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

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That is your opinion only.

Yeah, I know. You, however, were implying that I was quoting the song, hence my clarification that I was not.

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

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

Have you never taken a liberal arts class in your life? Do you not understand poetic license or the many different ways that characters/artists express themselves and interact with the audience? Do you think Hamlet is talking to himself, or is he breaking the fourth wall to talk directly to the audience, so that the audience is aware of his personal thoughts and can therefore better understand what is motivating him? Or, both?

These are all forms of artistic expression that allow a character to, say, both sing exposition directly to another character and then in the next stanza sing their inner monologue; the character's thoughts likewise being expressed. And the actors can do that while staring directly into each other's face the entire time.

It's magical. You should check it out some time.

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

Seriously dude...

Yes, dudette?

while we ALL acknowledge that it is "just a song" and shouldn't be anything to get too worked up about, your continued inability or refusal to see or acknowledge how - in a 'real life' situation - the man's behavior could be problematic

Jesus fucking christ. How many times do I have to tell you that what I am arguing is about sophistry and context? I know--we ALL know--that people get triggered.

Pick ANY song you want and my argument would be the same; you are not allowed--i.e., it is not intellectually acceptable for anyone on the planet--to just cherry pick a line or two from a song (or a poem or any work of art you choose), assert that the line means the opposite of what it actually means and THEN insist that the art be banned because YOUR superimposed new context and meaning "creeps you out."

How the hell are you not getting that? Here, this is what you are arguing (or, if that is too strong, the sophistry you are indirectly affirming because you are talking about a different issue):

A legitimate basis for censorship (not just personal opinion; but universal action) is:

1. cherry-picking one or two lines, taking them out of the context of the piece;
2. changing the original meaning of those lines (in this case by superimposing a modern social context onto them);
3. using what you changed as a justification for censorship.

THAT is not acceptable. And that (and that alone) is what I have been talking about. It has ZERO to do with gender or what does or does not trigger someone or how anyone personally feels about any fucking thing at all. 1, 2, 3 = Not Acceptable.

If you want to discuss all things that can trigger past trauma and what we as a society should do about them then that would be a different discussion than what I have been involved in.

demonstrates EXACTLY why some of us take issue with songs like this continuing to be played as if the interaction is perfectly acceptable in today's world.

There! "Continuing to be played...in today's world." You just committed 2 and 3 based on 1!

That sophistry is what I am taking issue with--no matter what song or work of art that spawned it--so unless you are going to address that argument and somehow convince me (the world) that it's justifiable (in an intellectually honest worldview, with social ramifications involving extreme measures like forced censorship, kind of way), to commit 2 and 3, we are arguing at cross purposes.

I know full well that people can get triggered, but the list of things that can trigger is nearly infinite. But being triggered as a result of your own ignorance and then forcing that ignorance onto others needs to be rigorously justified. It doesn't matter what type of trauma is being triggered (e.g., personal loss; predatory assault; emotional abuse; etc).

Ignorance is no excuse on any topic ever, as a general, fundamental principle of existence. A prime principle. Forcing others to act in some manner based upon that ignorance--to me--is its own egregious act.

So, yes, absolutely, rigorous critical analysis should be conducted and weighed against the severity of any trauma that may be motivating anyone to the level of social censorship. Hence, the collective "decisions" to stop calling certain people "nigger" or "retard" or "faggot" or the like, as you and others have alluded to.

But those are all acts of self censorship. That is (also) not what is being discussed here.

If the song gets gobbled up in this kind of ignorance, well, so be it; it won't be the first or the last. I think, however, that it's a shame, because the song--as I noted before--is actually and ironically a famously pro-feminist one that was way ahead of its time, precisely because it's about a woman owning her own sexuality in a repressed society that targeted the women.

It is literally the exact opposite of what you have been arguing it is and I find that particularly vexing, especially in light of how popular it is AND it's considered a "Christmas song" no less, so the very rape culture patriarchy that is being covertly subverted every time they sing the song in Holy celebration, YOU are in turn--out of ignorance--torpedoing all that.

Iow, you are ironically targeting your own sub.

