William Shatner apparently determined to argue about "Baby, It's Cold Outside" for rest of 2018
Aux Features MusicWilliam Shatner, it’s become obvious, is a real stinker. He’s the sort of guy who unironically calls people “snowflakes” and “SJWs” and is eager to point out the “misandry” that plagues our world today. Any fond memories you may have of his music and acting are being chipped away at, bit by bit, with each new tweet issued from his account.
It should come as little surprise, then, that this holiday season, Shatner has devoted himself to the defense of the another cultural institution in danger from those pesky progressives: the creepy Christmas classic, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside.”
Incensed by the CBC’s quickly backtracked decision to stop airing the song this year, Shatner called on his followers to launch a good ol’ fashioned call-in campaign to save the 1944 track from its fate.
He followed up this request with a reminder that not playing the song is tantamount to it being “stricken from history,” just like Orwell described in 1984, a book famous for its vision of a dystopian future where some shitty holiday tunes are not played on the radio anymore.
While his tweet came at about the exact same time the CBC announced that “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” was actually being reintroduced to its radio line-up, this was not enough for Shatner. Having happily stirred up the hornet’s nest, he continued to urge all of us to cast aside the “2018 myopic glasses” that have blinded us for far too long and continue to rage against all who would lessen our chances of hearing the song at the mall sometimes.
The debate over what place a piece written so long ago, its lyrics perhaps meant to reflect cultural nuances that now put modern listeners in mind not of outdated social mores, but, instead, of sexual assault, is complicated and worthwhile. This is not the conversation Shatner is interested in, though. He’s quick to point out that anyone who has a problem with the music simply needs to watch how it was portrayed in 1949's Neptune’s Daughter before having an opinion about the audio-only radio play at hand.
How the choreography, which sees two couples so determined to force an unwilling partner into sex that they block their attempts to leave, are meant to improve the song isn’t super clear. What is impossible to miss, though, is that Shatner has made clear that we’ve approached all of this entirely wrong: the battle for the fate of free speech and democratic tradition is now contingent entirely, we’re sorry to say, on how often radio stations play a not-especially-great Christmas song.
[via The Wrap]
Send Great Job, Internet tips to [email protected]
189 Comments
Eh, much ado about nothing. The original was sung by the writer and his wife at Christmas. It’s sweet, not creepy.
You know, Washington State didn’t fully outlaw marital rape until 2013, and there are still several states where it’s impossible to prosecute a man for raping his wife. You’re fucking creepy, for thinking that’s “sweet.”
Doesn’t really work if you have to consult Wikipedia to not find a song creepy.
I didn’t consult Wikipedia though…?
…okay? How do you suppose someone discover a song’s origin story if they weren’t naturally born with the knowledge? Replace “consult Wikipedia” with whatever form a low-key research you prefer.
You realize you’re at a site dedicated to people obsessed with pop culture, right? Most of us don’t have to look this stuff up. Nor are most of us teenagers whose only source of knowledge is their cell phone.
Replace “consult Wikipedia” with whatever form a low-key research you prefer. Gods forbid people do research about something before talking about it.
“Doesn’t really work if you have to consult Wikipedia to not find a song creepy.”
Sorry, it doesn’t work to have all the information available before making a decision?
That’s awfully reasonable of you.
Lol. Someone doesn’t really understand the conversation.
I just have to listen to the woman. At no point does she say “I want to leave.” Without cultural context, her lines read as offering her host an excuse to end the party early if he wants her gone.
You’re apparently not particularly good at listening to women. She’s making polite excuses to leave the entire song, while he prevents her from doing so. You don’t need to hear the words “I want to leave” to know someone wants to leave. I know it’s played as a romantic comedy seduction, and we’re conditioned to see that kinda bullshit as sexy, but she literally says “hey what’s in this drink?” I don’t really care if other people listen to the song, but I can’t deny the song’s a bit creepy. And I think it’s a weird hill for someone like William Shatner to die on.
“Say, what’s in this drink” is a well-used phrase that was common in
movies of the time period and isn’t really used in the same manner any
longer. The phrase generally referred to someone saying or doing
something they thought they wouldn’t in normal circumstances; it’s a nod
to the idea that alcohol is “making” them do something unusual. But the
joke is almost always that there is nothing in the drink. The drink is the excuse.
http://persephonemagazine.com/2010/12/listening-while-feminist-in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside/
You’re apparently not particularly good at listening to women. She’s
making polite excuses to leave the entire song, while he prevents her
from doing so.
That’s not what happens in the song at all. You slam people for doing research while having done none yourself. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I find the lyrics to Santa Baby much more eyebrow raising. At least in this song the woman doesn’t refer to her anatomy as an ashy old chimney filled with soot.Although, if I really had my druthers I’d start a campaign to have Springsteen’s version of ‘Santa Claus is Coming to Town’ removed from the Christmas airwaves. Not cuz it’s creepy, just because it sucks.
I find the lyrics to Santa Baby much more eyebrow raising Me too. I’ve said it before – if Baby it’s Cold Outside is about date rape, Santa Baby is about Santa rape. Which is worse?
