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

[zorq]

My wife has been following the controversy surrounding this song with great amusement. The way she sees it, most women would end up remaining virgins into their 40s, if they really expected men to always be waiting for explicit consent before expressing their feelings openly.

Who says or thinks men (or women) shouldn't express their feelings openly?

Some of us think that men and women should respect the polite rejections that are offered to us from potential romantic partners we are interested in. Hearing a "no" but interpreting it as a "maybe" or a "try harder" is rude and an dangerous policy. It's the mentality of a sexual predator.

If the "mouse" woman in the song really did not want the "wolf" man's attentions, she really did have the option of just leaving rather than asking for another cigarette and another drink.

Talk about inserting your own imaginary interpretations into the song. You can never know how a sexual predator might react to increasingly firm rejection from their target and likewise you can never know how the fictional male seducer in this song might have reacted had she actually tried to brave the cold outside.

 

[ruby sparks]

And #MeToo I think.

Both of these assumptions are a load of baloney. Discussion about this song and others being a little bit rapey pre-date both #MeToo and Bill Cosby being outed as a rapist.

Sure, but I do nonetheless think that things such as #MeToo, along with other factors, is likely part of what led to the negative reaction being arguably a bit too strong this time around. I'm ok in the end, on balance, with agreeing that this song/scene is a little bit rapey, in the sense that zorq is using the phrase, or perhaps problematic is a better word, but I do still think the issue has been a bit overblown, especially given that this particular song/scene is actually much more nuanced than appears at first impression. Hence, I think, the wide and varied disagreement, in which the idea that the song/scene is female-empowering and progressive seem to be as valid as the idea that it is harmfully sexist.

 

[ruby sparks]

You can never know how a sexual predator might react to increasingly firm rejection from their target and likewise you can never know how the fictional male seducer in this song might have reacted had she actually tried to brave the cold outside.

Yeah, but that involves hypotheticals that are not in the song/scene. So it's like you said, the song/scene tastes a little bit nutty, but on closer analysis does not contain any actual nuts.

I think that the song/scene raises certain potential real world issues that are worth discussing, but is by and large not itself a good example of them, in the end, and could even, arguably, be said to be an example of the opposite of something to be concerned about (see southerhybrid's posts for example). And I think that most of those here who think that this particular song/scene is ok are not dismissive of the potentially unbenign issues.

That said, I am definitely ok with discussing the issues (which this song/scene raises but does not in the final analysis exemplify) nonetheless.

For example, in the real world, the issue of token resistance to sexual advances and persuasion, in situations of the sort fictionally portrayed here, is I think, very complicated. I have read some interesting studies. The general gist of the results seem to be that there are many good reasons for a persuader/seducer to consider (indeed lean towards) desisting even when the resistance is token (because token resistance is itself complex and varied and some of the motives for it are valid reasons for seducers to refrain from proceeding) especially if the seducer does not know the person being seduced very well, which I believe is often the case in real world 'dating' situations like the one portrayed, and also especially where alcohol is involved, since it is widely accepted (and empirically shown) that this results in misinterpretations of other people's behaviour which are arguably at the heart of the issue (except in cases where the seducer intends to date rape regardless of the behaviour of the person who I think we can in those cases unambiguously call the intended victim). And men should be especially careful, because (and again it has been shown empirically) men in general tend to misperceive sexual intent in others, in other words, have a tendency to think that it's there when it isn't.

In a....nutshell.....(if you'll excuse me riffing on nuts)......'no means no' is a very good general rule.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

]

Well, what exactly is your problem with the lyrics? I see absolutely nothing wrong with trying to convince somebody to have sex with you

If you have to convince someone to have sex with you, that means they don't want to, initially. Why not just leave them alone if they don't want to have sex with you?

(Cue angry responses for suggesting to leave women alone).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

]

Well, what exactly is your problem with the lyrics? I see absolutely nothing wrong with trying to convince somebody to have sex with you

If you have to convince someone to have sex with you, that means they don't want to, initially. Why not just leave them alone if they don't want to have sex with you?

(Cue angry responses for suggesting to leave women alone).

It's a fucking duet, dude. There's no new response which hasn't been said a few dozen times already.