This is not just my opinion, nor what I derived from the lyrics in context, nor anything born of the fact that I'm male ffs. This has even been confirmed by the artist's own daughter, which is rare in its own right. Normally we don't have something so close to a primary source when it comes to an artist's work, but in this case we do. And your position bulldozes that fact.

Ignorance--no matter how righteously/forcefully aligned--is still ignorance. But ignorance that actually destroys what it purports to uphold is in a class by itself. Imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

I think it's fair to say that the song (and the scene) occupy a grey area.

There is, imo, a point where persuasion during seduction crosses a line into coercion, and it's a blurry line. Imo you could say that this song/scene crosses it and you could say that it doesn't. There is no one single response. Heck, some (even some feminists) see it as female-empowering.

So anyone who says it is problematic and anyone who says it isn't problematic are basically just expressing a personal opinion, and really, nobody should be trying to persuade anyone else to change their mind. Well, at least not insisting on it. People should be allowed to either stick with their position or change it willingly.

 

[ruby sparks]

Hypothetical scenario:

"So let’s say that a guy and a girl are hanging out. Lights are low, the mood is right and hands and mouths are moving with a will. Then, the guy makes his move… it may be non-verbal invitation, it may be a question asked out loud, but either way, he makes it clear: he wants to have sex. The girl says no.

So they talk. A lot. It gets a little heated. She heads for the door, he stops her. He tells her that she shouldn’t leave until they has this out. She came in his car, so she agrees. He walks her back to the couch. He gets her a drink. They talk a bit more. They talk about their relationship. It’s becoming increasingly clear that their relationship hinges on what happens tonight… or doesn’t. He gets her another drink. Then another.

A little while later, the guy takes another shot at it. His hands are wandering firmly towards her skirt. The question is implicit: what’s it going to be? Yes or no? And this time… he gets the go-ahead. Maybe she say “yes” out loud. Maybe she doesn’t say anything at all but lets him continue as he wants. Caught up in the moment and the influence of the drinks, she may even help him along."

 

[RavenSky]

Yeah, I know. You, however, were implying that I was quoting the song, hence my clarification that I was not.

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

Have you never taken a liberal arts class in your life? Do you not understand poetic license or the many different ways that characters/artists express themselves and interact with the audience?...

And now you are just making shit up. The song is very simple... she is speaking to him and he is speaking to her.

She isn't giving a inner monologue, and you know it... so stuff your continued attempts at insulting and talking down to me.

 

[RavenSky]

Hypothetical scenario:

"So let’s say that a guy and a girl are hanging out. Lights are low, the mood is right and hands and mouths are moving with a will. Then, the guy makes his move… it may be non-verbal invitation, it may be a question asked out loud, but either way, he makes it clear: he wants to have sex. The girl says no.

So they talk. A lot. It gets a little heated. She heads for the door, he stops her. He tells her that she shouldn’t leave until they has this out. She came in his car, so she agrees. He walks her back to the couch. He gets her a drink. They talk a bit more. They talk about their relationship. It’s becoming increasingly clear that their relationship hinges on what happens tonight… or doesn’t. He gets her another drink. Then another.

A little while later, the guy takes another shot at it. His hands are wandering firmly towards her skirt. The question is implicit: what’s it going to be? Yes or no? And this time… he gets the go-ahead. Maybe she say “yes” out loud. Maybe she doesn’t say anything at all but lets him continue as he wants. Caught up in the moment and the influence of the drinks, she may even help him along."

1. "She came in his car, so..." - puts him in a power position right there. She may very well feel like she has to go along with whatever he wants to do to avoid being hurt. Doesn't mean he intends to hurt her or he is a rapist, but this is an example of a power dynamic putting (in this, your example) her in a distinct position of needing to think about the possibility. If HE thought about the implication of this dynamic, and truly cared for her, he'd suggest driving her home and continuing the discussion when they were both rested and not drinking.

2. He gets her a drink... He gets her another drink. Then another. <<< Do I really need to comment on this?

3. They talk about their relationship. It’s becoming increasingly clear that their relationship hinges on what happens tonight… or doesn’t... A little while later, the guy takes another shot at it. His hands are wandering firmly towards her skirt. The question is implicit: what’s it going to be? Yes or no? So he's really talking about sex, not their relationship. He's telling her "put out or get lost"; and "Here, keep drinking until you put out."

