• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

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. :)

I'm sure that there are many thousands of sex slaves who, in the downtime between rapings and beatings, smile on the inside when they think about how nice it is that feminists have done so much on the legitimate issues that they're able to spend their time focusing on the trivial ones like this.
 
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 - - -

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.

I'm going to bet that this is the same issue as we see on autism: the increase in relports is owing to shifting cultural values in that we are uncovering the problem that was already always there. Women are more comfortable coming forward, law enforcement is taking claims more seriously, and rape is becoming more of "serious" issue around the world.
 
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?

I more closely agree with your interpretation of the song. A couple of things alter how ‘rapey’ Or ‘not rapey’ the song is. Most importantly, it is sung as a make/female duet, with both song partners equal. Neither dominates the other. There is clear mutual attraction. The woman seems reluctant because of appearances,* not because she isn’t interested.

The other factor is how the song is said: it’s sung with a lot of mutual longing, not any sense of one person being overpowered emotionally or physically.

It is a song of seduction and mutual attraction.

It is not dissimilar to good friends, one urging the other to have a delicious dessert, the other reluctant because they want to watch their weight. It could teeter into creepy emotional abuse, depending on voice tone and inflections.

*it is true that sometimes girls and women use social excuses to avoid sexual situations when they don’t want the sexual situation and when they fear making the guy angry. I don’t see this in this song but I can imagine it being sung exactly that way.

The reality is that women do face much more serious consequences for casual (or not casual) sexual encounters than do men. That is one reason that women are sometimes more reluctant to simply have sex (outside an established relationship) than men are.

I don’t find the song rapey. I also don’t find the song “Fire” sung by the Pointer Sisters and written/sung by Bruce Springsteen to be rapey. On the other hand, “Young Girl” is pretty darn statuatory rapey and made me very uncomfortable when I was a kid, before I actually understood the lyrics. Being older a few years older and hearing it only increased my discomfort and disgust. Many years later: yep, it’s still a creepy gross song.

The other thing
 
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 _____."

Zorq, you have completely misconstrued the song. Although I don't think it necessarily implies the woman wanted to actually have sex with the guy, it was clear that she wanted to stay with him throughout the song. As koy argued effectively, the issue was the social taboo against extramarital sex, not her unwillingness to stay. So she kept going back and forth about appearances, not her desire to get rid of a creep. Those who get the "rapey" interpretation appear to share your misunderstanding of the woman's intent--that she really wanted an excuse to get away. The opposite was true, however. She wanted an excuse to stay. The social standards of the time would not allow that.
 
Here's one that I think IS rapey:

"I don't want your ho, just want that cookie from her.
She tried to resist so I took it from her."


[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcIg37Z_ssU[/YOUTUBE]

And just for good measure, it's got gratuitous swearing, bragging about guns and references to 'bitches'.

But it's black culture. So that's sort of ok.
 
Last edited:
Here's one that I think IS rapey:

"I don't want your ho, just want that cookie from her.
She tried to resist so I took it from her."


[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcIg37Z_ssU[/YOUTUBE]

And just for good measure, it's got gratuitous swearing, bragging about guns and references to 'bitches'.

But it's black culture. So that's sort of ok.

I would be pretty upset if that played on a family-friendly Christmas station, actually.
 
After reading this thread, the Holderness Family has created a new officially approved version of the song for the modern age and family-friendly Christmas stations:

[YOUTUBE]CJB9GP5gyAw[/YOUTUBE]
 
Here's one that I think IS rapey:

"I don't want your ho, just want that cookie from her.
She tried to resist so I took it from her."


[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcIg37Z_ssU[/YOUTUBE]

And just for good measure, it's got gratuitous swearing, bragging about guns and references to 'bitches'.

But it's black culture. So that's sort of ok.

I would be pretty upset if that played on a family-friendly Christmas station, actually.

MeToo. It's definitely about the wrong sort of ho ho ho.