Now, fortunately the CBC has rolled back its decision to take the song off the airwaves, so my tax dollars are no longer going to support this dumbassery. It's nice to see that the overwhelming response from listeners was a sane one.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4751493/baby-its-cold-outside-returns/

 

[ruby sparks]

Now, fortunately the CBC has rolled back its decision to take the song off the airwaves, so my tax dollars are no longer going to support this dumbassery. It's nice to see that the overwhelming response from listeners was a sane one.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4751493/baby-its-cold-outside-returns/

"Because we value our audience input, which was overwhelmingly to include the song....". Otherwise known as 'money talks'?

Ok. I think we're nearly done here. What storm in a 1st world bra-cup is up next?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I prefer:

“Appreciating not everyone interprets lyrics the same way, listeners may wish to skip the song as we understand not everyone will agree with this decision.”

While I know it wasn't meant that way, I choose to read that as their saying "If you don't like it, you can just go and fuck off"

 

[ruby sparks]

I prefer:

“Appreciating not everyone interprets lyrics the same way, listeners may wish to skip the song as we understand not everyone will agree with this decision.”

While I know it wasn't meant that way, I choose to read that as their saying "If you don't like it, you can just go and fuck off"

Ratings, bro. Ratings. Commercial radio only tells people to fuck off if they think they're in the small minority of subscribers.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ratings, bro. Ratings. Commercial radio only tells people to fuck off if they think they're in the small minority of subscribers.

Well, it doesn't sound like there was really any kind of backlash and nobody was going to stop listening to them because of this decision, so the net financial effect one way or another could likely have been mitigated by whatever change someone from the accounting department could find in his couch, so there wasn't any economic pressure because ratings weren't impacted by the decision or the reversal of the decision.

It sounds more like they just kind of said that they made a decision for a given reason, looked at it again and realized that the reason was dumb and so reversed the decision.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think I get it. Poli is a Christian apologist, so selectively changing context to suit the argument is a matter of course.

Sort of like Godwin's Law, as soon as you try the "You are a Christian apologist" line as an attempted insult, you lost the fucking argument.

Yeah, again, it wasn't an attempt to insult; it was a statement in support of a demonstrable fact; that Poli has a history of selectively changing context to suit the argument, which Poli then immediately demonstrated to be true by selectively changing the context to suit the argument.

Delete your account.

As a "super mod" should you be making such declarations? Particularly since you did not address any of my other detailed posts establishing proper context and why it matters?

 

[ruby sparks]

Ratings, bro. Ratings. Commercial radio only tells people to fuck off if they think they're in the small minority of subscribers.

Well, it doesn't sound like there was really any kind of backlash and nobody was going to stop listening to them because of this decision, so the net financial effect one way or another could likely have been mitigated by whatever change someone from the accounting department could find in his couch, so there wasn't any economic pressure because ratings weren't impacted by the decision or the reversal of the decision.

It sounds more like they just kind of said that they made a decision for a given reason, looked at it again and realized that the reason was dumb and so reversed the decision.

You're probably right. And I am incredibly flippant at times.

On which note, I hope my referring to you as 'bro' did not carry any unintended discriminatory baggage of any variety. I can do 'baby', 'wolfie' or 'mousey' instead, seeing as how these have recently been reinstated as acceptable.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

On which note, I hope my referring to you as 'bro' did not carry any unintended discriminatory baggage of any variety. I can do 'baby', 'wolf' or 'mouse' instead, seeing as how these have recently been reinstated as acceptable.

It's fine. If you choose to self-identify as a preppy kid from the 90s, I am content to validate your lifestyle.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No actually you CAN.

The context of the artist's intent is only one of many.

None legitimate, however, as that--once again--would mean I could just say that YOU are arguing from the context of the Ming dynasty. Clearly I CAN do that, but obviously and ironically the issue isn't about what I am physically capable of doing. I CANNOT do that in the only context legitimate to this conversation.

There is a reason so many authors and artists refuse to discuss the the intent they had for their work.

Which is entirely irrelevant to this topic, particularly in light of the fact that has been repeatedly pointed out that the artist's intent is known.

But that is mostly besides the point.

Entirely.

There is only one correct context for determining what an artist intended a work of art to mean and that is the one that you are insisting on.

Then why is this continuing?