I would characterize it more as Santa horniness, but yeah, trying to seduce Santa seems like a weird sentiment for the holidays.
Trick question. Neither is worse than your post.
Yes, Springsteen is the real villain here, more so than even McCartney with his earnest, dopey Christmas song. At least it is original.
Yeah, “Simply Havin’” is just incessantly catchy. If that thing worms itself into your ear, it’s going to be bouncing around in your head all day. I can see why people hate that song, but the Springsteen song makes me want to stick a sewing needle in my eardrum.
That whole genre of songs about wanting to fuck Santa is weird.
I’m pretty fond of the Elf soundtrack, and the version of this song on it. If I took a random sample of 100 people, 95 would either like this song or be whatever about it. The problem is, the other 5 are far more likely to be tweeting or blogging about it. This has the effect of making it seem like far more of an issue than it is, because you won’t hear much from the other 95 unless you do something stupid, like pull the song from your radio station.
You’ve just decanted the Internet, friend.
He named the two singing parts “Wolf” and “Prey.”
Cons at my office getting upset at this song not being on the radio is the best thing this holiday season.
And seeing as these are the same people who pissed their pants on the daily thanks to “gangster rap”, the irony is delicious as fuck.
Considering the only consistent principle that conservatives have these days is “triggering the libs”, maybe we can be better than that?
Agreed. But that implies I support the song being removed just to piss off cons. That is not the case. I could care less about this song being on the radio. I wouldn’t even know about this if it weren’t for their whining. I would not request to have the song taken off the air just to piss off cons. That they are upset by this is hilarious.
Fair enough! Enjoy the schadenfreude.
The best response actually to this whole deal was furnished by a younger person in the office.Me: Did you hear? Cons are upset because they’re not playing “Baby It’s Cold” on the radio.Young Person: Radio?
*couldn’t care less
Well, for conservatives, triggering the libs has become a first order priority. Most libs think triggered conservatives are wallpaper.
To be fair, when it’s Captain Kirk talking about this, he’s warning his shipmates about the deadly cold of the vacuum of space.
Shatner is pretty reasonable. Those clutching their pearls over this song – which has been ridiculously taken out of context – have not been reasonable.
Such is outrage culture. Imagine all of this wasted energy had been channeled into something productive? lol… I can’t wait to see what’s in store for 2019.
people putting 2018 definitions and standards into things from decades ago is pretty exhausting at this point
Eh, at least we’re binning shitty music these days. Back in my day, no one cared about he quality of the music they were triggered by, just the colour of the artists skin.
Today, the color of one’s skin gives one a non-expiring Get Out of Jail Free Card for making seriously offensive “music.”
Metal?
Frankly, Shatner is the only one clutching his pearls over the song. Some folks on the internet said this old song sounds a kinda rapey, a media company said they weren’t going to play it anymore, and Shatner acted like the apocalypse is nigh because people aren’t bothering to check the historical context of a Christmas song before having an opinion.
What wasted energy? Do you really think people are seriously freaking the fuck out about this?
Based on my facebook feed, unfortunately, yes.
Well how do drug a drink in a context that doesn’t imply rape?
I understand where you’re coming from, but I land on the other side of this, and it’s because of my answers to a certain questions I’ve asked myself that I think everyone should ask, and which I will now tailor to your comment and expand:
1. Isn’t this discussion about more than just a song? Isn’t it a proxy
for some very important issues, and isn’t that a productive one to have
and not a waste of time or energy at all?2. The only outrage I’ve seen is from people who are pissed that the song is not being played — has that not been your experience? And if there is outrage about the song’s content, isn’t that really outrage about rape culture, which is a valid thing to be outraged about whether you agree that the song exemplifies it or not? At worst, then, isn’t it a valid rage that is merely misdirected rather than an invalid rage, like the reactionary rage about the song being omitted?
3. What is the context the song is
being taken out of? The 40’s? Well, wasn’t that a time when consent and
women’s rights meant even less than they do now, so isn’t the song’s
scenario revealing and further normalizing that culture when publicly played today, if only
unconsciously? And since the writer couldn’t have accounted for what we’ve learned since then — particularly that if someone is resistant to advances in any way and for any reason, then rather than pressing those advances all
the harder, one should desist in making them, which is the opposite of what happens in the song — doesn’t its public playing in a modern setting inadvertently undermine, in some small way, those hard lessons, and isn’t that the last thing we need as we still struggle to grasp them?
4. Although the song is clearly intended to be lighthearted,
isn’t it possible that it only comes across that way to those who have
never worried about being raped, which is usually a male
standpoint? How many cases have we heard about where the man thinks he
is just flirting/playing a game with a woman who actually feels uncomfortable
or threatened? I’m not suggesting that the woman in the song feels this way — she is merely a figment of the male writer’s imagination… but isn’t that exactly the problem, and isn’t that imagined version of the woman an echo of the same disconnect I just mentioned, however faint?
5. Given that I’ve never had to deal
with the fear of being raped, wouldn’t it be out of line for me to say that anyone who has should not be traumatized to any degree by this song, classic or not?
