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

Dec 24, 2017
4,781
People just realized they were offended?
No, people have been saying this for years.
For real.It's like people are looking for things to get offended by.
Nobody does this. Nobody goes out of their way to find things offensive or sets out with a goal to do so, they either find things offensive for reasons or they do not, and in this case the reasons are fairly well documented and understood.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,160
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.
For the record, CBC is not claiming that it's about rape. They even acknowledge that there are two interpretations. Ultimately they are simply choosing not to play the song, believing it is inappropriate.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. He didn't spike her drink and it's not as if she has no desire to be with him... but "the answer is no".

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.
She's asking for a comb to fix her hair because she wants to go home appearing proper and not raise any questions. We don't know if this is because a) she's just paranoid, b) they've been kissing, c) they've been fooling around, d) they've been fucking.

Things that indicate (at least to me) that they haven't yet had sex:

- they're still having drinks and he's eager to pour
- "mind if I move in closer"
- "Oh, baby don't hold out, baby"
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,406
The song is mostly cute but there are a few fucked up lines that are not cute. The overall implication is also fucked up, because it fits neatly within the traditional model of men being empowered and encouraged to never take no for an answer. Women have traditionally had to find ways to say no without saying it, because they know that saying no outright has risks.

I have zero problem with anyone saying they won't play the song anymore. I do have a problem with people whining because someone doesn't feel comfortable with the song.
 

YuYu

Member
Jun 18, 2018
1,169
I imagine you also rolled your eyes at the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue and other Confederate monuments.
????
P.S I'm not american so I have no idea what you're talking about.
No, people have been saying this for years.

Nobody does this. Nobody goes out of their way to find things offensive or sets out with a goal to do so, they either find things offensive for reasons or they do not, and in this case the reasons are fairly well documented and understood.
Maybe it's hard for you to believe this but it happens everyday.
 
Oct 29, 2017
361
I can understand someone misinterpreting the lyrics and thinking that they imply some form of date-rape. However, what I don't get are those who, once the song is explained to them, still find the song offensive.

I suppose this is the same as those who are offended at "Money for Nothing".
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,170
Canada
"Those statues of Confederates were put up in the 1910s! In the context they were erected in, they were perfectly fine, why are people ignoring that part of history? People are just looking for something to be upset with."

The same or similar arguments being made in defence of this song were being made to keep statues of people who fought in the American Civil War for the right to own slaves. If people not wanting this song to be played so as to not re-enforce institutional misogyny is ridiculous or unacceptable, the same should likely also be true for people calling for the removal of symbols of institutional racism.
 

YuYu

Member
Jun 18, 2018
1,169
"Those statues of Confederates were put up in the 1910s! In the context they were erected in, they were perfectly fine, why are people ignoring that part of history? People are just looking for something to be upset with."

The same or similar arguments being made in defence of this song were being made to keep statues of people who fought in the American Civil War for the right to own slaves. If people not wanting this song to be played so as to not re-enforce institutional misogyny is ridiculous or unacceptable, the same should likely also be true for people calling for the removal of symbols of institutional racism.
The song is misogynistic?Ok then.
 
Oct 27, 2017
959
"Those statues of Confederates were put up in the 1910s! In the context they were erected in, they were perfectly fine, why are people ignoring that part of history? People are just looking for something to be upset with."
.
Not to de-raill but, there is no context in any point post the Civil War that putting up statues of what are essentially Traitors who wanted to own slaves is ever something that should be "fine", context included. Then again maybe that's your point as I've missed some of the context of the convo.
 
Nov 3, 2017
4,870
Portland, OR
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.
Agreed, context is important, but the other aspect of this context is that “I’m not allowed to say yes” and “I’m not interested” look similar from an external perspective, which leaves it up to the male counterpart to determine the difference.

As we can clearly see based on social progress, men are often bad at distinguishing the difference, and sometimes they don’t even care.

Even in the context of the time period, this song could be about a woman looking for a way to exercise her sexual agency, or it could be about a woman being pressured to do something that she doesn’t want to do. The chance that the latter is the case is no longer acceptable, and that’s a good thing.
 