But there are many other contexts that people might find useful for examining a work of art in.

Which would all be off-topic then.

We might want to compare themes of a song against another popular song at the time. We might want to examine a song in the context of drug or alcohol culture. We might want to speculate as to what the people in another region of the world who have not experienced this song might react to it. And, of course, we might want to examine what the lyrics of a song mean to the people right here and now in 2018. None of these contexts are "incorrect."

They ALL are in regard to the topic of this thread, which is whether or not this particular song is or is not a "rape" song (or condoning rape or in any way a "little bit rapey"). It is not. Full stop.

If you wish to discuss how it has been misconstrued as a rape song in the context of modern day, by all means. That has in fact been going on throughout the thread and indeed is the precise reason it has been misconstrued as a rape song; it has been taken out of its proper context.

Except that it is NOT in any way "rapey." You are simply wrong. And not just because the artist's daughter has provided the proper context, but because the lyrics themselves are self-evidently not describing a rape in any way.

Rapey isn't rape.

FFS. Semantics games? Really? "Rapey" implies rape, which is rape.

So she is not saying "No" to stop anything that is happening against her will (as nothing is happening yet); she has stated that this is what she is expected to say so she's saying it in order to say that she did. It is clearly not what she wants, however, as again evidenced by the lyrics. This is not an interpretation. This is self-evidently true.

No... that is definitely an interpretation.

It is demonstrably not an interpretation, as I just demonstrated. It is self-evidently true.

that isn't the only way to interpret it.

More pointless semantics games. Again, it's not a question of whether or not there are gods holding my tongue at bay; it's a question of following proper protocols, if you will, to accurately determine a truth claim.

As I have also pointed out many times, I CAN--am physically unconstrained by any god or mechanism--to just assert that the proper context for everything YOU have written is as if it came from a prisoner in a Russian gulag in the 1930s. I CAN do that, but I would be wrong. Objectively wrong. You are not, in fact, speaking from the context of being in a Russian gulag.

There is more than one context we are allowed to look at things.

I am not interested in making things fuzzy purely for the unnecessarily pedantic sake of affirming the notion of fuzzy logic and/or pointless semantics games. This is not Freshman Logic & Language 101. We are ALL aware that someone CAN say any stupid shit they want to say; that's not what was meant. My apologies if I assumed we were all well beyond our first bong hits.

 

[southernhybrid]

Here's another feminist defending the song as a feminist anthem.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/baby_its_cold_outside_should_be_a_feminist_anthem.html







I don't even know where some of you men get off who are telling us women that this song is offensive to women.

As you may have noticed, men don't always know what offends women or why. We often have to rely on what women tell us is offensive and take their word for it. The feminist in the video below tells us that the song is offensive (fast forward to the 5:15 mark, if you don't want to watch the whole thing). Why should we believe the feminist you have cited above, versus the more famous and prominent feminist in the video below? Perhaps if all you feminists would get your story straight as to whether these types of things are "female empowerment" or "rapey", us men wouldn't be such lost souls.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpDnr2s9yxQ[/YOUTUBE]

The reason I made that earlier remark about men, is because most of this thread has been dominated by men, who think they know what offends women. For awhile, the women is the thread were being ignored, which I found almost ironic, since some of the men seemed to think that their own opinions were more important than the opinions of the women. I know there are some women who disagree with me, and while I honestly don't understand why they are reacting the way they are, I at least respect their opinions since they know what it's like being a woman in a man's world.

Some of the female reactions may be based on their own negative experiences with men, compared to mine. I've never let a man intimidate me. I successfully shamed an actual rapist into leaving me alone, after he followed me to my car late one night when I was 30. I was planning on how to escape, as I was talking to the asshole, but since he had a hard time trying to figure out how to use the clutch in my car, since he was dumb enough to wear a wedding ring, since I was obviously much smarter than him, I was able to get rid of his sorry ass. It made me a lot more careful about where I went alone at night, but it didn't traumatize me. I was told by the police that what I did was the best thing a woman could do if a man attempted to rape her. Naturally, there are times when this doesn't work.

