Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
And the version where they tried to tone down the rapey elements was in 2019, shortly after the #MeToo movement. We are also having this conversation today, and not in 1949.
If you're saying the standards of the time make it acceptable, I say that reflects really badly on the standards of the time. By the standards of the time, black people had fewer rights than white men. I hope to fuck we can improve upon the standards of the 1940s.
When people consume media it's important to have context. Short-sighted inability to contextualize anything outside of our current standards doesn't help anyone at all and actually makes understanding and moving forward more difficult.
The standards were quite different that's for sure. That's why it's important to understand that it was a different era. An unmarried woman willingly staying with a man was destroying her reputation at that time even if she wanted to.
I understand that the film was not problematic for the time period, and it was seen as romantic. I also understand that the fact it was not seen as a problem was a fucking problem. And I understand that the only way to overcome a problem is to acknowledge that there is one. Hindsight is a fucking benefit, and with the benefit of hindsight, that song is pretty fucking rapey.
Once again, the song was played TWICE in the movie, and the second one was sung with a man being convinced to stay. It was not about reputation. It was about not wanting to be there.
Why are you so insistent that the woman saying no actually wanted it?
Because in the context of the song, she's saying she wants to stay. I've never seen the movie you're talking about so maybe it was played differently there but when the song was released it was obviously a duet between two people who wanted to "do stuff" but were unable to due to norms and societies judgement.
Why are you so insistent on portraying the woman as a victim and the man as rapist when that's clearly not what was intended?
...No she fucking isn't. She never says she wants to stay.
She says no. He ignores her. I don't give a fuck what was intended, I only care about what was said. What was said was a violation of consent. If you want the intent to reflect in the song to a modern ear (which are the only ears we have) then change the lyrics.
Yeah I'm familiar with the reddit argument I just think it's half the story. It was written by a husband and wife but you clearly have an axe to grind so go off king.
Have a nice night.
I'm not familiar with the reddit argument, but nice attempt to dodge what I said.
You are ignoring what you don't want to hear.
Frank Loesser's son, John, was interviewed about the song by the Palm Bean Post in 2010 that was reprinted on the official site for his dad. From the article:
“My father wrote that song as a piece of special material for he and my mother to do at parties,” says John Loesser, who runs the Lyric Theatre in Stuart, and is the son of legendary composer Frank Loesser (Guys and Dolls, How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying.)
Frank Loesser’s wife, Lynn, was a nightclub singer who had moved from Terre Haute, Ind. to New York in search of a career. She was singing in a nightclub when she met Frank Loesser around 1930.
The song itself was written in 1944, when Loesser and his wife had just moved into the Hotel Navarro in New York. They gave a housewarming party for themselves and when they did the number, everybody went crazy.
“We had to do it over and over again,” Lynn Loesser told her kids, “and we became instant parlor room stars.”
Performers started to take note of the song, and record covers of it. It's also featured in the 1949 musical comedy Neptune's Daughter as sung by Ricardo Montalbán and Esther Williams below. And in that movie, it takes an ironic tone since the movie takes place in a warm climate. It also earned Loesser an Academy Award for Best Original Song.
You provided historical context while not actually addressing the contents of the song. There's really nothing to respond to. Plus, I can't have been ignoring anything since I was asleep. There is no point in spamming this.
I actually just copied someone else's post because you accused someone if ignoring something while completely ignoring this person's post. You are a hypocrite who can't seem to accept that words mean different things in different contexts. You are hung up on how we perceive things today and not the world as it was at the time this work was created.
Do you know that the phrase "hey what's in this drink" was an excuse to do things you wanted to do but were not supposed to do.
You keep referring to a movie that used this song. And it's fine to argue that the scenes in the movie reflect a woman who doesn't want to be there, but this song is not that movie, however much you want it to be your smoking gun.
This song predates that movie. By more than 5 years. That movie, as an explanation of the meaning of this song is absolutely meaningless, yet it is the thing you are focused on.
You aren't listening because you are stuck on something that isn't true and are absolutely refusing to listen to any other point.
You argue like ken ham does.
I've already stopped posting that person's comment on your posts btw. I posted it s few times only to get your attention on it. I will go delete those unless there are replies.
The world is not an easy place to understand. You are trying to make something fit your worldview and while there is no reason you need to like this song, or want to understand it so that it no longer bothers you, i take great exception, given the US putting a convicted felon who was in bed with Jeffrey fucking Epstein and Putin, to seeing refuse to accept reality in favour their view of the world.
Baby it's cold outside is now a song that is only a problem for ignorant people who arent informed enough, are willfully ignorant.
Women matter. Black lives matter. It's important to understand where problems actually exist.
Its okay to be botherer by this song, it has an imagery that is hard not to see and misunderstand by todays standards and sensibilities. Not because the problematic behaviour of the past, such as presented in the movie you wont stop refering to, but because everyone in that era had to work around problematic behaviour. People had to be clever to be who they were in a way that is very different from today
Jesus fuck, this is some bad faith. I was ignoring nothing. I was asleep. You waited 7 hours to reply to me, and you couldn't let me sleep for 5 without me "ignoring what you don’t want to hear". Waking up and seeing three extremely long comments that amount to re-explaining the historical context of the song while not actually addressing how the song is about pressuring someone into staying over didn't really seem worthy of reply.
Plus, the idea that you copied someone else's comment as spam just makes it worse.
If you're allowed to use "it's an old song" as your argument, then I'm allowed to use the first presentation of the song to the public as mine. And since the presentation of the song has ALWAYS been one person pressuring another into staying over despite their protests, it's always been rapey.
The only real defence in pointing out historical context is to say that a rapey song was not unacceptable for the time period. So what?
The song is a problem for people who don't want to hear someone pressuring someone into illicit relationships. It's not "willfully ignorant", and your idea that someone not liking something is just because they don't understand it is DEEPLY troubling.
If it's okay to be bothered by the song, as you directly state, then why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?
Im sorry that I didnt notice the times of posts. I also slept, and responded when i woke up. Apologies for that.
You keep repeating that im not addressing what the song is about. Yes very much that is entirely and solely what im addressing.
If you dont stop repeating the same wrong thing, then dont be surprised when you keep being told the same thing.
You refuse to accept that your interpertion is flawed. As indicated by disputing other peoples arguments with evidence from a movie that the song predates. Thats not historical context, its a simple timeline. Im establishing a time line. Thats a very normal thing to do. Ita not bad faith. Explain why im wrong because ive explained why your argument had problems. This is a big one of them
YOU specifically related scenes in a movie as evidence of meaning to the song. Thats the problem.
Also i read the article from the post i copied. Its not just a quote from the song writers song addressing this. Let it be known the only value of that article in my opinion is the explanation from the song writers kid. The commentary in the article by the writer on that page is bad.
What wrong thing am I repeating? Where did you address the lyrics themselves and not the context the lyrics were written in? Why is my interpretation flawed? Why is your interpretation the only one allowed? How does the first portrayal of a song supporting my interpretation of the song make that a problem?
And as I asked before, yet you ignored, why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?
I'm not complaining about you not l liking the song i straight up said that and you even quoted me. Wtf kinda crazy pills are you on if you cant see that?