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

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Except that’s not an accurate representation of the song. A more accurate representation would be:Etc.

No. That's what you WANT it to say.

No, that, as I said, was a “more accurate representation” than Don’s section.

It is NOT what it says.

Yes, I know. Once again, as I said, it was a “more accurate representation” than Don’s.

Here is a clue:

Read more carefully?

When a woman gives you a dozen reasons

To herself; she isn’t giving those reasons to the guy. She is going over in her head—but because it’s a fucking song there is poetic license—all of the reasons why society will slut-shame her for staying in spite of the fact that she clearly WANTS to stay.

that she "really must go"

And every single one of them is about what society will think of her if she stays and she says TWICE that she is going to stay for another drink and another cigarette?

it doesn't matter what you want to believe - you are obligated to take the words at face value.

How ironic. So you are arguing proper context is the key to understanding the song. Fucking finally.

So, ok, take these words at face value:

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.

I ought to say no, no, no sir. At least I’m going to say that I tried. I simply must go. The answer is no. Your welcome has been so nice and warm. Maybe just a cigarette more.

Which words are we to take at face value there?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And we see a lot of people (mostly men) saying, "you're not correct in feeling that way."

I have never said anyone was not “correct in FEELING” any way they want about the song. What no one can do is take shit out of context and say it’s something it isn’t.

Just as I cannot tell you that your wedding vows mean the opposite of what you intended just because I had a horrible experience on 9/11.

 

[repoman]

Seems like some here are channeling Hannah Gadsby.

 

[ruby sparks]

If by “hollywood ending” you mean an ending that reinforces to listeners that he was right to pressure her all along -......

Yes, that's more or less what I meant, that the song/scene could be taken by many viewers/listeners to reinforce the idea that it's ok to persist and persuade someone who is at least ambivalent. Which, in an ideal world, I think it is, provided no unreasonable coercion is involved. Now define 'unreasonable coercion'.

Seduction = persuading someone to have sexual intercourse. The whole idea is that there is not consent initially. If a woman (or a man) in real life were to willingly change their mind and accede.....

To me it's a controversial grey area. What one seducee sees as unreasonable coercion, another might see as flattery and flirtation, proof that they truly are desired and worthy of having their interest awakened by persuasion. We surely all know what it's like, in general terms and not necessarily to do with sex, to have someone persuade us to do something that we initially don't feel we want to do.

Also, I think it can be situation-dependent. Two lovers who know each other well or have been married for a long time is not the same as a first date.

..... - look how that turned out for him.

Is there another verse or scene about him not being able to get a full erection or bring her to orgasm or something?

 

[Derec]

Seems like some here are channeling Hannah Gadsby.

Xir is strange. Hates men, but wants to look like one.

 

[Rhea]

And we see a lot of people (mostly men) saying, "you're not correct in feeling that way."

I have never said anyone was not “correct in FEELING” any way they want about the song. What no one can do is take shit out of context and say it’s something it isn’t.
.

So are you saying that it is true that many women are creeped out by the song and the message it portrays to men today but they... what... shouldn't be allowed to say anything about it?

What do you mean here. The whole kerfluffle started when some people said, this comes off as really creepy and sends a bad message. And the radio station initially said, "okay, we don't really need that song, we gotcha." and then this thread with all the poeple saying, "No! Wrong Reaction!!!"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, that was the wrong reaction.

It’s fine to be creeped out by any song that you like. If you’re going to ask other people to take action due to your reactions, however, then the onus is on you to how that those reactions are legitimate. If the song isn’t actually creepy, then you’re out of line asking for action from others due to your reaction.

 

[repoman]

Can we have a really creepy song and video as a baseline?

 

[Rhea]

Yes, that was the wrong reaction.

It’s fine to be creeped out by any song that you like. If you’re going to ask other people to take action due to your reactions, however, then the onus is on you to how that those reactions are legitimate. If the song isn’t actually creepy, then you’re out of line asking for action from others due to your reaction.

I get that. I do. The same reaction happens when people ask others to stop using the word "retarded" as an insult slung at people who are not. They're all, "I need that word! It doesn't matter if it makes life harder for people who are developmentally delayed, it's necessary that I be able to use that word all over the place and I equate you asking me to not use it for the sake of empathy with censorship and laws banning me from free expression!!1!! Why do you hate America!?!?"

I get it. The song is vitally important and no one should face the indignity of deciding to let it die.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And we see a lot of people (mostly men) saying, "you're not correct in feeling that way."

I have never said anyone was not “correct in FEELING” any way they want about the song. What no one can do is take shit out of context and say it’s something it isn’t.
.

So are you saying

What I’ve been saying the entire time. That no one can take shit out of context.

ONCE AGAIN, can I tell you that in light of MY horrible experience on 9/11 that when you vowed to love and protect your husband that it now means you don’t love and failed to protect your husband?

You have repeatedly avoided addressing this simple question, so I’ll answer it for you. No, I can’t. It is not acceptable that I dictate to you what your vows now mean in light of my negative experiences.

If this were any other song—or, rather, any other topic—you would have immediately answered that question with a “no, that’s not acceptable,” yet that is exactly what you’re doing here; insisting that ignorance and cherry-picking is an acceptable basis for taking a line out of context (both from its time and from the other lyrics) and instead superimposing one’s own experiences as a basis for condemnation.