Oct 27, 2017
692
If I was listening to the song in 40s, I would have a 40s perspective of it. If i'm listening to it in 2018, I have a 2018 perspective on it. And with that in mind, I'd rather not hear it, nor have any little girls hear lyrics like that and think its at all a construct of the current world they live in.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,145
I imagine you also rolled your eyes at the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue and other Confederate monuments.
This is an incredibly fucked up response.

No, people have been saying this for years.

Nobody does this. Nobody goes out of their way to find things offensive or sets out with a goal to do so, they either find things offensive for reasons or they do not, and in this case the reasons are fairly well documented and understood.
Not only does this happen all the time, we literally have government reports explaining how foreign governments use outrage culture to drive division. Outrage culture is a real thing - I have no idea why people continue to claim it isn’t. It doesn’t automatically negate a criticism.

You can even see it happening in this thread. People are explaining the meaning of the song, and some posters are choosing to outright ignore it and worse, being hostile to posters who don’t agree (not everybody offended by the song is doing that, I’m specifically talking about posters who are claiming its original meaning is different than what it is). It doesn’t mean you consciously seek out offense, it means if you see a headline painting something known as offensive, and you might be more inclined to click and read up on it.

Look how many posters have said you can’t expect people to look up the original context of the song. Do you honestly believe they all came to the natural conclusion to be offended by it or do you think they read something or saw something that told them how it can be viewed as offensive?

Popular song is about the writers’ true story of hiding their relationship

Vs

Popular song is secretly about date rape and promotes a culture of misogyny

Which headline is going to drive more traffic?
 

Budi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,018
Finland
I do still hear "what's in my/your drink" jokes to this day. This is often done regarding non-alcoholic drinks and then the implication would be alcohol. The joke can be referring to something someone is eating too. The implication could be shrooms etc. It can be used when someone is on a wild mood in example.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
2,506
the song is a classic. as it's been pointed out numerous times, not only wasn't the song ever "rapey", but was actually empowerment for females of the era.

people ignoring the context simply to make it out to be rapey and get up in arms about it are a part of the problem, not the solution. I mean this isn't even comparable to previous past terrible norms in pop culture like black face, misogyny, native Americans and asians in golden age of cinema, etc.

in today's metoo climate there is definitely something to talk about in regards to the song.. but it being "offensive" isn't one of those things. if anything this song is one of the million building blocks that have built up to modern feminism.

tl;dr, an unwed dude and chick just hooked up, she's expected to leave because "it's not proper", despite wanting to stay. he's basically saying "screw what people think".

I mean, she does say no. Even if she wanted to stay, the point being made is that especially in the 1940s, there was a power imbalance, so this dude's persistence can easily be seen as disrespectful.
she says no because, no matter how much she wanted to, it was WILDLY inappropriate in social norms for her to stay.
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,016
A dumpster
Isnt that whole song about a woman who wants to stay with a man, but is worried about her reputation with the neighbors because Gender Double Standards? She comes up with excuses others could use against her, and he helps explain them away. In the end, they both consent and agree that yes, it IS cold outside and lets stay together. Fuck what everybody else thinks.
I mean sure but half of the lyrics can be seen as semi rapey so I can kinda understand why a station wouldn’t wanna have this song.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,343
Nova Scotia
Give me a verified example of someone on record saying "I am going to go out of my way to find something to be offended about because I desire to feel offended".

If it happens everyday it should be no problem.
If you are positing that there is no such a thing as a busybody or scold, that people don't make decisions on how they react and have zero agency in that, then I don't know what to tell you. You know I can't read someone's mind but, just as someone is free to take offense, the rest of us are free to decide if that offense was warranted. I have no idea what sort of "receipts" of bad faith you'd need, since this seems like it would be obvious to most anybody alive into their teenage years.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,196
People really want to bend over backwards to get upset about one of a million Christmas songs being removed from a radio station's playlist don't they?

See, your bullshit about outrage culture can go both ways.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,170
Canada
tl;dr, an unwed dude and chick just hooked up, she's expected to leave because "it's not proper", despite wanting to stay. he's basically saying "screw what people think".
Without acknowledging what her being branded a harlot would DO to her in that time in history. "I want my dick wet and I don't care whether you risk getting a reputation that means other men might feel justified sexually assaulting you and other women treat you like a useless piece of trash for the rest of your life because of that." Worse yet, because she didn't obey social norms, she might feel like she deserved what might happen to her.