6. If
playing the song should be regarded as no big deal, then can’t the
skipping of it by radio stations be regarded in the same way? Since the
song is not being outlawed or anything, which means there is no freedom of speech issue here, and since people are still free to
play it at home, is that not enough? Do its fans have to be able to hear it
on the radio too?
7. Isn’t this a bigger deal to the people who don’t want to
hear it than those who do? If we decide, “Hey, this one dumb song makes
a significant portion (although by no means a majority) of people
uncomfortable, so let’s just not play it in a public forum — there are countless other dumb songs we can play,” what’s wrong with that? Is it the principle? What principle would that be?
8. I understand that the response to all of these could be, “You’re overthinking it,” but just because it’s not that complicated for most of us doesn’t mean it’s not that complicated for a significant portion of us, does it?
9. Whether you agree or not, can you really regard any of the above as unreasonable? If anything, isn’t it reasonable to an extreme?10. Isn’t this less about being right than it is about doing our best to be sensitive to people who’ve had to deal with this shit firsthand? What does it really cost us to do so, and in order to make up for years of fucked-up culture, isn’t it the least we can do to yield to this very minor request about the damn radio?
1. No2. No3. No4. No5. No6. No7. No. If you don’t want to listen to it, change stations.8. No. If it’s an issue for you then personally choose not to listen to it instead of bitching about it being played.9. Yes, trying to impose your idiotic interpretation of a 40s song onto the rest of the world is patently unreasonable.10. No, this is about virtue signaling by a bunch of people who need to go do something productive with their time instead of complaining about the dumbest possible things.
1. – 6. Why?
7. Not always that simple. What if you’re riding in someone else’s car or it’s being played in a supermarket or you’re expressing your dog’s anal glands when it comes on or you’re at work or any number of other scenarios where you’re somewhere and don’t have control of the dial? Certainly, we can’t account for everyone’s personal traumas — someone could be traumatized by the soundtrack to Grease because they crashed their car while listening to it — but this is a pretty common one, and it’s got decent momentum behind its being removed from radio so why don’t the rest of us just grow up and let them have it? Besides, I could easily reverse your response: if you want to listen to it, do it somewhere other than the radio.
8. See 7.
9. Are you calling my interpretation idiotic or that of people who want the song banned? I haven’t given you my interpretation — I’m merely defending the mentioned interpretation as valid (a position that you haven’t actually engaged here), and that doesn’t mean imposing it on the rest of the world so much as allowing room for it to be empathized with.10. Virtue-signalling would seem to imply that you think the people who want the ban are disingenuous and are only trying to look good — but for who? We don’t even know who these anonymous people are — how much glory is there in that? Furthermore, if one thinks a song is destructive, then getting it banned from radio is productive, whether you agree with it or not. If complaining about the song is unproductive then what is complaining about complaining about the song?
BUZZWORDS!
EVERYONE CROSS “VIRTUE SIGNALING” OFF THEIR CARDS
Is that the same card you keep your internet outrage of the day list on?
1. No, it’s a cheapening of actual issues, and it’s meant to make the people actually taking those issue seriously look bad for having to defend or attack a friggin Christmas song.2. No, there is plenty of outrage to go around. No need to even leave this page.3. It’s not being “taken out of context”. It’s being deliberately misinterpreted to mean something that it could never mean, by people whose goals are not to help anyone, but rather to manufacture controversy to garner page views and clicks. 4-5. The old “you’ve never blank so you can’t ever blank” approach.
6. I don’t care if it’s on the radio or not. My beef isn’t with the song.
7. No. There are plenty of things in pop culture that I do not like, and that I find offensive, but no one had better ever stop listening to them on my account. 8. I certainly won’t say you’re overthinking it. It’s just not that complicated. It’s not about rape, was never about rape, and can only be interpreted into being about rape by being dishonest for attention. Make it about rape if you want, it’s your Christmas too, I guess. Not sure why anyone would want to do that, but that’s ok.9. No, I suppose not. 10. While I am all for making up for years of fucked-up culture, I promise complaining about semantics is not going to solve anything. In fact, it’ll make things worse.
Can you point to some posts where people are actually raging furiously about this song being played? There are people that agree with radio stations that have stopped playing it but that’s not the same as outrage. The only people I see freaking out about this are the ones railing against “outrage culture” and they (you) don’t seem to understand at all that they’re contributing to it.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I’m throwing it back your way, if you care to continue.
1 & 3. You’re implying you know the true intention behind the people who are pushing for a ban and that it’s a cynical one — how can you be so sure? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt? Where’s the risk to you?
2. I echo Nope Nope Nope Nope’s reply below. I’m not raging here either, just making a thorough case on behalf of those who feel the ban is valid because I haven’t seen that, and I think it exists.
4-5. At most, your response seems to only apply to 5 and even that is quite reductive to the point of being inaccurate. First off, I’m not aware of a “you never blank so you can’t ever blank” trope. Second, all I’m saying is maybe we ought to defer to the people for whom this is a more sensitive issue, just — you know — out of consideration. As far as point 4, I’m regarding it as being unaddressed thus far.
