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

[RavenSky]

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.



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.

The debate about this (and other) songs has been going on far far far longer than #MeToo, so stop trying to demonize that movement wrt this issue.

 

[Rhea]

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.

It’s as if you didn’t even read my post but constructed for yourself the post you wanted to answer and are replying to that. So you should take my quotes out.

I clearly did not mention #metoo (more below on that) and I did not reference whether or not sex occurred, I talked about the stultifying “norms” that did then and still do now force woem to take the blame as a slut whether she sleeps with him or not, whether it’s consensual or not, and creates the stupid consequence that men have an even harder time getting laid due to their own stupid shaming of women.

Furthermore, your obvious dismissal of the #metoo zeitgeist conveys the feeling that you dismiss it as irrelevant, untrue, whiney, I don’t know what.

In reality, it was a raw opening up of hearts tolet people like yu know what was being done to people in front of you all that you never knew. It was people who had buried their pain becuase they knew they would be condemned as sluts, disbelieved, and punished by society. And then in the moment of solidarity and the feeling that saying something might be done for future women, even if justice was never done for her. That maybe FINALLY she’d be believed that no, she had not ever given consent, she had not been a willing partner; she’d been coerced, forced, or drugged.

And then folks like you with your “so-called me too movement” and your “metoo interpretation of the song” show the charming side of men who don’t want anything to change.


Anyway, you didn’t address my comments. You addressed your own straw-man.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

Sorry, but yes there is. There almost always is. And in this particular case you can find them in this thread, and all over the internet and beyond, and what's more they clearly don't divide along gender lines. Holding one's own opinions so strongly that one starts to think they are the only valid opinions is not generally a good thing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's almost as if you didn't read my post explaining my nuanced position.

Don, I wasn't referring to you specifically in my snarky generalization. My impression of your lengthy post was that you put an awful lot of thought into not answering Derec's rather simple question.

Then, your impression is not well thought-out. My post was about my opinion, not answering Derec's question. Regards to Derec's question, in the first sentence of my post I explained why it's a bad analogy.

If you were trying to say that there is sometimes a very thin boundary between seduction and a manipulative attempt to have a sexual encounter, I can agree with that. I just don't think that all of that nuance applies to this traditional duet.

I wrote far more than that.

 

[RavenSky]

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

Sorry, but yes there is. There almost always is. And in this particular case you can find them in this thread, and all over the internet and beyond, and what's more they clearly don't divide along gender lines. Holding one's own opinions so strongly that one starts to think they are the only valid opinions is not generally a good thing.

O.K. Then I will revise my comment:

There simply is no room for "difference in opinions" on this point ("no" means "no" in a sexual context) between people who actually care about a woman's bodily autonomy and freedom to choose for herself if/when she wants to have sex.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

Sorry, but yes there is. There almost always is. And in this particular case you can find them in this thread, and all over the internet and beyond, and what's more they clearly don't divide along gender lines. Holding one's own opinions so strongly that one starts to think they are the only valid opinions is not generally a good thing.

O.K. Then I will revise my comment:

There simply is no room for "difference in opinions" on this point ("no" means "no" in a sexual context) between people who actually care about a woman's bodily autonomy and freedom to choose for herself if/when she wants to have sex.

It's ok. After the revolution, seduction will be forbidden.

For now, I won't ask you why you only mentioned women's autonomy.

 

[southernhybrid]

Baby It's Cold Outside is a playful game played by 2 people who BOTH want to spend the night together, with one coyly pretending to be unsure, heightening the steam already there between them.

I stole that line from someone on WaPo, but that's exactly how I see this cute little song. Let's face it. We're never going to change each other's opinion of the song, so what makes us keep doing this? That's what I really want to understand.

 

[thebeave]

Baby It's Cold Outside is a playful game played by 2 people who BOTH want to spend the night together, with one coyly pretending to be unsure, heightening the steam already there between them.

I stole that line from someone on WaPo, but that's exactly how I see this cute little song. Let's face it. We're never going to change each other's opinion of the song, so what makes us keep doing this? That's what I really want to understand.

I'm actually on your side with regard to this silly song. The naysayers are taking a "zero tolerance" approach on this, with no regard to nuance, history or context. In general, I'm not a fan of "zero tolerance" attitudes. It shuts down reason and freethought and largely innocent people are taken down. And it does seem odd that the nation gets its panties in a wad about an old silly, flirty song between two imaginary people, when we are bombarded daily with cold blooded murders on the news, TV and movies.