But, I know women who would never have had the courage to do that. I have a sister who was raped twice, and my sister would never have the emotional strength to do what I did. This could be because our father bullied her throughout our childhood, while I stood up to him. I know women who are easily offended by a lot of things that men say. I understand that we are all different and we have all had different experiences. While I get all that, it kind of pisses me off that so many people are making such a fuss about one, very old song that was never meant to be interpreted as an insult to women, when there are so many actual problems with the way that some men treat women.

This particular song is more about a woman standing up to a prudish society. It's flirty, and humorous.( Btw, the expression, "say what's in this drink" was a very common expression in that period of time". ) For that matter, she could spend the night with the man without even having sex. Still, there is the fear of what others would think if she did that. Sadly, some of that attitude continued to exist at least well in the 1980s and possibly even today among some groups of people.

I can't make other women stronger, but I can encourage them to not be fearful when it comes to telling men what they want and what they don't want. And, I can
encourage them not to be offended by the words to an old song that was written over 70 years ago.

I certainly don't need a man to tell me what I should be offended by. Yet, a few of you seem to think that we women need men to tell us that we should be offended by this song. I find that patronizing and insulting. That's all.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Many gangsta rap songs have far worse lyrics, sometimes glorifying murder, drug abuse, and demeaning women.

"Gangsta rap" flourished in the 90s. A lot of radio stations back then (2 decades ago) refused to play or heavily edited these songs. I know, because I worked at one.

Do you have something a little more current?

Christmas Reggae?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's a good song, but I can see why people have issues with it, I used to think the song was fucked up, but on closer listening it's really about the woman wanting to get some, and trying to talk herself into ignoring what the prudish society will think. The line about the drink is the main one that makes you think of date rape, but I think that is actually her inventing an excuse to "misbehave." There's no convincing people otherwise at this point though.

Yes, agreed. But it is indeed a very outdated way of viewing the male/female relationship. In a lot of 1950s and 1960s movies there is this view of a woman as wanting it deep down but resisting due to societal pressure, so the guy grabs her and kisses her and she struggles for a little bit but then eventually relents. I was watching High Plains Drifter the other day and Clint literally begins raping a woman and after a bit she starts getting into it because she wanted it all along.

Is this the Make America Great Again period of time we're supposed to go back to? The reason the view is "outdated" isn't because it was a shared view among the sexes that was old but instead of the men in charge creating this view and pushing it on everyone else so that people believed it. Now that women have some sort of voice, they don't want this view pushed on everyone culturally since it's not what women with brains think. Also, another example of the kind of thing you're talking about: Blade Runner.

 

[Gun Nut]

Here's another feminist defending the song as a feminist anthem.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/baby_its_cold_outside_should_be_a_feminist_anthem.html







I don't even know where some of you men get off who are telling us women that this song is offensive to women.

As you may have noticed, men don't always know what offends women or why. We often have to rely on what women tell us is offensive and take their word for it. The feminist in the video below tells us that the song is offensive (fast forward to the 5:15 mark, if you don't want to watch the whole thing). Why should we believe the feminist you have cited above, versus the more famous and prominent feminist in the video below? Perhaps if all you feminists would get your story straight as to whether these types of things are "female empowerment" or "rapey", us men wouldn't be such lost souls.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpDnr2s9yxQ[/YOUTUBE]

1) "All I want for Christmas is you" - complaint is that it implies all a woman needs is a man.
My response is, "how insensitive of you to just assume the "you" is a man.. and she "wants" not "needs".

2) "I saw mommy kissing Santa Clause" - complaint is that kid has to watch mommy cheat on daddy
My response is, "That WAS daddy, you dumbass... or do you still believe that Santa is a real guy? that's the irony of the song that makes it so cute... Mommy kisses Santa all the time.

3) "Dreaming of a White Christmas" - Stereotypes the types of gifts for boys and girls
My response is, "Yes. Boys tend to have different interests than Girls. Nothing there implies it is illegal or unethical for either to desire the other, and the choices were based on the reality of the time".

4) "Santa Baby" - complaint is that the woman is asking Santa for expensive materialistic things.
My response is, "Wait a minute, I thought women were supposed to be able to want whatever they want... are we going back to only little dolls and makeup kits are for girls... which is it??"

5) "Cold outside" - Complaint is that it is "Rapey" sounding because he is trying to talk her into not leaving.
My response is, "if women are too weak to protect themselves from verbal persuasion, then should they really be allowed to vote and manage finances and make any kind of important decisions on their own, without a man taking responsibility for them and assuring that they are not being manipulated by another man?"