6. Neither is mine, really — it’s with the position that any beef with the song is invalid.
7. No one is being asked to stop listening — they’re just being asked to listen somewhere other than the radio.
8. The intention of the song is not the limit of its implications. It doesn’t have to be ‘about’ rape for it to raise those issues and to reveal a certain culture that allows it.
9. Which does your ‘no’ refer to? Am I or am I not being resonable?10. The old ‘semantics’ approach. Allow me to get ‘semantical’ for a second: doesn’t that refer to arguing over meanings of words? Who is doing that? There’s a difference between being precise with language and getting mired in defining things. There — now THAT’S a semantic argument, but a necessary one in this case!
Forgot to say that the ‘taken out of context’ remark was a reference to the post I was originally replying to.
Well, Shatner is certainly of that personality type that probably didn’t take “No” for an answer himself a few times over the years.
Taking the time to write this dumb article is much more stupid then Shatner’s tweet.
I’m basically on board with the notion that in its original milieu, the song was neither intended as nor actually a celebration of sexual assault.
But, you know, it’s a song. If it’s making rape survivors uncomfortable, we can probably stop playing it at Starbucks. And if that’s the hill you’re choosing to die on, it seems like you have a shitload more issues than having to enjoy an easily accessible Christmas song in private.
The debate over what place a piece written so long ago, its lyrics perhaps meant to reflect cultural nuances that now put modern listeners in mind not of outdated social mores, but, instead, of sexual assault, is complicated and worthwhile.No, it really isn’t complicated or worthwhile. It’s a colossal waste of time. It’s not about sexual assault, and it never was. Anyone who tells you they believe it was is lying for attention, or is very easily manipulated (and also likely illiterate). Pretending that this is some sort of somber discussion about a women’s autonomy over her body, or rape culture, or the patriarchy, is disingenuous and does nothing for actual issues involving women’s autonomy over her body, or rape culture, or the patriarchy.
“and also likely illiterate”Seeing as I’ve read the explanation for the song’s supposed innocuousness, being illiterate isn’t the problem. Not being a student of mid-century intersectional feminism is the problem. Chill.
Not being a student of mid-century intersectional feminism is the problem.Pretty sure you belong in column A.
“Pretty sure you belong in column A.”No, I don’t listen to Polka.
You should. Outside of Frankie Yankovic’s problematic international hit Date Rape Polka, it’s actually a pretty progressive art form.
But it all sounds like ass crossed with a white pride parade.
And here’s an explanation from a feminist writer defending the song:http://persephonemagazine.com/2010/12/listening-while-feminist-in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside/But yes, anybody who disagrees with you is a horrible misogynist.
“But yes, anybody who disagrees with you is a horrible misogynist.”Wow, that strawman’s so big, you could burn Nicolas Cage in it.
You don’t have to be a Women’s Studies major to understand that the song
was written in a time when women were expected to resist having sex
even if they wanted it. You just have to be a functioning adult.
See my answer to your sibling.
You don’t need an academic background to know that there was a strong stigma against unmarried women having sex back then.
You do need it to explain the drink comment though.
The woman comments on how strong the drink is to set up an
excuse for when she eventually gives in the guy’s advances, which is
what she’s wanted to do from the beginning.Or did you imagine someone referenced ruffies in a song written in 1944? :rollseyes:
“The woman comments on how strong the drink is to set up an excuse for
when she eventually gives in the guy’s advances, which is what she’s
wanted to do from the beginning.”And if you got that just from the song lyrics and zero educational background in specific mores of the era, good for you! Most of us, however, know jack and shit about eras we didn’t personally experience. Crazy, huh?
If you grew up in a misogynistic society, as I did, you shouldn’t need any other context. Or do you imagine that many men and women still don’t engage in this type of pre-sexual behavior?Shit, if a gay guy like me understands sexual dynamics between men and women, it really shouldn’t be that hard for straight people.
“If you grew up in a misogynistic society, as I did, you shouldn’t need any other contex”About women having it rough? Absolutely. About a specific line in a song to denote complicated agency? Little bit harder to get a handle on if all you’ve got to go on is song lyrics.
Only if you refuse to apply the context of EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT MEN AND WOMEN to the song, and make a tiny adjustment for time period, which you don’t have to have lived through to understand.Or you could just willfully misconstrue it, like the people who routinely rail against the song do.
“Only if you refuse to apply the context”But I have applied the context. Many times over. Just not to your satisfaction.
It’s also easy to yell at me when you’re pretending that I’m misunderstanding the song in toto, and not because the line “what’s in this drink” has a very specific meaning in the orignal context that doesn’t exist today and I’m not an expert on linguistic conventions from 70 years ago.
I’m not yelling at you at all. But I absolutely AM accusing
you of willfully misconstruing the song, since I’m assuming you’re not
really that dim.For some reason, you – and lots of other people – are invested in painting “Baby It’s Cold Outside” as problematic, when it’s really
not. Instead of doing that, maybe ask yourself why it’s important to you
to look for imaginary instances of male sexual aggression instead of calling out ACTUAL male sexual agression, of which there is plenty?