As to why people take the song as seriously as they do, I think you have to look at the current state of affairs with regard to modern day feminism, consent laws, "rape culture", etc. There's bit of a social penalty if you don't fall in line with the more radical, extreme interpretations. Public shaming and demands for apologies when all you've done is express a reasonable opinion. Ask Matt Damon about that. And then there are the annual Slutwalks and Women's Marches with all their signs and chants. Do you think any man in his right mind would speak up to publicly challenge or ridicule any of the statements coming from these events? Not unless he wants to be called a misogynist, a rape apologist, lose his job....

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What part of the word "no" is so hard for everyone to understand?

What part of the word “context” is so hard for you to understand? And why did you avoid addressing all of the OTHER points—such as she saying first “I OUGHT to say no, no, no sir, at least I’m going to say that I tried” and why does she spend the majority of the song talking about what her parents and brother and sister and neighbors and visciously minded maiden aunt will think and say about her if she stays?

You are cherry-picking a line out of context—ignoring the fact that it is NOT about unwanted sex; ignoring the facts that all of the OTHER lines prove this; ignoring the fact that the artist’s own daughter explained the proper context; ignoring the fact that the song was written for the artist and his wife to sign at parties; ignoring EVERYTHING else argued itt—and then just randomly deciding to apply a more modern context and declaring that context to be the inviolate one.

How do you justify any of that? NOT just assert it; justify it. Please do not repeat “no means no” as if noone here has ever heard the phrase before. We have. It is not applicable UNLESS you can account for all of the OTHER lines and proper context noted above. The song is very clearly about two people who want to be together. She twice contradicts her own thoughts in order to stay (“maybe just a half a drink more” “maybe just a cigarette more” etc). She is in control the entire time and the only thing that concerns her is what society would think of her if she stayed.

Again, these are facts; proven by literally everything she says in the song and corroborated by the artist’s own daughter, so please justify why your cherry-picking modern-day context based solely on that one line should supersede all of the OTHER facts.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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?

Except that, it does not. What is happening is that people are reading into lyrics false themes that aren’t actually there. Take the line, “Say, what’s in this drink.” In 1944, that line was an ironic joke. It was funny because there wasn’t alcohol in the drink, but the person wanted there to be alcohol in the drink to use that as an excuse for their behavior.

Now imagine Bill Cosby never did what he did and there never was rohypnol, etc. Iow, imagine a world where no rapist ever drugged someone in order to rape them while unconscious.

Is there anything wrong with that line now? No, it remains in its original contex and no one suddenly starts saying, “rape! It’s a rape song!”

Similarly, with the “no” part, if you ignore the fact that she first says “I ought to say no, no, no sir, at least I’m going to say that I tried” and the artist had simply written instead, “The answer is I don’t know” we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

“No means no” is in reference to a woman stopping an unwanted sexual advance, not a wanted one. The song has nothing to do with the more modern meaning, so anyone arguing differently would be superimposing the wrong meaning onto a line that does not mean the same thing in any way; it is precisely its opposite meaning, in fact.

The woman in the song is not saying no to unwanted sex; she is, ultimately and ironically, saying no to society’s prudish and outdated sexual repression. The song was always intended to be a liberating, pro-feminist song, in fact, precisely because the woman is bucking social repression in her thoughts and considerations as she comes up with excuses to STAY not leave.

We don't play blackface minstrel shows on TV any more. They just aren't the harmless fun they used to be.

Um, they were never “harmless fun.” All that changed was ignorance toward what the harm that was always there—and intended to be there from the artists—from the start. Blackface was ALWAYS premeditated racism. It’s not like Jolson did not know he was making fun of black people.

I and many others don't enjoy Bill Cosby comedy anymore since the context has changed.

The context hasn’t changed. Your opinion about him has. His comedy bits are still funny in and of themselves. Iow, if someone else were to say the exact same jokes, you’d find the jokes funny. What changed was your ignorance about who the man is and what he did.

Likewise in regard to this song, what is at issue is your ignorance about the proper context, such as not realizing, perhaps, that asking what’s in your drink was a joke at the time the song was written and not a reference to a rape drug or the like.