This, I think, potentially explains everything though (up to 1:16):

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxRvND3RWOU[/YOUTUBE]
 
Last edited:
Zorq, you have completely misconstrued the song. Although I don't think it necessarily implies the woman wanted to actually have sex with the guy, it was clear that she wanted to stay with him throughout the song. As koy argued effectively, the issue was the social taboo against extramarital sex, not her unwillingness to stay. So she kept going back and forth about appearances, not her desire to get rid of a creep. Those who get the "rapey" interpretation appear to share your misunderstanding of the woman's intent--that she really wanted an excuse to get away. The opposite was true, however. She wanted an excuse to stay. The social standards of the time would not allow that.

My problem with this is that you are not a mind reader. You don't really know what the woman in this song, the man in this song or any other person out there is really thinking. If a person's words can be misconstrued to be innocent or malevolent we are all forced to take them at their word regardless of their true intentions (which you are in no position to divine). When a woman says "No." It isn't polite to continue pushing. When a man continues to insist on sex regardless of the objections presented we are forced to wonder if he might have forced the issue into escalating levels of emotional, physical, and eventually sexual abuse if the target of his desire refused to give in.

So when we take the people in the song at their word, it IS "a little bit rapey."
 
Zorq, you have completely misconstrued the song. Although I don't think it necessarily implies the woman wanted to actually have sex with the guy, it was clear that she wanted to stay with him throughout the song. As koy argued effectively, the issue was the social taboo against extramarital sex, not her unwillingness to stay. So she kept going back and forth about appearances, not her desire to get rid of a creep. Those who get the "rapey" interpretation appear to share your misunderstanding of the woman's intent--that she really wanted an excuse to get away. The opposite was true, however. She wanted an excuse to stay. The social standards of the time would not allow that.

My problem with this is that you are not a mind reader. You don't really know what the woman in this song, the man in this song or any other person out there is really thinking. If a person's words can be misconstrued to be innocent or malevolent we are all forced to take them at their word regardless of their true intentions (which you are in no position to divine). When a woman says "No." It isn't polite to continue pushing. When a man continues to insist on sex regardless of the objections presented we are forced to wonder if he might have forced the issue into escalating levels of emotional, physical, and eventually sexual abuse if the target of his desire refused to give in.

So when we take the people in the song at their word, it IS "a little bit rapey."

I see your logic. Since I am not a mind reader, I cannot explain to you what the song means. However, you are perfectly qualified to explain, because you don't claim to be a mind reader. But, even though I have never claimed to be a mind reader, that is what I must be trying to claim. How do you know what I'm thinking? Well, you must have read my mind. :thinking:

Look, there are no "minds" to be read here. Both characters are fictional. The song was written in 1944, not 60 years later. And, if you bother to listen to the woman's actual words, which koy stitched together for us earlier, you would notice that she actually harmonizes with the man. She ends up agreeing with him. No forced sex. No date rape drugs. Just a little sexual banter.

You can read whatever you want into an imaginary context, but that is all you are doing--spinning a story to try to make it sound like the woman doesn't really want to stay, even though she appears to succumb to the temptation at the end of the song. Maybe you are imagining that Frank Loesser, the songwriter, was secretly chuckling away at the thought of destroying this woman's reputation. He sure put one over on the millions of men and women who have listened to this Christmas song for decades and enjoyed the playful interchange. We'll never know, I guess.

Next up: Let's go after Mark Twain again and see if we can get Huckleberry Finn banned for its blatant racist language.
 
Zorq, you have completely misconstrued the song. Although I don't think it necessarily implies the woman wanted to actually have sex with the guy, it was clear that she wanted to stay with him throughout the song. As koy argued effectively, the issue was the social taboo against extramarital sex, not her unwillingness to stay. So she kept going back and forth about appearances, not her desire to get rid of a creep. Those who get the "rapey" interpretation appear to share your misunderstanding of the woman's intent--that she really wanted an excuse to get away. The opposite was true, however. She wanted an excuse to stay. The social standards of the time would not allow that.