“But I absolutely AM accusing you of willfully misconstruing the song”This should be good. please, explain to me how I am willfully misconstruing this song.“For some reason, you – and lots of other people – are invested in painting “Baby It’s Cold Outside” as problematic”Except for the constant references to specific, decades-old slang that most Gen Xers will have no clue about that I keep making? Sure!“instead of calling out ACTUAL male sexual agression, of which there is plenty?”Hey look, it’s a strawman argument, kids! Guess we’re done for today. Tune in next week!
No, we’re done. I’ve said all I intend to say to you on the matter, and
have no interest in indulging you further. Continue to complain about
pretend rapiness in ‘40’s Christmas songs all you like if makes you feel
like you’re actually doing something worthwhile. We’ll muddle through
without you on the important stuff.
“Continue to complain about pretend rapiness in ‘40’s Christmas songs all you like”Oh, if only I’d done that, would that make you a happy boy?“makes you feel like you’re actually doing something worthwhile”That’s besides the point. But as I noted in another thread, apparently being able to walk and chew gum at the same time makes me a wizard or something.“We’ll muddle through without you on the important stuff.”M’lord.
Look MA, I said ‘straw man’, quoted a quote, doin stuff in school, writin some papers, showing rage when needed. These words, they cray, they real hurtful. #words #strawmenmakehay
When Netflix asks if you, Susan B Cat, The Feline Mystique (Mysti) and the rest of the Pink Kitty Bregade are still watching Friends, just remember, Joey is rape culture. #Netflixandnip
The thinkpieces that come out every year on this very topic always make me shake my head and go “this is why people hate ‘feminists’.”
A friend spent a good 10 minutes lecturing me when she tried to draw me into an argument she was having with someone else over the song and I said I didn’t really have a strong feeling about the song one way or another.
Apparently, not having a strong opinion about this song is the same as not caring that people get raped.
That was fun.
Oh god…this is why I don’t have friends I think. Well, that or my repellent personality.
It can be two things.
Friend?
You’ve taken the side of William Shatner on something. If this doesn’t force you to rethink every single decision you’ve ever made in your life that led you to this point, I genuinely don’t know what could.
William Shatner was TV’s TJ Hooker.
Shit like this is why Trump got voted in. This is a cute, silly song. Its not some date rape anthem. One radio station chose to not play it and it became a national headline and now all the knuckle draggers are lumping it into more of the “Liberal War on Christmas” bullshit narrative.
I wonder if stations had just stopped playing it and hadn’t announced it, if anyone would even have noticed. I mean, I don’t recall this song being played on the radio, not to the extent that Brenda Fucking Lee and Burl Fucking Ives’ songs are. But I don’t really have a horse in this race, to the extent that I don’t even know (or care) who sings the version that is played on the radio.I know it sounds awful, but I basically hate all Christmas music. It comes from years of working in offices where the same albums were played endlessly. To this day I can sing the Barbra Streisand and Elvis Christmas albums by heart in order of their songs (although I don’t. Because now I hate Christmas music).
Oh my god, go to fucking hell with “This is why Trump got elected” That is LITERALLY the dumbest fucking thing to say ever. If this is why your country voted for Trump it deserves to fucking burn.
This is the Internet. We make a sport out of intentionally misinterpreting things. Sort of like the people who re-edit movie trailers to turn Toy Story into a horror film or The Shining into a feel good film. There are endless articles about “How X is secretly terrifying.” The thing is, WE KNOW THESE ARE JOKES! There are apparently people out there who really think “Baby it’s cold outside” promotes rape culture.
Even without the context, it’s very obvious that the female part contains no statements of desire to leave. There are a lot of reasons should could leave offered, but those are structured such that a modern read would be that she’s giving the male singer a pretext to politely tell her to get the fuck out so he can get some goddamn sleep.
I have a lot of thoughts on this, and if you’re interested, I’ll merely direct you to my long comment above rather than obnoxiously pasting the whole thing here. (I was already obnoxious enough in posting it once.) In short, though, I’ll just ask what are your reasons for claiming that the discussion of this song is only pretending to be about all the important issues you mentioned? Aren’t major battles always waged on minor grounds? Is there any reason that the song’s implications must be limited to its intent? And, if we’re having an important discussion, shouldn’t that be embraced regardless of what the catalyst is?
It’s not about sexual assault
Sure, it’s not.It’s about 2 people on the cusp of physical intimacy.The woman decides to say no.The man decides he will not take no for an answer.All very innocent.
Meh. I don’t think the song should be banned, but at the same time, saying it’s not even a discussion worth having because “that wasn’t the song’s original intent three-quarters of a century ago” is a bullshit excuse. If I fly a swastika over my house, “oh, it’s the Armenian symbol of eternal light,” is not a sufficient excuse when a crowd of people shows up at my door calling me an racist. Because while that’s true, lots of shit has happened since the bronze age, and our culture looks at swastikas much differently now.Obviously that’s a hypberbolic example but the point stands: shit changes and the way we perceive artwork changes, and you really can’t just ignore that. Yeah, in the 1940s, this song made perfect sense, and it became incredibly popular because it made sense. But in an era where we as a society are slowly coming to terms with the fact that a staggering percentage of women are victims of sexual assault arising from situations that sound incredibly similar to the dialogue in this song… then yeah, it’s absolutely at the very least a conversation worth having. Seriously, it’s discussions about shit like this that makes the the most pessimistic about this country. We can’t have a rational discussion about a modern interpretation of a stupid Christmas song from 80 years ago without one side screaming ITS FINE YOU’RE ALL JUST STUPID ILLITERATE SNOWFLAKES and the other side screaming IF YOU LIKE THIS SONG YOU LIKE RAPE. Of course we can’t agree on the big shit. We can’t interact like adults over the stupidest, smallest shit.