And as I have mentioned in other threads, my own wedding anniversary is no longer the same as it was

But your wedding did not change. Your vows did not change; the fun you had did not change; the love you shared did not change; etc; etc; etc. But what you (and others itt) are arguing is that your wedding changed, not merely the cloud placed over it by some other later event.

That’s what we are talking about here; the fact that the song does not change, just people superimposing later clouds upon it out of ignorance about the proper context.

It would be like me arguing that YOUR vows all meant you didn’t actually love your spouse because of 9/11. That 9/11 changed the context of your vows, which is absurd. E.g., when your spouse said, “I promise to love and protect you”—because of 9/11–that NOW means that your spouse broke that promise and failed to protect you.

Clearly that’s not the case and 9/11 had NOTHING to do with the promise to love and protect you, but just like with this song, here I come and tell you, “Because of 9/11 the proper interpretation of your spouse’s vow ‘I promise to love and protect you’ can only mean ‘I break my promise to love you and cannot protect you.’”

If I were to say that, would I be correct? Would it EVER be permissable for me to tell you that your original context doesn’t matter—I don’t even care to hear what it was in fact—because in a post 9/11 world, context has changed and therefore it shall be forever the fact that your spouse said to you as part of your wedding vows, “I break my promise to love you and cannot protect you” in spite of your objections and insistence on proper context to the contrary?

 

[Rhea]

Um, they were never “harmless fun.” All that changed was ignorance toward what the harm that was always there—and intended to be there from the artists—from the start. Blackface was ALWAYS premeditated racism. It’s not like Jolson did not know he was making fun of black people.

Yes, that is right. It really never was “harmless fun” that women were forced to face public condemnation for a simple act of sex (while men were not)

Likewise in regard to this song, what is at issue is your ignorance about the proper context, such as not realizing, perhaps, that asking what’s in your drink was a joke at the time the song was written and not a reference to a rape drug or the like.

Aren’t you assuming that? I mean the idea that men of that era never spiked a drink, but women always joked about wishing they would?

And as I have mentioned in other threads, my own wedding anniversary is no longer the same as it was

But your wedding did not change. Your vows did not change; the fun you had did not change; the love you shared did not change; etc; etc; etc. But what you (and others itt) are arguing is that your wedding changed, not merely the cloud placed over it by some other later event.

That’s what we are talking about here; the fact that the song does not change, just people superimposing later clouds upon it out of ignorance about the proper context.

Exactly. We are talking about how celebrating the song can really lose it’s appeal when the context of society about this blatant case of women being subjected to a severe doube standard is “celebrated.”

It would be like me arguing that YOUR vows all meant you didn’t actually love your spouse because of 9/11.

No, you missed my point.
9/11 changes the tone of the celebration, changes who we do it in front of. Changes, we could say, whether we play it on the radio or keep it to ourselves.

I’m not going to debate this anymore. I can see that you feel it doesn’t matter if the song causes people to react now because the song creates reaction by reminding people that women had no real agency then and still lack it in many areas now. You’ve been clear that if it wasn’t intended to imply ineqality then (or even to evoke coerced sex), that no one will feel it does now. That the song can’t change. That, indeed, women who feel that listening to the song now is uncomfortable because it perpetuates that double standard as well as skirting the behaviors that today women are trying to make space for agency to avoid, that these women should listen to you about what they are feeling and seeing.


So I see what your position is and I don’t have the will to debate it. It’s enough trying to keep it at bay in real life.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Aren’t you assuming that? I mean the idea that men of that era never spiked a drink, but women always joked about wishing they would?

Well, first, some posters in the thread are fixated on the technical chemicals in a modern roofie and when they were invented, rather than on the concept of a roofie. Before it was called a roofie, it was called a Mickey, and before it was shortened to Mickey, it was a Mickey Finn, and before that it was called a knockout drug or knockout pills. So, back in 1901 some men were arrested for putting knockout drugs in drinks to rape women etc. After Prohibition was over, it was a thing again in the 30's. A lot of news media attention was given to slipping someone a Mickey Finn. Most of that was over bartenders and waiters giving it to boisterous customers as revenge or to calm them, though it was still a conceptual thing involved in crimes of murder, rape, kidnapping, and whatever else. BUT moreover, giving someone alcohol is a way to lower inhibitions, even if there is a no specific additional drug up to the point of alcohol poisoning which is pretty much the same thing anyway.