My problem with this is that you are not a mind reader. You don't really know what the woman in this song, the man in this song or any other person out there is really thinking. If a person's words can be misconstrued to be innocent or malevolent we are all forced to take them at their word regardless of their true intentions (which you are in no position to divine). When a woman says "No." It isn't polite to continue pushing. When a man continues to insist on sex regardless of the objections presented we are forced to wonder if he might have forced the issue into escalating levels of emotional, physical, and eventually sexual abuse if the target of his desire refused to give in.

So when we take the people in the song at their word, it IS "a little bit rapey."

I see your logic. Since I am not a mind reader, I cannot explain to you what the song means. However, you are perfectly qualified to explain, because you don't claim to be a mind reader. But, even though I have never claimed to be a mind reader, that is what I must be trying to claim. How do you know what I'm thinking? Well, you must have read my mind. :thinking:

:rolleyes:
I don't have to read your mind to know what you mean because you are telling me quite plainly. I can take you at your word... can't I? What you are telling me quite plainly is that you know that the woman in the song is lying and doesn't mean it when she says "The answer is no!" That tells me that you think you are a mind reader. In that precise moment, the answer the woman gives could very well be a definitive "no" that should be respected. But it isn't. The man pushes on... and on.. and on... and on.

Look, there are no "minds" to be read here. Both characters are fictional.

Which is what makes your insistence that you know the fictional characters REAL intentions all the more surreal.

The song was written in 1944, not 60 years later. And, if you bother to listen to the woman's actual words, which koy stitched together for us earlier, you would notice that she actually harmonizes with the man. She ends up agreeing with him. No forced sex. No date rape drugs. Just a little sexual banter.
Did I ever insist on anything different? I told you that this song doesn't cross the line.

You can read whatever you want into an imaginary context, but that is all you are doing--spinning a story to try to make it sound like the woman doesn't really want to stay, even though she appears to succumb to the temptation at the end of the song.
"The answer is no!" Either words mean something or they don't. We can believe people when they set boundaries or we can trample all over them to fulfill our own desires. Once again, the song doesn't cross the line but it does approach the line. This is why it can be called "a little bit rapey."

Maybe you are imagining that Frank Loesser, the songwriter, was secretly chuckling away at the thought of destroying this woman's reputation. He sure put one over on the millions of men and women who have listened to this Christmas song for decades and enjoyed the playful interchange. We'll never know, I guess.
I'm not imagining anything of the sort. But then, I'm not a mind reader.
Next up: Let's go after Mark Twain again and see if we can get Huckleberry Finn banned for its blatant racist language.
:rolleyes:
The only reason I got into this discussion is because you were objecting to the use of an expression in the English language "a little bit rapey." My point from the beginning is that insisting that the expression "a little bit rapey" should not be applied to this situation is incorrect. People use language in a lot of ways and there is no reason that anyone should follow your arbitrary guideline that "a little bit rapey" should only be used for situations where someone actually gets raped. Especially since we already have an expression for that... it's called "rape." In this context we might say, "This is a rape song."

But nobody actually got raped in the song in the OP. We just get a song describing a situation could and sometimes does progresses to date rape. So some people describe the song as "a little bit rapey."
 
Zorq, I understand why people used the expression "rapey" and the cultural context in which that song was written. From a purely linguistic perspective, words don't have a fixed meaning independent of a context, and you really need to understand the context in which that song was written to realize its interpretation.

Your profile says that you are in the ROC, so maybe I can explain it in terms of an interaction I once had with a Korean student, who, following a custom he was familiar with, brought me a gift at the end of the linguistics course I had taught--a box of ginseng. (My Korean students gave me lots of ginseng over the years. :)) I was touched, and I immediately accepted the gift, thanking him profusely. Later on, during a more relaxed conversation with him, we discussed the custom of bringing gifts to teachers, since that was not a normal custom in the US. In fact, it had ethical implications. He was a little uncomfortable, because of the way I had accepted his gift, and he wanted to explain why. He told me that Koreans would normally refuse such a gift initially, but it would ultimately be an insult to refuse it. So he would have kept insisting until I graciously accepted it. Immediate acceptance was too abrupt. So I should have said "no", but not too persistently.
 