I’m willing to bet Bill has the time to go to the mattresses for this one.
Many things can be true:Baby It’s Cold Outside is a dumb songIt’s lyrics are much more mild than some of the things glorified and discussed in music played on stations and streaming services today.If you got a problem with one, you should be fighting against the other.But if you’re fighting against them, you should probably realize how big of a pussy you are.
C’mon. She didn’t even try to keep that jacket on. If the song had progressed into a slap and running eyeliner, then I’d be concerned.
William Shatner does not run that account! It’s his assistant (who he frequently retweets). The assistant is a redpill MAGA guy who’s obsessed with Outlander. The twitter account is like a TekWar novel: he’s just slapping his name on it. (George Takei doesn’t run his accounts, either).
He didn’t really write TekWar? : (
He didn’t really write TekWar? : ( It’s fun to read the intros to those TekWar books: in the first one Ron Goulart is mentioned in passing, like “thanks for all his advice”. By the third or so it’s “Ron Goulart, without whom these books could not have been written”. There are no laws saying you have to credit, thank or even acknowledge your ghost writer, but I think Shatner got called on it one time too many at sf conventions.P.S. Actually the TekWar books are kinda fun, as I recall.
I assume that Shatner will next try to justify why “Treat You Better” isn’t the Incel National Anthem?
While it’s pretty indisputable that it is not *actually* about coercion, we probably don’t need a holiday song that brings sexual coercion in mind, and it is not so great a work of art to enshrine it forever, just a novelty song that was popular at one time and no longer needs to be popular.
Exactly. If, every time, someone has to explain “I know it sounds like she’s trying to leave and he won’t let her, and maybe spiked her drink, but that’s not actually the case because XYZ,” maybe it’s just not worth the effort?**At least not for this mediocre song. Of course there are literary works that are important enough to merit these kinds of discussions so that they aren’t lost to history, but Shakespeare this ain’t. And it’s not like people are trying to redact this song from every Christmas compilation ever, we just don’t want to hear it because it’s a bit uncomfortable, and making people feel weird is not the point of Christmas music.
I think the point here is that the song doesn’t actually bring sexual coercion to mind to most people. It’s only the cranks and crackpots who keep going on and on about it despite not them not paying much attention to the context.
I think the point here is that the song doesn’t actually bring sexual coercion to mind to most people.Ignoring the issue of how you know this to be true, you seem to be implying that the only meaningful criterion is what percentage of listeners consciously think “this song is about sexual assault.” Why is that the only useful criterion? Art that reinforces the notion that it’s okay for men to ignore women’s agency and coerce them into sex is a problem whether or not people are aware of it. Just because people don’t consciously notice it doesn’t mean it has no effect.As a point of comparison: In the 1930s, almost every movie Hollywood put out featured white leads and if there were any black people in it at all, they were servants or villains. It’s likely that almost no white people who saw the movie thought there was anything wrong with this, or even consciously considered the fact that black characters were always secondary. But that art helped to reinforce the notion that white people are supreme and blacks are secondary, subservient, and threatening. (I guarantee you black people noticed.)
you seem to be implying that the only meaningful criterion is what
percentage of listeners consciously think “this song is about sexual
assault.”
You’re ignoring the fact that the song is not about sexual assault.
I’ll agree that it wasn’t intended to be about sexual assault. Obviously none of us are time-travellers or mind-readers, but we can probably agree that the writers of the song did not consciously think they were writing a song about sexual assault.But the song depicts a bunch of behaviors which are, in fact, related to and reminiscent of sexual assault. It’s hard (for me, and for a number of people, apparently) to listen to it and not be reminded of sexual assault and coercion by the lyrics.One problem in this debate is that people use “it wasn’t intended by the authors to be about sexual assault” as justification for “therefore no one should be bothered by it.” Except it’s easy—beyond trivial, in fact—to find examples of art that were not intended to be offensive at the time of their creation, but in fact are considered offensive in the modern day. Blackface, for example; James Bond slapping a woman on the ass and telling her to get lost by saying “Man talk.” The notion that we should never be offended by, or shun, older art, is nonsense. The only argument is about what we believe now and how we should interact with art.
I’ll agree that it wasn’t intended to be about sexual assault.
Then the discussion is over. If people want to intentionally misinterpret the song, that’s on them.
Obviously none of us are time-travellers or mind-readers, but we can probably agree that the writers of the song did not consciously think they were writing a song about sexual assault.
The intentions of the writers is not up for debate. It’s clear what the writers intended, as evidenced by the lyrics & their many, many performances of the song as husband & wife.