 

[ruby sparks]

Hypothetical scenario:

"So let’s say that a guy and a girl are hanging out. Lights are low, the mood is right and hands and mouths are moving with a will. Then, the guy makes his move… it may be non-verbal invitation, it may be a question asked out loud, but either way, he makes it clear: he wants to have sex. The girl says no.

So they talk. A lot. It gets a little heated. She heads for the door, he stops her. He tells her that she shouldn’t leave until they has this out. She came in his car, so she agrees. He walks her back to the couch. He gets her a drink. They talk a bit more. They talk about their relationship. It’s becoming increasingly clear that their relationship hinges on what happens tonight… or doesn’t. He gets her another drink. Then another.

A little while later, the guy takes another shot at it. His hands are wandering firmly towards her skirt. The question is implicit: what’s it going to be? Yes or no? And this time… he gets the go-ahead. Maybe she say “yes” out loud. Maybe she doesn’t say anything at all but lets him continue as he wants. Caught up in the moment and the influence of the drinks, she may even help him along."

1. "She came in his car, so..." - puts him in a power position right there. She may very well feel like she has to go along with whatever he wants to do to avoid being hurt. Doesn't mean he intends to hurt her or he is a rapist, but this is an example of a power dynamic putting (in this, your example) her in a distinct position of needing to think about the possibility. If HE thought about the implication of this dynamic, and truly cared for her, he'd suggest driving her home and continuing the discussion when they were both rested and not drinking.

2. He gets her a drink... He gets her another drink. Then another. <<< Do I really need to comment on this?

3. They talk about their relationship. It’s becoming increasingly clear that their relationship hinges on what happens tonight… or doesn’t... A little while later, the guy takes another shot at it. His hands are wandering firmly towards her skirt. The question is implicit: what’s it going to be? Yes or no? So he's really talking about sex, not their relationship. He's telling her "put out or get lost"; and "Here, keep drinking until you put out."

Yes. I think this scenario is more problematic. Particularly 'she came in his car, so she agrees' which gives us, in the scenario narrative, a glimpse into her mind, her reasons for not leaving.

Here is the opinion of the writer of the article I saw the above scenario in:

Cut and dried. He asked, he got consent, everybody’s happy, right?

Well… not so much.

He may be happy; after all, he got what he wanted. She, on the other hand… well, she did not.

The fact that he turned a “no” into a “yes” is irrelevant if you look at how he did it.

In this case, she may have said yes, but she didn’t consent. In this case, her consent was acquired under duress. He didn’t hold a knife to her throat. He didn’t drop anything into her drink. But the fact remains that he pushed her into sex, sex that she didn’t want to have in the first place. She wasn’t ready, she didn’t want it and her consent really wasn’t anything of the sort.

https://www.doctornerdlove.com/coerced-consent-yes-means-no/all/1/

Perhaps not everyone would fully agree with him, but personally I largely do and I'd guess most would. To me there is a little bit too much duress. Even more importantly, she, it seems, in the end, has the sex with him reluctantly, more giving in to pressure than actually changing her mind because she herself decided she wanted to have sex. She allowed the sex to happen more than wanted it, it seems (as described in the scenario). Also, as you say, he is trying to get her drunk, for the purpose (it seems) of sex.

 

[ruby sparks]

ETA: for me, the (general) difference between this and the OP 'scenario/narrative' is that in the former, whilst there are some elements which might raise concerns, there aren't enough, overall (in the whole song or scene as it is written or acted, perhaps especially the ending) to justify ......more than a discussion about the wider, real life implications of those elements, but in the above scenario (as described) there are enough elements to justify being concerned about the scenario itself.

For instance, I think it would be much harder to list the ways the above scenario is ok. And I doubt many would try to list them.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yeah, I know. You, however, were implying that I was quoting the song, hence my clarification that I was not.

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

Have you never taken a liberal arts class in your life? Do you not understand poetic license or the many different ways that characters/artists express themselves and interact with the audience?...

And now you are just making shit up.