I’m not going to debate this anymore. I can see that you feel it doesn’t matter if the song causes people to react now because the song creates reaction by reminding people that women had no real agency then and still lack it in many areas now. You’ve been clear that if it wasn’t intended to imply ineqality then (or even to evoke coerced sex), that no one will feel it does now. That the song can’t change. That, indeed, women who feel that listening to the song now is uncomfortable because it perpetuates that double standard as well as skirting the behaviors that today women are trying to make space for agency to avoid, that these women should listen to you about what they are feeling and seeing.

I think this is a difference that some people are not seeing, that there is a distinction between message sent and message received. This isn't a trial where we have to look at a defendant and decide their intent, instead it's a concrete song that is played or not played. We can see how it could be received (not by a crazy person but by a significant part of the population). Likewise, there is a distinction in an artwork between a character consenting to X and the decision to portray the character as consenting to X. I think this decision to portray her in that way was not made in a vacuum and if people are harping on context, context, context, but leaving out historical context of patriarchy, then that is a biased assessment.

I will add that some posters are accusing others of having a zero tolerance approach to this, but actually it is a projection as they have a zero tolerance approach to dissenting from their side of the fence about the song. As for me, I am tolerant of all the views expressed about this song. I just think some posters are leaving out details that are incompatible with their ideological leanings. So, I am not against the playing of this song, as I stated before, because no one is remembering the lyrics, let alone going out and raping people because of it. The song is recognized as from another era, is a catchy tune, and not thought about in so much detail by most. Now, if some people want to be against it and call radio stations, great. That's the price of freedom and a free market that we have some few people who do that out of many. BUT most importantly, it is important that we can have a discussion where we can talk about the details of the song in an analytical and academic sense.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes, that is right. It really never was “harmless fun” that women were forced to face public condemnation for a simple act of sex (while men were not)

Which is precisely what the woman in the song is protesting against. It is a pro-feminist song—back during WWII no less—about a woman grappling with the fact that she wants to stay, but society will slut shame her if she does.

Aren’t you assuming that?

No. We know EXACTLY what the artist meant.

I mean the idea that men of that era never spiked a drink, but women always joked about wishing they would?

The joke wasn’t gender specific. It was an ironic joke used by anyone to excuse their behavior. As in, “I know I’m acting weird. Say, what’s in this drink?”

And as I have mentioned in other threads, my own wedding anniversary is no longer the same as it was

But your wedding did not change. Your vows did not change; the fun you had did not change; the love you shared did not change; etc; etc; etc. But what you (and others itt) are arguing is that your wedding changed, not merely the cloud placed over it by some other later event.

That’s what we are talking about here; the fact that the song does not change, just people superimposing later clouds upon it out of ignorance about the proper context.

Exactly. We are talking about how celebrating the song can really lose it’s appeal when the context of society about this blatant case of women being subjected to a severe doube standard is “celebrated.”

That’s not what I was talking about, but regardless, the song is not about celebrating the double standard; it’s about shattering it. It’s about a woman who WANTS TO STAY, but society—her mother, her father, her brother, her sister, her vicious minded maiden aunt, her neighbors, ALL of society—will shame her and imply that she is somehow less-than some impossible ideal if she does what she wants and stays.

It would be like me arguing that YOUR vows all meant you didn’t actually love your spouse because of 9/11.

No, you missed my point.

There, I was making my own point.

9/11 changes the tone of the celebration, changes who we do it in front of.

Which is entirely your choice, but it does NOT change the meaning of your vows, which is what people itt are arguing. “No means no” for example, or the joke about the drink. Iow, you have evidently decided that 9/11 for other people is a time for mourning, therefore you aren’t going to celebrate your own anniversary during their funeral wake, essentially. But that has nothing to do with fundamentally changing the meaning of your vows.

This song is not about rape. But people itt are arguing that others see it that way, therefore in deference to them and their experiences, the song shouldn’t be played. That’s an entirely different scenario than you deciding not to jump for joy on a day when others are crying in mourning. Your wedding anniversary has nothing to do with why they are sad. But that’s not what people itt are arguing. What they are arguing is what I pointed out; that I can say to you, “Because of 9/11, your spouse’s vow to love and protect you now means the opposite.” And that’s false.

I can see that you feel it doesn’t matter if the song causes people to react now because the song creates reaction by reminding people that women had no real agency then and still lack it in many areas now.