But the song depicts a bunch of behaviors which are, in fact, related to and reminiscent of sexual assault.
No, it doesn’t. Point out those parts of the song and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong.
It’s hard (for me, and for a number of people, apparently) to listen to
it and not be reminded of sexual assault and coercion by the lyrics.
Then don’t listen to it. Again, you’re intentionally misinterpreting the song.
One problem in this debate is that people use “it wasn’t intended by the
authors to be about sexual assault” as justification for “therefore no
one should be bothered by it.”
Nobody’s saying that you can’t be bothered by it (although, for the third time, you’re intentionally misinterpreting the song). But just because you or others are bothered by it (wrongly), doesn’t mean you can tell everybody that the song can’t be played.
Except it’s easy—beyond trivial, in fact—to find examples of art that were not intended to be offensive at the time of their creation, but in fact are considered offensive in the modern day. Blackface, for example;
Your comparison would make sense if the song really was about sexual assault, written at a time when sexual assault was perfectly acceptable. But that’s not the case, so your comparison doesn’t work.
*sigh*So… the thing is, you’re laboring under the belief that what a piece of art is about is objective. The problem is, there’s no consistent way to determine this; no matter what one person says a song (or book, or movie, or painting) “is” about, someone else can always concoct an equally plausible explanation that it’s about something else. There’s no way to disprove anyone’s position. That’s why it’s all subjective. Yelling at someone (over, and over, and over) that their opinion is “wrong” is… counterproductive, at best.You may note, if you reread my comments, that I never said that the song “is” or “isn’t” about anything. I merely said that, when I hear the lyrics, it reminds me of unpleasant things, and as such, I don’t want to hear the song. (I used to have no problem with the song, but my wife pointed out that it normalizes the concept of sexual assault. I disagreed at first, but eventually I came around to agree with her.)But just because you or others are bothered by it (wrongly)Let me see if I can explain this in a different way.The problems in our society of men sexually assaulting women and ignoring their agency are real and longstanding. There’s no arguing this; the evidence is overwhelming.It’s also easy to look through our cultural artifacts (music, literature, film, etc.) and see a lot of examples of women’s agency being ignored; women being treated solely as sexual objects to be controlled by men; and women being treated as unimportant or background. Far, far more examples than the other way around.Now, I don’t believe that a single piece of art by itself has the power to control our culture’s flow. I don’t believe that merely because a piece of art normalizes something distasteful, that therefore we should shun it, ignoring all other context. But I do believe that art does have a cumulative effect; it reinforces notions of how the world works, and we have to be aware of that. No one is immune to the forces of the culture they live in, no matter how much they think they are.When an individual piece of art depicts women being coerced into sex by men, it can’t help but remind me that this is a big problem in our society, and media that normalize it are, to a degree, harmful. This doesn’t mean that I think all media that does this should be shunned. There’s more to a piece of art than one individual message. “Baby It’s Cold Outside” is a single, short song; there’s not much to it beyond its message of “hey let’s ignore what you want and do what I want.” I don’t think I’m losing much of our cultural heritage by personally shunning it. doesn’t mean you can tell everybody that the song can’t be played.I never said it can’t be played, or that anyone else should not be allowed to hear it. I merely said I don’t like it and don’t want to hear it.
I used to have no problem with the song, but my wife pointed out that it normalizes the concept of sexual assault. I disagreed at first, but eventually I came around to agree with her. So you’re both idiots. Ok. When an individual piece of art depicts women being coerced into sex by men Which ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ does not. “Baby It’s Cold Outside” is a single, short song; there’s not much to it beyond its message of “hey let’s ignore what you want and do what I want.” THAT’S NOT THE FUCKING MESSAGE OF THE FUCKING SONG, YOU STUPID FUCKING TWATWAFFLE! YOU’RE INTENTIONALLY MISINTERPRETING THE FUCKING SONG!
*sigh*
You: “My opinion is objectively correct, and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.” Thanks for providing all the justification I need to ignore you. Bye now.
You: “My opinion is objectively correct, and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.” You can take that position, but you’ll be wrong. Everything I’ve said here is objectively correct: You’re intentionally misinterpreting the song. We know the intentions of the writers. The song has nothing to do with sexual assault.
You are being stupid, because you admitted that you’re only outraged about this song because your wife told you (incorrectly) that it normalizes sexual assault (it doesn’t).You: I’m too afraid of my wife to tell her she’s wrong about his.
What makes you think continued name-calling is going to make me, or anyone, want to talk to you? Fuck off.
What makes you think continued name-calling is going to make me, or anyone, want to talk to you? I wasn’t calling you stupid to insult you. It was a simple statement of fact. If having your stupidity pointed out bothers you, then maybe stop being stupid.
Fuck off.
No.
Down the road, if you find yourself wondering why people don’t seem to want to engage with you, you’ll want to refer back to this conversation.
Down the road, if you find yourself wondering why people don’t seem to
want to engage with you, you’ll want to refer back to this conversation.
And yet you continue to reply to me…
lol ok
lol ok
You replied to me again, despite claiming that nobody wants to engage with me. You just keep proving me right with every post you make.