Zorq, I understand why people used the expression "rapey" and the cultural context in which that song was written. From a purely linguistic perspective, words don't have a fixed meaning independent of a context, and you really need to understand the context in which that song was written to realize its interpretation.

Your profile says that you are in the ROC, so maybe I can explain it in terms of an interaction I once had with a Korean student, who, following a custom he was familiar with, brought me a gift at the end of the linguistics course I had taught--a box of ginseng. (My Korean students gave me lots of ginseng over the years. :)) I was touched, and I immediately accepted the gift, thanking him profusely. Later on, during a more relaxed conversation with him, we discussed the custom of bringing gifts to teachers, since that was not a normal custom in the US. In fact, it had ethical implications. He was a little uncomfortable, because of the way I had accepted his gift, and he wanted to explain why. He told me that Koreans would normally refuse such a gift initially, but it would ultimately be an insult to refuse it. So he would have kept insisting until I graciously accepted it. Immediate acceptance was too abrupt. So I should have said "no", but not too persistently.
Do you think the same custom would persist in a society where sometimes (not usually, but often enough that most people could expect it to happen to them once) the gift exploded and badly injured you if you accepted it, and there was no guarantee that you had any legal recompense if it did?

No one is saying that the song sounded rapey in 1950. People for the most part did not admit that rapes occurred in 1950, and there was certainly no formal projects at educating young women about the dangers of rape. Telling them not to interact with boys was considered enough, and this got a lot of girls raped. Indeed, there was a strong social expectation to then marry their rapists. This was not an ideal situation. And it isn't our situation. "Original intent" has nothing to do with the business decision of whether or not to play the song. "Rum and Coca Cola" was not meant to be racially offensive or rapey when it was written, I'm quite sure, but you sure as hell wouldn't put in on the radio around here. Not if you didn't want a brick through your station window. Said one of its popularizers: "The rhythm was what attracted the Andrews Sisters to 'Rum and Coca-Cola'. We never thought of the lyric. The lyric was there, it was cute, but we didn't think of what it meant; but at that time, nobody else would think of it either, because we weren't as morally open as we are today and so, a lot of stuff—really, no excuses—just went over our heads." In fact, it was banned at quite a lot of stations at the time - for mentioning alcohol, which the authors absolutely intended to do, but which would bother no one now. The cultural context that matters is the one your customers live in, not the one the writers of the song lived in.

I note that I could easily be fired for accepting a gift from a student now, whether or not it was culturally appropriate from the student's point of view. My employers would consider their own corporate culture to be the most important factor, not the context of the student.
 
Zorq, I understand why people used the expression "rapey" and the cultural context in which that song was written. From a purely linguistic perspective, words don't have a fixed meaning independent of a context, and you really need to understand the context in which that song was written to realize its interpretation.

Your profile says that you are in the ROC, so maybe I can explain it in terms of an interaction I once had with a Korean student, who, following a custom he was familiar with, brought me a gift at the end of the linguistics course I had taught--a box of ginseng. (My Korean students gave me lots of ginseng over the years. :)) I was touched, and I immediately accepted the gift, thanking him profusely. Later on, during a more relaxed conversation with him, we discussed the custom of bringing gifts to teachers, since that was not a normal custom in the US. In fact, it had ethical implications. He was a little uncomfortable, because of the way I had accepted his gift, and he wanted to explain why. He told me that Koreans would normally refuse such a gift initially, but it would ultimately be an insult to refuse it. So he would have kept insisting until I graciously accepted it. Immediate acceptance was too abrupt. So I should have said "no", but not too persistently.