 

[Politesse]

None legitimate, however, as that--once again--would mean I could just say that YOU are arguing from the context of the Ming dynasty. Clearly I CAN do that, but obviously and ironically the issue isn't about what I am physically capable of doing. I CANNOT do that in the only context legitimate to this conversation.

There is a reason so many authors and artists refuse to discuss the the intent they had for their work.

Which is entirely irrelevant to this topic, particularly in light of the fact that has been repeatedly pointed out that the artist's intent is known.

But that is mostly besides the point.

Entirely.

There is only one correct context for determining what an artist intended a work of art to mean and that is the one that you are insisting on.

Then why is this continuing?

But there are many other contexts that people might find useful for examining a work of art in.

Which would all be off-topic then.

We might want to compare themes of a song against another popular song at the time. We might want to examine a song in the context of drug or alcohol culture. We might want to speculate as to what the people in another region of the world who have not experienced this song might react to it. And, of course, we might want to examine what the lyrics of a song mean to the people right here and now in 2018. None of these contexts are "incorrect."

They ALL are in regard to the topic of this thread, which is whether or not this particular song is or is not a "rape" song (or condoning rape or in any way a "little bit rapey"). It is not. Full stop.

If you wish to discuss how it has been misconstrued as a rape song in the context of modern day, by all means. That has in fact been going on throughout the thread and indeed is the precise reason it has been misconstrued as a rape song; it has been taken out of its proper context.

Except that it is NOT in any way "rapey." You are simply wrong. And not just because the artist's daughter has provided the proper context, but because the lyrics themselves are self-evidently not describing a rape in any way.

Rapey isn't rape.

FFS. Semantics games? Really? "Rapey" implies rape, which is rape.

So she is not saying "No" to stop anything that is happening against her will (as nothing is happening yet); she has stated that this is what she is expected to say so she's saying it in order to say that she did. It is clearly not what she wants, however, as again evidenced by the lyrics. This is not an interpretation. This is self-evidently true.

No... that is definitely an interpretation.

It is demonstrably not an interpretation, as I just demonstrated. It is self-evidently true.

that isn't the only way to interpret it.

More pointless semantics games. Again, it's not a question of whether or not there are gods holding my tongue at bay; it's a question of following proper protocols, if you will, to accurately determine a truth claim.

As I have also pointed out many times, I CAN--am physically unconstrained by any god or mechanism--to just assert that the proper context for everything YOU have written is as if it came from a prisoner in a Russian gulag in the 1930s. I CAN do that, but I would be wrong. Objectively wrong. You are not, in fact, speaking from the context of being in a Russian gulag.

There is more than one context we are allowed to look at things.

I am not interested in making things fuzzy purely for the unnecessarily pedantic sake of affirming the notion of fuzzy logic and/or pointless semantics games. This is not Freshman Logic & Language 101. We are ALL aware that someone CAN say any stupid shit they want to say; that's not what was meant. My apologies if I assumed we were all well beyond our first bong hits.

No one ever claimed that the author's intent was to write a "rape song", whatever that might be. A thing can be innocent and still a problem. Authorial intent is irrelevant to a discussion of impact.

I note that your username belongs to a language you do not speak, and refers to a philosophical perspective that you know little about, as we have established in past discussions of the topic; would you say the meaning of "Koyaanisqatsi", to you, comes more importantly from the now-unknown person who originally coined the phrase, or from the film that used it much, much later and greatly impacted your thinking? Would you be convinced that it was inappropriate or even supernaturally dangerous as a personal name, if I established that the original users of the phrase would almost certainly agree with me? Or would you insist that the context you encountered it in, in the time you encountered it, is more important to your decision-making concerning what is or is not an socially appropriate use of a phrase?

Remember, we aren't discussing whether to jail the author of the song for rape. We are discussing whether or not a radio station should be obliged to play a song that they think might (however mistakenly) offend their listeners.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No one ever claimed that the author's intent was to write a "rape song"

Not what I argued either, but since you selectively shifted context, great! Then we're done. The song is not about a rape.

A thing can be innocent and still a problem.

