• Welcome to ResetEra 2.0! Guests should now be able to save their dark or light theme preferences, found on the left sidebar.

Canadian radio stations are pulling "Baby, It's Cold Outside" from their holiday playlists

Oct 27, 2017
855
0
Some dude I know on fb just posted a long-winded status complaining about this song. A bunch of women have responded that they don't find it offensive. Kinda funny seeing the guy mansplain that they should.
There are many women, specially older and conservatives that still believe that they are supposed to play hard to get and it is attractive that a guy does not give up. The problem is that the no means yes mentality leads often leads to sexual assault on the part of men who cannot distinguish between her playing hard to get and legitimately not wanting anything to do with him. Just look at the Me Too Movement. most of the guys accused thought they were doing nothing wrong just being persistent.

The no means yes mentality need to be eliminated not because it is offensive but because it is dangerous.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,717
0
If you're trying to fuck someone and they say "no", then you respect that fucking "no", regardless of what you might imagine in your mind their reasoning for it is.
In this case you're not imagining it though, they literally tell you that it's about the brother
 
Oct 27, 2017
855
0
So you know nothing about the song then. Got it.
Does it matter? are people listening to the song on the radio ALL going to be knowledgeable of the song? or somehow able to know the history behind it?
No! they'll only be able to interpret the TEXT on the song the and what is there is undeniably creepy.
 
Sep 12, 2018
170
0
Reading
When you're discounting the literal text of the song, then it's probably you who knows nothing about the song.
Context matters.

But if you want to talk literal lyrics and go with it, I suppose you agree with R.Kelly when he says he believes he can fly? Or Brittany wants to be hit one more time? Should we ban that song because it condones violence? I mean she literally says "Hit me baby one more time", so it must do, right?

Context matters.
 
Nov 2, 2017
147
0
Context matters.

But if you want to talk literal lyrics and go with it, I suppose you agree with R.Kelly when he says he believes he can fly? Or Brittany wants to be hit one more time? Should we ban that song because it condones violence? I mean she literally says "Hit me baby one more time", so it must do, right?

Context matters.
This is a nonsense argument. The context of the song is a guy who keeps hearing "no" and presses on and decides it's a good idea to have an argument about the reasons behind it in order to coerce that No into a Yes, which is explicitly the thing you're trying to flippantly say doesn't exist in the song.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,647
0
I think its fair to say that what we are both saying shows not everything is black and white. Women could certainly be upset by hearing these lyrics even if the meaning of the song doesn't translate explicitly to date rape/being pressured in to sex. Just like some women who perform it might not understand the context or have been forced to perform it against their will vs plenty who openly chose to perform it.
Absolutely. Which is my original point - some women freely choosing to perform the song doesn't make it not problematic for others, and doesn't make it not exist in others' catalogues or lives in problematic ways, so "why would women perform the song if it was so problematic?" isn't a sound argument in this context, because the reality is much more grey than that and you cannot reasonably apply one person's relationship to the song across the board.

I like your contributions on this site so I want to make sure you know I'm not trying to attack you or your overall stance; just wanted to point out a single statement that I took a bit of issue with that might allow us to dig a bit deeper than the bulk of this thread in exploring it. Which it looks like we did in being able to acknowledge that this isn't so black-and-white.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,647
0
There are many women, specially older and conservatives that still believe that they are supposed to play hard to get and it is attractive that a guy does not give up. The problem is that the no means yes mentality leads often leads to sexual assault on the part of men who cannot distinguish between her playing hard to get and legitimately not wanting anything to do with him. Just look at the Me Too Movement. most of the guys accused thought they were doing nothing wrong just being persistent.

The no means yes mentality need to be eliminated not because it is offensive but because it is dangerous.
This is important. I don't think the song is inherently rapey in its original context, but it definitely plays on outdated social norms of courtship/sex/public scrutiny/etc. that people have been negatively affected by and are trying to move away from, and which others still cling to and try to project onto their social interactions.

It’s all good. I enjoy being challenged so if you think I’m fucking up please let me know heh.
🥂
(I just wanted an excuse to use an emoji lol)
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
9,808
0
Absolutely. Which is my original point - some women freely choosing to perform the song doesn't make it not problematic for others, and doesn't make it not exist in others' catalogues or lives in problematic ways, so "why would women perform the song if it was so problematic?" isn't a sound argument in this context, because the reality is much more grey than that and you cannot reasonably apply one person's relationship to the song across the board.