You can look at the song in any context you want to. But you shouldn't get upset when other people look at the song in a modern, 2018, liberated context. If people call the song "a little bit rapey" because they are looking at it from a new context, that is their prerogative and it doesn't make them wrong.

Just to be clear... I personally really love this song and I always have. I have no interest in banning this song or Mark Twain or anything else. But that doesn't mean that I can't recognize the potentially troubling implications of the situation described in the song. And there is no reason to not describe those troubling implications with a short expression like "a little bit rapey."
 
Zorq, I understand why people used the expression "rapey" and the cultural context in which that song was written. From a purely linguistic perspective, words don't have a fixed meaning independent of a context, and you really need to understand the context in which that song was written to realize its interpretation.

Your profile says that you are in the ROC, so maybe I can explain it in terms of an interaction I once had with a Korean student, who, following a custom he was familiar with, brought me a gift at the end of the linguistics course I had taught--a box of ginseng. (My Korean students gave me lots of ginseng over the years. :)) I was touched, and I immediately accepted the gift, thanking him profusely. Later on, during a more relaxed conversation with him, we discussed the custom of bringing gifts to teachers, since that was not a normal custom in the US. In fact, it had ethical implications. He was a little uncomfortable, because of the way I had accepted his gift, and he wanted to explain why. He told me that Koreans would normally refuse such a gift initially, but it would ultimately be an insult to refuse it. So he would have kept insisting until I graciously accepted it. Immediate acceptance was too abrupt. So I should have said "no", but not too persistently.

You can look at the song in any context you want to. But you shouldn't get upset when other people look at the song in a modern, 2018, liberated context. If people call the song "a little bit rapey" because they are looking at it from a new context, that is their prerogative and it doesn't make them wrong.

I would say that your "2018, liberated context" is quite imaginary. The concept of free love was alive and well in the late 19th and early 20th century, especially in the Roaring Twenties. Women's liberation movements did not start in the latter half of the 20th century and come to fruition in the 21st. The really big difference between then and now is that women are better able to control pregnancies. That is, they can prevent them with the pill and, in a diminishing number of places, terminate unwanted pregnancies. So that has change the dynamics of mating behavior. I don't agree that "liberated" has anything to do with the attitude of those who feel uncomfortable with the lyrics of this song. I think it has to do more with traditional American puritanical attitudes towards courtship behavior and the spreading culture of "zero tolerance" behavior. In contrast with the middle-late twentieth century, there now seems to be a great deal less tolerance for different perspectives on politics and morality.

Just to be clear... I personally really love this song and I always have. I have no interest in banning this song or Mark Twain or anything else. But that doesn't mean that I can't recognize the potentially troubling implications of the situation described in the song. And there is no reason to not describe those troubling implications with a short expression like "a little bit rapey."

Fair enough, but I strongly object to watering down the meaning of "rape" to include any kind of sexist behavior. The technical quibble that "rapey" doesn't mean "rape" does not cut it with me. That is a pejorative label intended to demonize behavior that has nothing whatsoever to do with forced sex. There is a small segment of the population that has a problem with this traditional Christmas song. I think I understand perfectly well where they are coming from, but I also think that they do more damage to the struggle for gender equality than those who refuse to bang the #metoo drum at every turn, no matter how silly the issue. And this issue is incredibly silly, given that the woman in the song is not really rejecting the idea of staying. That much is obvious from the plain wording of the song, even in modern terms.
 
I would say that your "2018, liberated context" is quite imaginary. The concept of free love was alive and well in the late 19th and early 20th century, especially in the Roaring Twenties. Women's liberation movements did not start in the latter half of the 20th century and come to fruition in the 21st. The really big difference between then and now is that women are better able to control pregnancies. That is, they can prevent them with the pill and, in a diminishing number of places, terminate unwanted pregnancies. So that has change the dynamics of mating behavior. I don't agree that "liberated" has anything to do with the attitude of those who feel uncomfortable with the lyrics of this song. I think it has to do more with traditional American puritanical attitudes towards courtship behavior and the spreading culture of "zero tolerance" behavior. In contrast with the middle-late twentieth century, there now seems to be a great deal less tolerance for different perspectives on politics and morality.

