results. This is largely academic entertainment.

 

[Rhea]

In the case of Loesser's song, the woman's circumstances and context are purely imaginary. It is a fantasy.

Well, sure. Lots of things that are "purely imaginary" will nevertheless have an impact on society and therefore their continued airing may be worth discussing in the context of the effect that purely imaginary scenario has on actual people.

So we talk about first shooter games. Which are purely imaginary. We talk about animated child porn, which again, is purely imaginary. We talk about the opinions coming from the Russian troll farm about Clinton's pizza sex ring - purely imaginary. We talk about Trump saying the press is the enemy of the people; imaginary.

And we talk about songs, movies, memes etc that portray the devaluing of women as acceptable, normal, justifiable and even desired.
Recall that this thread was started because apparently some people said, "wow, do we really need to play that song on the radio? Is there not enough holiday music that we can retire this one that conveys themes that are no longer innocent and no longer acceptable?

We don't play blackface minstrel shows on TV any more. They just aren't the harmless fun they used to be.
I and many others don't enjoy Bill Cosby comedy anymore since the context has changed.
And as I have mentioned in other threads, my own wedding anniversary is no longer the same as it was and it's hard for us to have a big celebration right on the main day because 17 years ago the context of September 11th changed for everyone.

The context of this song has changed. This song represents an era, and explicitly recalls the issues, of women being blamed and punished by society no matter what happens.
And some folks are no longer able to be nostalgic about that.

So they asked the radio station if the "purely imaginary" song needed to be aired.

In all cases, if you take no as no, and she did not, in fact, actually mean it, don't you think she'll let you know that?
"Oh, I was just kidding, it's yes!"

Actually, no. And I really mean that. It may suit you to always be clear and literal about your intentions, but that won't work for everyone in every situation. Because not everyone is like you.

And what's the risk then? A guy misses out on a chance to get laid.
What a fuckin' tragedy, right?
So much worse than perpetuating the social pressures that damage women.

 

[Copernicus]

...

The context of this song has changed. This song represents an era, and explicitly recalls the issues, of women being blamed and punished by society no matter what happens.
And some folks are no longer able to be nostalgic about that.

That is exactly where we disagree. The context of this song has not changed, but the social context that some people impose on the song has been influenced by a recent social trend--the so-called #metoo movement. The problem that most of us have with the #metoo interpretation of this song is that it really does not fit well with the plain meaning of the lyrics unless you take some of them out of context and forget the fact that both the man and the woman clearly want to be together. It is not a #metoo scenario, however much people would like to turn it into some kind of morality play.

So they asked the radio station if the "purely imaginary" song needed to be aired.

Exactly. Some people were shocked by the implications of the words in the modern #metoo era. Many more people were shocked that those people's feelings were taken seriously, especially in an era when there are so many songs with clearly more offensive lyrics that get played all the time.

Actually, no. And I really mean that. It may suit you to always be clear and literal about your intentions, but that won't work for everyone in every situation. Because not everyone is like you.

And what's the risk then? A guy misses out on a chance to get laid.
What a fuckin' tragedy, right?
So much worse than perpetuating the social pressures that damage women.

The guy in the song doesn't miss out on a chance to get laid. He doesn't even necessarily intend to have sex with her. It is just the titillating nature of the song that attracts people to it--the suggestion of an illicit relationship. You can imagine whatever you please about the aftermath of the song. Just don't impose your imagination on everyone else.

 

[laughing dog]

I never said anything was wrong with song. As far as I am concerned, the flapdoodle over whether it is "rapey" or not is driven by too many people have too much time on their hands.

Good. Then what did you mean when you said, 'I really do not understand my fellow males on this'?

I will repeat myself:
I really do not understand my fellow males on this. No means no. If adopting that easy to use mantra means you might be foregoing a "yes", then that is the cost to you of
1) respecting women at the word, and
2) not raping someone due to your libido overriding your reason.

 

[thebeave]

Guys, forget about the potentially missed sexual encounters and look at the bright side of the "no means no" paradigm, and the notion of taking women at their word. Think how great it will be. When your wife/girlfriend/date appears peeved at you and you ask "What's wrong, dear?" and she says "nothing", then you can breathe a sigh of relief that you really did nothing wrong. Or when you ask her if she wants a birthday present and she says "Oh, don't get me anything", you can rest assured she really means it and you're off the hook for shopping. Or if she asks you if the new pants she's wearing make her butt look big, be sure to be straight up and honest. Don't say the opposite of what you really feel. Yes, I see nothing but sunshine and rainbows ahead for gender relations with this "say what you mean, and mean what you say" philosophy!