I like your contributions on this site so I want to make sure you know I'm not trying to attack you or your overall stance; just wanted to point out a single statement that I took a bit of issue with that might allow us to dig a bit deeper than the bulk of this thread in exploring it. Which it looks like we did in being able to acknowledge that this isn't so black-and-white.
It’s all good. I enjoy being challenged so if you think I’m fucking up please let me know heh.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,670
0
No one is banning it.

Cultural standards change. Some things age better, others don't.

A radio station choosing not to play it is up to them.
The cultural standards remain similar, though. Women still get flack for having casual premarital sex, which is what this song is about.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,064
0
People want their interpretation of it to rule supreme and then make it a stark indication of rape culture or rampant sjwism run amok if others disagree, I'm not a both sides person in general but on this one I think it's ok to think it's one or the other without thinking the other people are shitheads. I don't think posts stuff s this is why trump got elected is particurlarly helpful either, PCness is an ongoing concern for Republican voters but I don't think it's been the thing that has driven them to the polls ithe last two years particularly, it's a little bit beyond that at this point.

I like twee shit like I want a Hippopotamus for Christmas as much as the next embattled retail worker but the lady's part in the song strikes me as someone who is receptive but is trying to talk herself out of it, that can still happen in today's climate because of undue expecations on women in certain cultures, never mind when it was released. I don't think potential or past shit encounters stop because this song gets pulled there are dudes right now that are going to strip things out of context and be coercive whether or not this song is out there, but I'm not going to paint anyone as unreasonable ideologues if they disagree.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2017
626
0
I like the idea that people who don't like this song because of the subtext they hear in it are lazy, like most people who hear a piece of music immediately start doing research into the context of every song they don't like the content of.

The original intent and context of the piece doesn't matter when people are listening to it divorced from that context and in another one. For those who are interested in doing that research, great, but you can't expect people to do that kind of legwork for every piece of media they consume.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,670
0
If you're trying to fuck someone and they say "no", then you respect that fucking "no", regardless of what you might imagine in your mind their reasoning for it is.
The question isn’t about them fucking, though. They’ve already fucked, which is why she’s asking for a comb to fix her hair. The issue is her staying the night, which she wants to do but is afraid she’ll be judged poorly for.
 
Oct 27, 2017
855
0
Yes. But, does it even matter considering finding “Baby It’s Cold Outside” to be controversial is ridiculous in the first place?
People have a right to find controversy and act express their views about it. Pulling a song from the radio is their right. by using the word ban you try to make it seem like an attack on freedom of expression which it simply isn't, in fact is an example of someone using their freedom of expression to express their views. So yeah it matters because your use of the word Ban was either ignorant or intentionally misleading and it has to stop.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
It's been interesting to watch people bend over backwards and jump through hoops to bend the context of "The answer is no" as it appears in the song
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,919
0
I wonder if "Every Breath You Take" by the Police will be banned as well.

Never heard of this song, tough call for me.
 

Merv

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,142
0
I like the idea that people who don't like this song because of the subtext they hear in it are lazy, like most people who hear a piece of music immediately start doing research into the context of every song they don't like the content of.

The original intent and context of the piece doesn't matter when people are listening to it divorced from that context and in another one. For those who are interested in doing that research, great, but you can't expect people to do that kind of legwork for every piece of media they consume.
True, but when they try to spread their interpretation and are exposed to the actual context, they shouldn't be doubling down and moving goal posts.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,825
0
Even if the song is about a woman not wanting to stay because of her reputation, she’s still saying no. Doesn’t matter if her reasons are shallow. Doesn’t matter if she’s tempted.

Plus the song sucks. Get rid.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
Even if the song is about a woman not wanting to stay because of her reputation, she’s still saying no. Doesn’t matter if her reasons are shallow. Doesn’t matter if she’s tempted.
How is this so hard for people to understand. And I like the assumption that "well it must secretly be a yes" since she's making up excuses lol.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,458
0
Portland, OR
Yeah and it’s no longer acceptable to continue pursuing a woman after she says no.
Yes, but at the time this song was recorded, it was also not acceptable for a woman to ever say yes, even if that's what she wanted. That's sort of the entire point of the song. She wants to stay but external cultural pressures have told her she doesn't have the agency to make that choice and she's struggling with the dilemma of being "good" versus being happy. If this song was written last year, then it's a completely different context, because there is less expectation placed on women to be utterly chaste outside of marriage.

That said, I'm firmly in the "I don't even like the song so please ban it regardless of your reason" camp, so whatever.
 