This line does not mean X, it means Y. Y hurt me. Therefore, ban this song. In effect. No. That’s not an acceptable argument for censorship. The line does in fact mean X, not Y and so you superimposing your Y experience as a basis for condemnation is not an acceptable argument.

Or to use the wedding analogy you keep avoiding, my wife was killed on 9/11 so your vows now mean the opposite of what you meant. No. That is likewise not an acceptable argument for you to just say, “Ok, sorry” and take any actions accordingly; i.e., to forever live with the fact that because I had a bad experience and cherry-picked one of your vows—taking it out of context, etc., etc., etc.—that forever forward everyone who watches your wedding video must all consider that one particular vow to mean the opposite of what it actually meant.

This isn’t rocket science. That is what is at issue; sophistry and context in literary analysis. You can say anything creeps you out; I don’t give a flying fuck about what does or does not creep someone out. What you can’t do is say, “Ban this because of what I selectively think it means based on my own ignorance, not what it actually means.”

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, it’s more like asking people not to play the song Let The Sun Shine In because they’re offended by the anti-vampire bigotry inherent in it.

Their reaction may be legitimate, but that doesn’t mean actions from others is warranted based on that reaction due to their interpretation of the song being so unrelated to what the song is actually about, regardless of how warranted a stance against bigotry may be in general.

 

[thebeave]

I guess its sort of like when someone gets freaked out by seeing a Daddy Long Legs spider in the bathtub. They see harm where none exists, even after being shown evidence that its harmless. Others are not obligated to see it the spider as harmful, or participate in its destruction.

 

[ruby sparks]

... what... shouldn't be allowed to say anything about it?

I honestly don't think anyone inside or outside this thread is being silenced about this.

 

[RavenSky]

No, that, as I said, was a “more accurate representation” than Don’s section.

That is your opinion only. And it is not my opinion, nor Don's.

When a woman gives you a dozen reasons

To herself; she isn’t giving those reasons to the guy.

Horseshit. She is literally singing them to the only man in the room.

Your major frelling denial on this topic really makes me wonder how you have handled genuine social situations.

Seriously dude... while we ALL acknowledge that it is "just a song" and shouldn't be anything to get too worked up about, your continued inability or refusal to see or acknowledge how - in a 'real life' situation - the man's behavior could be problematic demonstrates EXACTLY why some of us take issue with songs like this continuing to be played as if the interaction is perfectly acceptable in today's world.

 

[RavenSky]

What no one can do is take shit out of context and say it’s something it isn’t.

Then YOU should stop doing that.

YOU are the one making up shit out of thin air to justify your position.

she isn’t giving those reasons to the guy. She is going over in her head

 

[Rhea]

What I’ve been saying the entire time. That no one can take shit out of context.

Right! Like those assholes who insist that the confederate battle flag means racism, when, damnit, it means gracious southern living. Those assholes trying to take it out of context!

Also, Koy decides context! The context is what men think of the song, then and now. Not what women think of the song or thought about it then! There’s no context other than what the author says! Women were not involved in “context!” Damnit! Does everyone get this yet? No harm has ever been done from the attitudes in this song! Ever!

ONCE AGAIN, can I tell you that in light of MY horrible experience on 9/11 that when you vowed to love and protect your husband that it now means you don’t love and failed to protect your husband?

No. That would be stupid and a non-sequitur. Your analogy is bad, so I am ignoring the straw man because it is irrelevant. As I have already said.

You have repeatedly avoided addressing this simple question, so I’ll answer it for you.

That is approriate. Your straw man. You knock it down. Have fun with that.

 

[Rhea]

... what... shouldn't be allowed to say anything about it?

I honestly don't think anyone inside or outside this thread is being silenced about this.

I stand corrected. You are right that was unnecessary hyperbole. It would have been more correct to say,

“ what... should be excoriated for saying anything about it?”

 

[Rhea]

No, it’s more like asking people not to play the song Let The Sun Shine In because they’re offended by the anti-vampire bigotry inherent in it.

Their reaction may be legitimate, but that doesn’t mean actions from others is warranted based on that reaction due to their interpretation of the song being so unrelated to what the song is actually about, regardless of how warranted a stance against bigotry may be in general.

That would be a good analogy if there were anti-vampire attacks going on regularly and the attacker’s defense in court was, “everybody does it, it’s harmeless, there are even songs about attacking vampires, it’s quite normal.”

Do such things happen a lot, in your experience?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, it’s more like asking people not to play the song Let The Sun Shine In because they’re offended by the anti-vampire bigotry inherent in it.

Their reaction may be legitimate, but that doesn’t mean actions from others is warranted based on that reaction due to their interpretation of the song being so unrelated to what the song is actually about, regardless of how warranted a stance against bigotry may be in general.

That would be a good analogy if there were anti-vampire attacks going on regularly and the attacker’s defense in court was, “everybody does it, it’s harmeless, there are even songs about attacking vampires, it’s quite normal.”

Do such things happen a lot, in your experience?

Nobody’s arguing that sexual assaults don’t happen. What’s being argued is that this song doesn’t reference sexual assaults, so there’s nothing that everyone does which it’s trying to normalize.

 

[ruby sparks]

... what... shouldn't be allowed to say anything about it?

I honestly don't think anyone inside or outside this thread is being silenced about this.

I stand corrected. You are right that was unnecessary hyperbole. It would have been more correct to say,

“ what... should be excoriated for saying anything about it?”

I had to look that up.

I honestly don't think that's happening either.