On a more serious note, it seems the song has taken on a life of its own on the pop charts. Streisand Effect, maybe? Regardless, I suspect most people are not too perturbed by the lyrics and actually kinda like the back and forth sexually charged banter.

https://wsvn.com/entertainment/baby-its-cold-outside-soars-to-top-ten-on-billboard-chart/

 

[ruby sparks]

I never said anything was wrong with song. As far as I am concerned, the flapdoodle over whether it is "rapey" or not is driven by too many people have too much time on their hands.

Good. Then what did you mean when you said, 'I really do not understand my fellow males on this'?

I will repeat myself:
I really do not understand my fellow males on this. No means no. If adopting that easy to use mantra means you might be foregoing a "yes", then that is the cost to you of
1) respecting women at the word, and
2) not raping someone due to your libido overriding your reason.

Ok. I thought you meant you didn't understand your fellow males' take on the song.

 

[ruby sparks]

When your wife/girlfriend/date appears peeved at you and you ask "What's wrong, dear?" and she says "nothing", then you can breathe a sigh of relief that you really did nothing wrong. Or when you ask her if she wants a birthday present and she says "Oh, don't get me anything", you can rest assured she really means it and you're off the hook for shopping.

Lol

On a more serious note, it seems the song has taken on a life of its own on the pop charts. Streisand Effect, maybe? Regardless, I suspect most people are not too perturbed by the lyrics and actually kinda like the back and forth sexually charged banter.

https://wsvn.com/entertainment/baby-its-cold-outside-soars-to-top-ten-on-billboard-chart/

And just to add insult to injury, 'Baby it's cold outside' is only the second-most downloaded Christmas song. The top one is “All I Want for Christmas is You” by Mariah Carey!

Which has also been cited as being sexist.

The modern world is going to the dogs.

 

[RavenSky]

"No" is "no" is "no" is "no".

It doesn't matter if you *think* she *really* means "yes".

It doesn't even matter if she really is "offering token resistance".

She said "no" so that should have been the end it. Call her a cab and send her on her way post-haste.

I think there is a slight difference in our opinions on this.

There simply is no room for "difference in opinions" on this point.

The minute anything remotely resembling a "no" or anything other than a crystal clear "yes" is expressed, any man with even half a brain and/or a well-developed sense of self-preservation will walk away.

IF the woman really is "offering token resistance", then she will learn not to pull that shit next time.

 

[RavenSky]

Like any word, it can mean very different things in different contexts.

Not in this context

The problem here is that "No means 'No'" is a cliche that doesn't always describe real situations accurately.

Wrong

Others are imagining one in which the woman doesn't want to reject him, but she also doesn't want to suffer the social consequences of acceptance.

And the point remains that, regardless what anyone *thinks* her real motivations are, her words and actions are saying "no", and that is the only context that should be obeyed.

The latter is actually the intended context of the song as it has been construed by most people historically. I think we can all agree on that.

Agreed

There is no real world in which language is always clear and unambiguous.

Which is exactly why this bullshit of assuming she is "offering token resistance" and *really* means "yes" needs to be rejected in no uncertain terms.

Again, I am fully aware that this song was written in a time when the sort of doublespeak in the song was assumed to be common, but in this day and age I would expect people to at least and simply acknowledge the error of the interaction.

Instead, too many people here are defending it.

- - - Updated - - -

not raping someone due to your libido overriding your reason.

I think the point, as regards the song/scene, is that he didn't rape her, that she consented, changed her own mind. Nobody raped anybody in the song, or scene, any version of it, including the ones where the gender roles have been reversed.

Pressuring a woman to "change her mind" is not "consent"

 

[RavenSky]

In all cases, if you take no as no, and she did not, in fact, actually mean it, don't you think she'll let you know that?
"Oh, I was just kidding, it's yes!"

Actually, no. And I really mean that. It may suit you to always be clear and literal about your intentions, but that won't work for everyone in every situation. Because not everyone is like you.

Then she loses out on a great fuck.

It is not his place to "change her mind"

 

[RavenSky]

As to the song, we don't know if there was any sex involved.

This is actually why I came back to this thread. I heard a version of this song today that made me laugh out loud (because of this thread). It went through the song's original lyrics, but then at the end the man and woman are talking. I didn't catch all of the exchange, but the gist was that he wasn't asking her to stay for sex, and here is the guest room all made up for her so she doesn't have to go back out in the cold, see her in the morning...