Oct 2, 2018
185
0
I think contextually - at the time it was written, it was light hearted and cheeky - applying a modern day read to the song to make it sound inherently more pervy is the makings of the modern mind. I don't necessarily agree with the perception that its about rape. This is a bit ridiculous to me.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,158
0
Canada
Perfect explanation of the song. People don't seem to remember that this was written in 1944. Casual sex, unmarried sex could destroy a woman's life. A lot also get hung up on the "Say, what’s in this drink?” line, but the author of the quoted article explains its perfectly.
See, I think part of why it's so damaging is BECAUSE of historical context.

People can say "oh, he's helping her make excuses to stay when she really wants to", ignoring the absolute peril it puts her in. In the 40s, a woman's good reputation was all she had to protect herself from outright misogyny (and even that often wasn't enough) and was fragile enough that flimsy excuses weren't guaranteed to get out from under that scrutiny. And the fella she's with doesn't fucking care. It's incredibly selfish and speaks as much to gender power dynamics in the modern era as it did in the 1940s. It's more important that he get his dick wet than it is for her to keep people from treating her poorly for the rest of her life because she runs a huge risk of being branded a floozy/harlot/tart/etc. and having that be an excuse for whatever happens to her afterward.

So even with historical context in mind, it's an awful song that re-enforces men as having all the power to decide what should be acceptable for a woman. Her wanting to be with him becomes irrelevant. "No means no" is something that should be considered regardless of historical context anyways. Yes, she wants to be there, but she wants her reputation intact in equal measure, and that should have been respected, considering how valuable that would be to her given the timeframe it was written in (which honestly is still important to some women for the exact same reasons today).

I'm starting to think that "historical context" is being mis-used, when you consider how much historical context is being brushed to the side to make an argument in favour of the song.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
1,210
0
It's definitely filthy as fuck for a Christmas song but I never took the women as unwilling or coerced. A lot of that had to do with the tone of her voice in the song.
 
No one is banning it.

Cultural standards change. Some things age better, others don't.

A radio station choosing not to play it is up to them.
Totally agreed.

I'm not even sure I'd be upset if it actually was banned (because it's perhaps seen as a relic). But there definitely needs to be a deeper discussion about the context of the lyrics, at least before it's labeled one way or the other. Nuance and discourse is important, and this goes both ways.

Hell, reading more of the thread has been pretty enlightening, at least those explaining the greyer areas of the song's implications.
 

Yams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,997
0
How is this so hard for people to understand. And I like the assumption that "well it must secretly be a yes" since she's making up excuses lol.
You're missing out on everything we know about the song. Frank Loesser wrote it with his wife about the excuses they used to get her to stay when they first dated. They would also play the song when they were drunk as a way to drop the hint that their house parties were over. Then he put the song into a movie called Neptune's Daughter where the song is split into two parts. In both parts the mouse character (played by a woman in one part and a man in another) want to stay and give excuse as to why they can't because of societal norms. They choose to stay. If you watch the movie it's quiet obvious that neither character is forced into anything.
 
Nov 1, 2017
343
0
Still one of my favorite Songs and just one more reason to Listen to it. Happy Thats only canada and Not germany

Lady Gaga feat. Tony Bennett version is my favorite.

Can somebody please van wham - last christmas Too?
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,916
0
USA
You're missing out on everything we know about the song. Frank Loesser wrote it with his wife about the excuses they used to get her to stay when they first dated. They would also play the song when they were drunk as a way to drop the hint that their house parties were over. Then he put the song into a movie called Neptune's Daughter where the song is split into two parts. In both parts the mouse character (played by a woman in one part and a man in another) want to stay and give excuse as to why they can't because of societal norms. They choose to stay. If you watch the movie it's quiet obvious that neither character is forced into anything.
As I said earlier in the thread. It doesn't matter who wrote the song and what their intentions were. What matters is how it's aged and the way it looks now, just listening to the song and lyrics. As I also said earlier, I don't fault two people who wrote the song decades ago when times were entirely different. But the song has aged horribly and the context of the song itself, without doing any outside research is absolutely terrible. She literally says "no" in the song and he continues talking about how fucking sexy she is. We don't need any background information in order to justify this. Like I said, it's not on the writers, I'm not asking for their punishment.

"I said no" "but your lips are juicy" are just poor and awkward lyrics now. It's pretty much as simple as that.

No one should be surprised or outraged when people look at an archaically written love song, in 2018, and decide it's no longer something they want to hear.
 
Last edited: