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
    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.

            • Jarix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              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

              • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                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?

                • Jarix@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 days ago

                  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.

                  • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 days ago

                    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?