Or maybe you still love it, but now you have a different perspective.

  • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • nomous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      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.

      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.

      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.

      • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        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?

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          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?

          • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            5 days ago

            …No she fucking isn’t. She never says she wants to stay.

            I simply must go (Baby, it’s cold outside)
            The answer is, “No” (But, baby, it’s cold outside)

            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.

            • nomous@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              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.

                • Jarix@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  You are ignoring what you don’t want to hear.

                  The song predates that by five years. https://www.goretro.com/2016/12/why-baby-its-cold-outside-is-not-about.html?m=1

                  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.

                  • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    4 days ago

                    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.