Just to be clear... I personally really love this song and I always have. I have no interest in banning this song or Mark Twain or anything else. But that doesn't mean that I can't recognize the potentially troubling implications of the situation described in the song. And there is no reason to not describe those troubling implications with a short expression like "a little bit rapey."

Fair enough, but I strongly object to watering down the meaning of "rape" to include any kind of sexist behavior. The technical quibble that "rapey" doesn't mean "rape" does not cut it with me. That is a pejorative label intended to demonize behavior that has nothing whatsoever to do with forced sex. There is a small segment of the population that has a problem with this traditional Christmas song. I think I understand perfectly well where they are coming from, but I also think that they do more damage to the struggle for gender equality than those who refuse to bang the #metoo drum at every turn, no matter how silly the issue. And this issue is incredibly silly, given that the woman in the song is not really rejecting the idea of staying. That much is obvious from the plain wording of the song, even in modern terms.

Are you claiming that the same people would be offended by any song in which two people are flirting?
 
...

Are you claiming that the same people would be offended by any song in which two people are flirting?

No.

So why are they upset by this one? If, as you say, this is merely a return of Puritanism combined with "zero tolerance"?

I am no more upset by the issue than you are, and you have but to read my reply to zorq (or previous posts) to discover the problem I have with those who call this traditional Christmas song "rapey".
 
I would say that your "2018, liberated context" is quite imaginary. The concept of free love was alive and well in the late 19th and early 20th century, especially in the Roaring Twenties. Women's liberation movements did not start in the latter half of the 20th century and come to fruition in the 21st. The really big difference between then and now is that women are better able to control pregnancies. That is, they can prevent them with the pill and, in a diminishing number of places, terminate unwanted pregnancies. So that has change the dynamics of mating behavior. I don't agree that "liberated" has anything to do with the attitude of those who feel uncomfortable with the lyrics of this song. I think it has to do more with traditional American puritanical attitudes towards courtship behavior and the spreading culture of "zero tolerance" behavior. In contrast with the middle-late twentieth century, there now seems to be a great deal less tolerance for different perspectives on politics and morality.
I struggled to find the right adjective to distinguish the difference between 1950s American culture and 2018 American culture with respect to women's empowerment and gender dynamics. I'm not surprised that you jumped on the word "liberated." Maybe you have a better suggestion? But I can't help but feel you are projecting your mind reading onto me again.

Fair enough, but I strongly object to watering down the meaning of "rape" to include any kind of sexist behavior. The technical quibble that "rapey" doesn't mean "rape" does not cut it with me.
Why not? Why are we not allowed a word that means what all the people using it intend for it to mean. Why can't we have a word that means "Skirting the threshold of rape." or "exuding a sense or feeling of a rapist or possible rape."

That is a pejorative label intended to demonize behavior that has nothing whatsoever to do with forced sex.
Well No. The song in question has nothing whatsoever to do with forced sex. That's why nobody is calling it a rape song. The word "rape" describes an act of forced sex. "Rapey" describes something else that is related to rape in some way but is not rape. Judging by the way I use the word and everyone else in this thread seems to be using the word, your "nothing whatsoever" qualifier is just wrong .

There is a small segment of the population that has a problem with this traditional Christmas song. I think I understand perfectly well where they are coming from, but I also think that they do more damage to the struggle for gender equality than those who refuse to bang the #metoo drum at every turn, no matter how silly the issue. And this issue is incredibly silly, given that the woman in the song is not really rejecting the idea of staying. That much is obvious from the plain wording of the song, even in modern terms.

I agree with this. But it is unrelated to anything I have written in this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom