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.