Which is why it is vitally important to use proper context as one's guide to sort out such a problem, yes?

I note that your username belongs to a language you do not speak, and refers to a philosophical perspective that you know little about, as we have established in past discussions of the topic

Beg pardon? I know all about it and we have never had past discussions about it, so by all means, post links to all such discussions.

would you say the meaning of "Koyaanisqatsi", to you, comes more importantly from the now-unknown person who originally coined the phrase, or from the film that used it much, much later and greatly impacted your thinking?

Are you asking me what is the proper context to better understand the philosophical perspective of the phrase or the film?

Would you be convinced that it was inappropriate or even supernaturally dangerous as a personal name

You mean "user name" or "avatar."

if I established that the original users of the phrase would almost certainly agree with me?

So you are--once again--arguing that proper context is important.

Or would you insist that the context you encountered it in, in the time you encountered it, is more important to your decision-making concerning what is or is not an socially appropriate use of a phrase?

I would insist as I have been insisting this whole time; that proper context is absolutely paramount. See my clarifications of the points you thought you were making--but were not--above.

Remember, we aren't discussing whether to jail the author of the song for rape.

And thank you again for radically selectively shifting the context to once again demonstrate that my previous observation about you was in no way an attempted insult.

We are discussing whether or not a radio station should be obliged to play a song that they think might (however mistakenly) offend their listeners.

And off the charts. I was not discussing any such thing as to a radio station's obligation. Others may have been itt, but I was not. I was addressing the fact that the song is in no way shape or form condoning or even suggesting rape and that both the proper context and the song's lyrics conclusively prove this point.

To argue otherwise is to simply be wrong. It's ok. I know being wrong is a terrifying concept for some and can mean that one's own personal beliefs are therefore in danger of likewise being wrong--and thus some tend to go to radical extremes to defend against any such encroachment and could even be called an apologist accordingly and it not be an insult, just a statement of demonstrable fact--but I assure you that we are in agreement that the song is not and does not condone rape and that the proper context--as well as the lyrics--prove this fact.

Thus, should anyone argue out of ignorance that the song should be banned because it condones rape in any way (to bring it around so that your point is addressed too), then the response from all should be to better inform that person, not merely go, "well, if you say so." Precisely because it is out of ignorance.

Ignorance is likewise not an insult. It merely means a lack of information. Such as the proper context.

ETA: It's funny you went into my user name instead of simply addressing what I had previously noted about the fact that had I argued that YOUR position's context was as if you were a first century Jew. Was anything you argued coming from the context of being a first century Jew? It's ok for you to say, "No, of course not."

Am I then allowed--in the intellectually honest sense of the term--to then say, "You're wrong! In the context of being a first century Jew, this is X and it is deeply offensive and it should be banned!"

Of course not. Because that is objectively NOT the proper context for what you had argued. Thus my argument fails and should therefore be removed.

That's what is supposed to happen to arguments that fail. They are removed, not held as beliefs .

 

[zorq]

The degree of your frustration is not an indication you are correct.

None legitimate, however, as that--once again--would mean I could just say that YOU are arguing from the context of the Ming dynasty. Clearly I CAN do that, but obviously and ironically the issue isn't about what I am physically capable of doing. I CANNOT do that in the only context legitimate to this conversation.

I feel you completely misunderstand people when they say the song sounds "a little bit rapey." They are NOT saying "The author of this song wrote a song about rape." You are the one forcing that context on to other people. Again, this is not a hostile take over. I am not arguing from the context of the Ming dynasty, I am arguing from the context of a living human in 2018. And when we look at the lyrics of the song from this context they sound "a little bit rapey." That DOES IN NO WAY change the context of the song as it was written 70+ years ago.

There is a reason so many authors and artists refuse to discuss the the intent they had for their work.

Which is entirely irrelevant to this topic, particularly in light of the fact that has been repeatedly pointed out that the artist's intent is known.

But that is mostly besides the point.

Entirely.

No, it isn't off topic because you don't seem to understand that we can appreciate and criticize a work of art from many different perspectives and that in no way hinders or mitigates the legitimacy of the other perspectives.

There is only one correct context for determining what an artist intended a work of art to mean and that is the one that you are insisting on.

Then why is this continuing?

Because I am not TRYING to determine what the artist intended for this particular work of art! I already know what the artist intended. What the artist intended has no bearing on how the work of art is perceived in a different context.

But there are many other contexts that people might find useful for examining a work of art in.

Which would all be off-topic then.

No, because none of those other contexts are illegitimate.

We might want to compare themes of a song against another popular song at the time. We might want to examine a song in the context of drug or alcohol culture. We might want to speculate as to what the people in another region of the world who have not experienced this song might react to it. And, of course, we might want to examine what the lyrics of a song mean to the people right here and now in 2018. None of these contexts are "incorrect."

They ALL are in regard to the topic of this thread, which is whether or not this particular song is or is not a "rape" song (or condoning rape or in any way a "little bit rapey"). It is not. Full stop.

You might be right about the topic of this thread if ANYONE were insisting that this is a "rape" song. But NOBODY in this thread is insisting this is a rape song.

If you wish to discuss how it has been misconstrued as a rape song in the context of modern day, by all means. That has in fact been going on throughout the thread and indeed is the precise reason it has been misconstrued as a rape song; it has been taken out of its proper context.

Except that it is NOT in any way "rapey." You are simply wrong. And not just because the artist's daughter has provided the proper context, but because the lyrics themselves are self-evidently not describing a rape in any way.

Rapey isn't rape.

FFS. Semantics games? Really? "Rapey" implies rape, which is rape.

Really, I think this is the crux of your misconception. Why are people using the word "rapey" and not "rape" to describe this song? Is it because they are obviously distinct words? Could it possibly be because the words have two distinct definitions? Give me a break. It is you who is fumbling the semantics.

Listen. The person who coined the word "rapey" was most likely aware of the word "rape." And this person and all the people after him/her who chose to use it clearly thought it had a useful distinction from the word "rape" otherwise they would just keep using the word "rape." So surely, you can recognize that there might be a difference between the meaning of the word "rape" and the word "rapey." I've been explaining the difference in this thread, but maybe you weren't listening.

So she is not saying "No" to stop anything that is happening against her will (as nothing is happening yet); she has stated that this is what she is expected to say so she's saying it in order to say that she did. It is clearly not what she wants, however, as again evidenced by the lyrics. This is not an interpretation. This is self-evidently true.

No... that is definitely an interpretation.

It is demonstrably not an interpretation, as I just demonstrated. It is self-evidently true.

Yes, it's an interpretation. No, It's not self-evident! I think you keep claiming it's self evident because you don't have any evidence for their true context (even in the singular context you insist upon). Show me the breakdown of the author of this song describing EXACTLY what the three words "The answer is no" is referring to. You can't because it doesn't exist. There is nothing self evident about the meaning of words put together in a sentence. Words are all perceived through the filter of the observer and not all words are written or spoken with honest or even deliberate intent. In this very post we have a disagreement about the meaning of the word "rapey!"

that isn't the only way to interpret it.

More pointless semantics games. Again, it's not a question of whether or not there are gods holding my tongue at bay; it's a question of following proper protocols, if you will, to accurately determine a truth claim.

We are talking about two different truth claims. You are insisting that the author of the song had no intent for it to be preceived as "rapey." This is irrelevant to the claim that when we listen to the song in a more modern context it SOUNDS "a little bit rapey."

As I have also pointed out many times, I CAN--am physically unconstrained by any god or mechanism--to just assert that the proper context for everything YOU have written is as if it came from a prisoner in a Russian gulag in the 1930s. I CAN do that, but I would be wrong. Objectively wrong. You are not, in fact, speaking from the context of being in a Russian gulag.

True. But I'm not trying to tell you that the correct context in which to listen to the song is the modern one. I am not forcing a context on you or anyone else! I am telling you that I CAN listen to it in this context, and evaluate it from this context, and describe it from this context, and there is nothing wrong with that!

There is more than one context we are allowed to look at things.

I am not interested in making things fuzzy purely for the unnecessarily pedantic sake of affirming the notion of fuzzy logic and/or pointless semantics games. This is not Freshman Logic & Language 101. We are ALL aware that someone CAN say any stupid shit they want to say; that's not what was meant. My apologies if I assumed we were all well beyond our first bong hits.

Are you even paying attention at all?