Which, once again, is extremely odd that you think this considering the fact that the song is actually about women having real agency.

You’ve been clear that if it wasn’t intended to imply ineqality then (or even to evoke coerced sex), that no one will feel it does now.

No, I’m saying that ignorance is not a legitimate excuse to demonize or change the meaning of a song that actually means the opposite of what people are misconstruing due to that ignorance.

Again, what would you say to someone who told you that, because you got married on 9/11, your spouse’s vows now mean that he didn’t love you and failed to protect you? Would that be in any way acceptable to you; that someone else years later can come up to you and say, “Your spouse’s vow to love and protect you on your wedding day now forever forward means he didn’t love and protect you because of my experience on 9/11”? Does that sound in any way reasonable to you?

Ignorance is not an insult. It is simply a lack of knowledge. In this day and age, there is no excuse to be ignorant about anything. And if someone were to come up to you and say that because of their experience on 9/11 the meaning of YOUR wedding vows is now the opposite of what you originally meant, I would hope you would at least explain to them why that’s not acceptable, regardless of their own experiences.

ETA: Last night my wife and I were watching It’s A Wonderful Life. There is a scene where George Bailey drops by Mary Hatch’s home and Mary’s mother shouts down from the top of the stairs, “What does HE want?” And Mary asks George, who, grumpily says, “nothing” and Mary yells back up to her mother, “He’s making violent love to me!”

“Making love” back in the 1930s (which is when that scene takes place), meant to make out. Is it proper to super impose the modern day meaning of “making love” (let along “making violent love”)—i.e., having intercourse—on that line?

 

[Rhea]

Which is precisely what the woman in the song is protesting against. It is a pro-feminist song—back during WWII no less—about a woman grappling with the fact that she wants to stay, but society will slut shame her if she does.

Aren’t you assuming that?
No. We know EXACTLY what the artist meant.

I mean the idea that men of that era never spiked a drink, but women always joked about wishing they would?
The joke wasn’t gender specific. It was an ironic joke used by anyone to excuse their behavior. As in, “I know I’m acting weird. Say, what’s in this drink?”

Koy, you (male) have claimed, over and over again, that YOU know exactly what the meaning and impact of the song was then and now. You have claimed that the (male) author's interpretation of what women wanted to say is the only correct version of what women wanted to say. You have claimed that because this was (you say) intended to "shatter the double standard" that it actually did and still does.

Others are in this discussion to suggest to you that it was then hamfisted and is now counter-productive. That he may have intended to make it an anthem against the double standard, but of course the song does nothing to shatter it; it only says, "Yup dad will still pace, mom will still be horrified, aunti will still judge and the neighbors will still condemn, but if I pretend you tricked me I might be able to say it wasn't my fault. Just as women have always had to do, despite the horrible fact that this complicates things when we actually want to say no."

The song does nothing, says nothing, about changing the double standard. She submits to it. There are no lyrics that this worked, that she avoided shame. None. Nothing changed, as we know, from 1940 until the Beatles, right? 1950s sex was not liberated, women were not left alone when they wanted to be left alone. The song never did what you say it was good for doing.


Meanwhile, people who bring up that this song does not do what you claim it did, that maybe it was not so welcome by the women as you claim it was, and is less welcome today because of all that than it was, those people are greeted by, "shut up! This song is so important to me that it overrides any discussion of what people are saying it means to society today (and arguably, all along by many women). So shut up about your concern for the glorification of coercion, I've got a christmas song I need to hear!"

I get that you do not see the women's point of view on this. I get that. It doesn't mean there isn't one and has never been one, though. Women are less likely to obey the "be quiet little woman, you like this" command than they used to be.

 

[thebeave]

Which is precisely what the woman in the song is protesting against. It is a pro-feminist song—back during WWII no less—about a woman grappling with the fact that she wants to stay, but society will slut shame her if she does.

Aren’t you assuming that?
No. We know EXACTLY what the artist meant.

I mean the idea that men of that era never spiked a drink, but women always joked about wishing they would?
The joke wasn’t gender specific. It was an ironic joke used by anyone to excuse their behavior. As in, “I know I’m acting weird. Say, what’s in this drink?”

Koy, you (male) have claimed, over and over again, that YOU know exactly what the meaning and impact of the song was then and now. You have claimed that the (male) author's interpretation of what women wanted to say is the only correct version of what women wanted to say. You have claimed that because this was (you say) intended to "shatter the double standard" that it actually did and still does.