You seriously don't understand the concept of a character speaking their thoughts out loud more for the sake of the audience than for the sake of the other character? Or the fact that when two singers sing in harmony, that it is symbolic in any way? That it does not just mean the actors are singing in harmony, but that the characters they are playing are symbolically in harmony with each other?

Throughout the song--in the version where a woman plays the "mouse" part and a man plays the "wolf" part (I note that because (a) that's how Loesser referred to the roles and (b) in the exact same movie the song debuted it is sung twice; the second time with the genders reversed, which doesn't seem to upset anyone itt), the woman is very clearly going over all of the social repercussions if she stays. I'll post just those lines to illustrate. They take up the majority of the song. In fact, she's barely even listening to what the "wolf" is saying in response to any of it, just to her own internal debate:

My mother will start to worry. My father will be pacing the floor. So really I'd better scurry. But maybe just a half a drink more.

The neighbors might think. I ought to say, no, no, no sir. At least I'm gonna say that I tried. My sister will be suspicious. My brother will be there at the door. My maiden aunts mind is vicious. But maybe just a cigarette more.

You've really been grand, but don't you see? There's bound to be talk tomorrow. At least there will be plenty implied.

She literally lists every single person in her family--including her vicious minded aunt--then the neighbors and then at the end pretty much all of society ("there's bound to be talk tomorrow/at least there will be plenty implied") but at the same time keeps repeating what a great time she has been having and TWICE contradicts herself and says she's going to stay for "just half a drink more" and then "just a cigarette more."

And you STILL have not addressed the fact that she says "I ought to say no, no, no sir" before the "The answer is no" line. In fact, if you just take that whole sequence--that whole thoughtline--in context of the lyrics you have:

I ought to say no, no, no sir. At least I'm going to say that I tried. I simply must go. The answer is no. But maybe just a cigarette more.

That is not the male character ignoring "no means no;" that is the female character (in this version) making a different choice of her own volition. TWICE, ultimately.

She also asks him to lend her a coat a little later in the song. From her supposed rapist.

She is very clearly having a moral discussion with herself, regardless of the fact and in tandem with the fact that she's singing out loud and talking to the male character; debating ALL of the possible social scenarios in which she'd be slut shamed if she stayed--and even says (figuratively, not literally) fuck it twice when she says "but maybe just a half a drink more" and then again with "but maybe just a cigarette more."

I should go, but maybe after another drink. I can't stay, but maybe just another cigarette. Internal debate said out loud so that the audience can hear it. Otherwise known as a soliloquy.

And then it ends with her decision--finally--to leave, presumably, with the "wolf" noting her excuse is anachronistic/from an "old" (aka, repressed) time:

I really can't stay (get over that old out)

And then they both sing in perfect harmony:

Baby, it's cold. Baby, it's cold outside.

Why are the characters singing in perfect harmony at the end? There are reasons behind artistic creations--artistic forms--you know? It's not just, "Oh, well, you just sing together at the end because, I don't know. It's a song? And that's what I seen other people do in their songs, so that's it."

so stuff your continued attempts at insulting and talking down to me.

Ignorance is not an insult and since you are demonstrating ignorance in regard to basic artistic form/critical analysis, how else can I talk if not down to you in order to get you to come up? Even the most cursory analysis of the OTHER lyrics--that you continue to avoid addressing--demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about.

If you disagree--as you evidently do--then kindly address the lines I'm pointing out and explain them. You said for us to take the lyrics "at face value." Ok, then what do we make of her first saying she ought to say "no, no, no, sir" or her contradicting herself TWICE, or her taking up almost the entire song worrying--in detail--about each member of her family and what they will think of her if she stayed and what the neighbors would think of her if she stayed and what unspecified everybody would say/imply about her if she stayed and all of the times she tells the guy what a great time she's having and how wonderful he's been. Are we not to take any of that at face value too?

Because arguing that it's the kind of shit a woman says just to get away from her rapist--and that's why she's saying it in the song--would not be taking it at "face value."

Those are serious, genuine questions I'm asking you to address--not me trying to insult you or talk "down" to you--but because you keep avoiding directly addressing any of them, you are forcing me to keep repeating the same unaddressed arguments over and over, so if you got the impression I was talking down to you or insulting you, I apologize. But if you don't actually address my arguments, you get all of this coming right back at ya.