If one is going to argue historical context, you have to look at ALL of it.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
11,006
USA
You know it's always possible that people could have simultaneously had good intentions and written a terrible context that aged like an open can of beer
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,051
Gordita Beach
my favorite post in this thread is comparing this dumbass song to fucking robert e lee

Song meanings are misconstrued frequently. The general public believes the song isn't rapey, the lyrics themselves through a modern context are suspect, and if radio stations doesn't want to play it that is their choice.
 
Dec 24, 2017
4,781

You're welcome.
I am not surprised in the least you linked a Joe Rogan video, a typical one too with a guy decrying progressives. I watched some of it, likely the relevant portion where he is decrying "twitter mobs" and talking about it being physically addictive, someone dealing with recovering from being addicted to social media (and falsely equating that with politics or progressivism) does not represent the vast majority of people. People, most people do not go out of their way to clear their schedule to say "I need to be offended right now, I need to find something this instant!". It just doesn't happen. In retrospect (as is the video you linked), sure, a person might think that's how they were operating but in the moment that just isn't the case.
If you are positing that there is no such a thing as a busybody or scold, that people don't make decisions on how they react and have zero agency in that, then I don't know what to tell you.
There is, but the reason they do it is because of beliefs they hold, not just because they desire to feel offended.
 

YuYu

Member
Jun 18, 2018
1,169
I am not surprised in the least you linked a Joe Rogan video, a typical one too with a guy decrying progressives. I watched some of it, likely the relevant portion where he is decrying "twitter mobs" and talking about it being physically addictive, someone dealing with recovering from being addicted to social media (and falsely equating that with politics or progressivism) does not represent the vast majority of people. People, most people do not go out of their way to clear their schedule to say "I need to be offended right now, I need to find something this instant!". It just doesn't happen. In retrospect (as is the video you linked), sure, a person might think that's how they were operating but in the moment that just isn't the case.

There is, but the reason they do it is because of beliefs they hold, not just because they desire to feel offended.
You told me to show you an example.I did.Bye.
 
Dec 24, 2017
4,781
You told me to show you an example.I did.Bye.
You showed me an example of someone ascribing something to their past actions in retrospect, not their reasoning for doing what they did. That you are so quick to duck any further conversation shows you have no interest in discussing the issue in good faith.
 

YuYu

Member
Jun 18, 2018
1,169
Our ears have been protected from this bad influence, now back to our regular playlists about banging hoes.
How did I miss this post?It's spot on.


You showed me an example of someone ascribing something to their past actions in retrospect, not their reasoning for doing what they did. That you are so quick to duck any further conversation shows you have no interest in discussing the issue in good faith.
LMAO.Take the L and carry on ;).
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,506
Without acknowledging what her being branded a harlot would DO to her in that time in history. "I want my dick wet and I don't care whether you risk getting a reputation that means other men might feel justified sexually assaulting you and other women treat you like a useless piece of trash for the rest of your life because of that."

If one is going to argue historical context, you have to look at ALL of it.
I mean this is an entirely baseless assumption to prove a toxic point...... "let's assume the worst possible intent and motives of one side to make a point" is pretty shitty... especially where we're discussing a work of art and not say a legal case...
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,006
USA
Underrated post.

Who here wants to lead the charge on bannin....errrrr I mean removing all misogynistic hip hop songs from history? Gonna be a Long list I’m afraid
I dunno why people keep saying they banned the song. A radio station choosing to remove a song from their Christmas playlist is not a ban lol
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,170
Canada
I mean this is an entirely baseless assumption to prove a toxic point...... "let's assume the worst possible intent and motives of one side to make a point" is pretty shitty...
Intention doesn't matter, because in historical context, this was the norm. It wasn't considered bad form to pressure a woman to forego her own desires or concerns to get what you want. You can't deny that to be true. Nor can you deny that women were equally shamed for asserting their wants and needs to men.

She wants to protect herself from being publicly shamed and branded a harlot, with every outcome that may come from that, and he either knows and doesn't care, or is completely oblivious to this fact and does it regardless, in an era when women were meant to be subservient and not refuse a man's advances. The man's intent is irrelevant when the end result is the same.
 

YuYu

Member
Jun 18, 2018
1,169
User Banned (1 Week): Trolling and antagonizing other members over a series of posts; previous infractions
This is the equivalent of entering a Star Wars discussion just to drop an RLM review as to avoid using your own words.
What?No.He asked for a specific thing and I provided that specific thing.Your analogy doesn't make any sense.Try again.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,506
Intention doesn't matter, because in historical context, this was the norm. It wasn't considered bad form to pressure a woman to forego her own desires or concerns to get what you want. You can't deny that to be true. Nor can you deny that women were equally shamed for asserting their wants and needs to men.

She wants to protect herself from being publicly shamed and branded a harlot, and he either knows and doesn't care, or is completely oblivious to this fact and does it regardless. The man's intent is irrelevant when the end result is the same.
except that in the context of the song, her desires and concerns are two separate things. That's the part being glossed over. "I want to stay. It's not proper. what to do what to do. no I really shouldn't. ok maybe for a bit longer. ok I have to go. ok maybe I'll stay a bit longer yet." etc.

this is NOT him disregarding her concerns. it's him appealing to her desires. those are NOT the same thing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,170
Canada
Ok, original point still stands. Are you for removing all misogynistic hip hop songs from radio stations?
Pretty sure Surfinn is not in charge of Canadian radio stations, first off.

Second, people have been calling for change in hip hop culture around misogyny and homophobia for DECADES. And I'm certain many radio stations don't play hip-hop or certain hip-hop songs for this exact reason.
 
the song is a classic. as it's been pointed out numerous times, not only wasn't the song ever "rapey", but was actually empowerment for females of the era.

people ignoring the context simply to make it out to be rapey and get up in arms about it are a part of the problem, not the solution. I mean this isn't even comparable to previous past terrible norms in pop culture like black face, misogyny, native Americans and asians in golden age of cinema, etc.

in today's metoo climate there is definitely something to talk about in regards to the song.. but it being "offensive" isn't one of those things. if anything this song is one of the million building blocks that have built up to modern feminism.

tl;dr, an unwed dude and chick just hooked up, she's expected to leave because "it's not proper", despite wanting to stay. he's basically saying "screw what people think".


she says no because, no matter how much she wanted to, it was WILDLY inappropriate in social norms for her to stay.
I know, I said as much on the first page (and almost had my ass chewed by a poster). I'm definitely not one of the ones offended, but I am willing to look at the song through another lens so long as the argument is made in good faith and well thought out.
 
OP
OP
MMarston
Oct 27, 2017
4,909
What?No.He asked for a specific thing and I provided that specific thing.Your analogy doesn't make any sense.Try again.
The dude just gave you a critique of why he thinks the content of your video is not up to snuff as a response, especially considering it's not necessarily direct evidence but more of a secondary source discussing his experiences through their lens and biases.

And your defense is "No, because I gave you the thing k" without anything else to back it up.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,006
USA
Ok, original point still stands. Are you for removing all misogynistic hip hop songs from radio stations?
The discussion was never about this. This thread is about suggestive and questionable pieces of writing (whether intended or not) in regard to a woman being manipulated or pressured into doing a sexual act against her will. About a guy continuing to pursue her after she gave a hard no. Point me to any rap or hip hop songs that cross the same line and we can have a separate discussion about it.
 
Dec 8, 2017
1,105
This is like...the opposite of what they think it means.

Anyway, little trivia:

It's late
Time for bed
So I sit, and wait
For that gin and tonic
To go to your head
I know
It's a devious plan
But it's the only way that I know
To get those big bad car keys
Out of your hand
...

1987. Thoughts?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,170
Canada
except that in the context of the song, her desires and concerns are two separate things. That's the part being glossed over. "I want to stay. It's not proper. what to do what to do. no I really shouldn't. ok maybe for a bit longer. ok I have to go. ok maybe I'll stay a bit longer yet." etc.

this is NOT him disregarding her concerns. it's him appealing to her desires. those are NOT the same thing.
It's him appealing to her desires with disregard to her very genuine and real concerns with excuses that may only give her a 50/50 chance of dodging the consequences.