Others are in this discussion to suggest to you that it was then hamfisted and is now counter-productive. That he may have intended to make it an anthem against the double standard, but of course the song does nothing to shatter it; it only says, "Yup dad will still pace, mom will still be horrified, aunti will still judge and the neighbors will still condemn, but if I pretend you tricked me I might be able to say it wasn't my fault. Just as women have always had to do, despite the horrible fact that this complicates things when we actually want to say no."

The song does nothing, says nothing, about changing the double standard. She submits to it. There are no lyrics that this worked, that she avoided shame. None. Nothing changed, as we know, from 1940 until the Beatles, right? 1950s sex was not liberated, women were not left alone when they wanted to be left alone. The song never did what you say it was good for doing.


Meanwhile, people who bring up that this song does not do what you claim it did, that maybe it was not so welcome by the women as you claim it was, and is less welcome today because of all that than it was, those people are greeted by, "shut up! This song is so important to me that it overrides any discussion of what people are saying it means to society today (and arguably, all along by many women). So shut up about your concern for the glorification of coercion, I've got a christmas song I need to hear!"

I get that you do not see the women's point of view on this. I get that. It doesn't mean there isn't one and has never been one, though. Women are less likely to obey the "be quiet little woman, you like this" command than they used to be.

But a lot of women do share Koy's view on this. Perhaps even the majority of women. Including at least one in this thread. So, don't you think its a bit presumptuous to assume that you're somehow speaking for the women's POV?

 

[southernhybrid]

I love the song. I don't find it offensive. I know I'm repeating myself. I'm a woman, and there are many other feminists that have defended the song, so can we at least agree that not all women find the song offensive? I think there have only been about three women even posting on this thread. I don't need any man or woman to tell me what should be offensive to me as a woman. I appreciate that some women disagree with me. They have that right. People can agree to disagree about all kinds of things in life. It shouldn't make us angry or upset with each other, and I still appreciate all of the women who post here. The men, not so much.

My advice is if you don't like the song, don't listen to the song. There are many other songs that are very obviously sexist and offensive to women. I don't usually listen to them. I was a teenager when the Beatles were popular. Some of the lyrics to their songs are out right disturbing, but we enjoyed the beat and we sang the stupid lyrics anyway. And, I love some slow jam soul songs that I now realize some women would think are very offensive because they are about a man trying to seduce a woman. I just have a different opinion. What is that old expression? Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.

A woman always has it in her power to say no and leave. A woman always has the option of changing her mind. I've done that many times in my younger days. Sometime yes was changed to no and sometimes no was changed to yes. Can we at least agree that we are entitled to have our own opinion on what is in good taste and what is not? Can we agree that a woman has the right to change her mind? There is a huge difference between sexual assault and sexual seduction, imo. I think seduction is hot and sexy. If you don't like the person who is trying to seduce you, say so, then leave immediately. It's when you don't make yourself clear, men get confused. I'm embarrassed that I'm still posting on this thread, but I'll get over it. I know I won't change anyone's opinion, but I'll get over that too.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The issues regarding this song are replayed each Christmas season and we can see how extremists act about it. So, let's put things in perspective...

Back in Dec 2016, Liza Lemanski and her husband redid the song to be a version about consenting where the woman has the same lines but the guy puts no pressure on her, just agrees.

In a follow-up article in 2017, they talk about how even though the new song went viral, they raised only $2000 and got death threats.

Death threats.

 

[steve_bank]

If that song is banned, how about all the other music with misogynist language, or is ho's and bathes appropriate?
How about movies?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, saying you got death threats over something posted on the internet is like saying you had trouble parking at a mall on Black Friday. People make death threats over every little thing. It’s not an indication that there was any actual threat of death.

 

[thebeave]

Well, saying you got death threats over something posted on the internet is like saying you had trouble parking at a mall on Black Friday. People make death threats over every little thing. It’s not an indication that there was any actual threat of death.

Yep. I have a theory that there's about a 90% chance that a Youtube video with a thousand views showing a kitten walking on the piano keys has at least one death threat in the comments section.

It would be interesting to see how many online death threats there are versus how many of those threats have been attempted or actually carried out. One out of every 10 million or so, if that much? So, its probably a toss up as to whether its more likely you'll be killed by a wayward meteor or an online death threat.