Exactly. Language is not simple about words, but also tone and body language. Since this is a song on the radio we can only go by tone of voice but I have never heard the person “wanting to leave”(which has been song by men and woman depending on version) sing in a way that suggests their attempt was genuine. Its two people flirting
I don’t think it actually brings it to mind, though. The only people who hear anything of the sort are looking for something, anything, and thus already have it on the mind 24/7.
I’ll just … I’ll just paste the lyrics here, if that’s OK:I really can’t stay (but baby, it’s cold outside)
I’ve got to go away (but baby, it’s cold outside)This evening has been (been hoping that you’d drop in)
So very nice (i’ll hold your hands, they’re just like ice)My mother will start to worry (beautiful what’s your hurry?)
My father will be pacing the floor (listen to the fireplace roar)So really I’d better scurry (beautiful please don’t hurry)
But maybe just a half a drink more (put some records on while I pour)The neighbors might think (baby, it’s bad out there)
Say what’s in this drink? (no cabs to be had out there)I wish I knew how (your eyes are like starlight now)
To break this spell (i’ll take your hat, your hair looks swell)I ought to say, no, no, no sir (mind if I move in closer?)
At least I’m gonna say that I tried (what’s the sense in hurtin’ my pride?)I really can’t stay (oh baby don’t hold out)
But baby, it’s cold outsideI simply must go (but baby, it’s cold outside)
The answer is no (but baby, it’s cold outside)Your welcome has been(how lucky that you dropped in)
So nice and warm (look out the window at this dawn)My sister will be suspicious (gosh your lips look delicious)
My brother will be there at the door (waves upon the tropical shore)My maiden aunts mind is vicious (gosh your lips are delicious)
But maybe just a cigarette more (never such a blizzard before)I’ve gotta get home(but baby, you’d freeze out there)
Say lend me a coat(it’s up to your knees out there)You’ve really been grand (i thrill when you touch my hand)
But don’t you see? (how can you do this thing to me?)There’s bound to be talk tomorrow (think of my lifelong sorrow)
At least there will be plenty implied (if you got pneumonia and died)I really can’t stay (get over that old out)
Baby, it’s cold
Baby, it’s cold outside
But, but, it’s just that one problematic lyric about her drink!
But he didn’t offer her a drink – SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT!
Note how not one line is “I want to leave.”
On the one had, I think the hullabaloo over this song is ridiculous, on the other, I never much cared for it, so eh?
Without going into what I think of Shatner, I have to say that it annoys me that people never consider the context of the song, both the era when it was written and who actually wrote it. Nonmarried couples spending time alone together without a chaperone may not be a source of gossip today, but we’re not that far removed from an era when it was. The song isn’t about a guy strong-arming or attempting to date rape (in spite of the ‘hey what’s in this drink’ line) his girlfriend. It’s a song of the two of them coming up with reasons why she should stay on his part and her making excuses so that the next day she can say that she tried, without going into how half-hearted it actually was. For the love of….
IMHO Santa Baby is the creepiest holiday song.
If it’s the Eartha Kitt original, I think that she brings enough playfulness to the song that it’s not 100% terrible. Every single other version, you’re absolutely correct.
I will also say that while I believe the song itself is more innocent than people give it credit for, the movie clips don’t help. They actually give off a cutesy nonconsensual vibe
I’ll withhold judgment until Chris Pine revisits these debates with his take in 50 years.
da fuk??? you think william shatner writes these tweets?? or knows what twitter is?
This whole idiotic nonsense is Elf’s fault. I defy anyone to claim this song has been a “beloved holiday classic” for any longer than the last 15 years or so. I’m 55, and I sure don’t recall ever hearing it very much prior to that.From what I can figure out from a very cursory stroll through Wikipedia and Discogs, it appeared on around 40 albums between 1949 (its first recording) and 2003, and a grand total of nine of those albums were Christmas (but more often “Christmas/Winter”) themed. Its natural home was jazz vocal duet albums. Since 2003, when Elf included an implied-naked Zooey Deschanel singing it, it’s appeared on at least another 40 albums, all but one Christmas themed. Its appearance in Elf roughly coincided with the rise of All-Christmas-from-November 1-to-December 31 radio stations, which had two months of time to fill and hey, it was a fun little upbeat ditty to sandwich in between “Silver Bells” and “O Little Town of Bethlehem.”At the same time, there’s been an explosion of Christmas albums, also. I wouldn’t doubt that there are 100 new holiday albums put out every year these days. They need content, and very few people are going to deputize Yoko Ono’s “Listen, the Snow is Falling” as a holiday song, though a handful of intrepid souls have. (No one has tossed Lene Lovich’s icily creepy “The Freeze” into the Christmas mix, yet, but one can always dream.)At any rate, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”’s tenure as a holiday classic is actually pretty short-lived in the great scheme of things. For anyone over the age of 30, they most likely have spent the majority of their Christmases on Earth without ever hearing this particular chestnut as a major part of them. Elf forced this thing into the holiday mainstream.
Going to disagree slightly, as a 36 y/0 I have memories of this song from middle school, and it was pretty prevalent during high school choir performances, and supermarkets during the season. Elf may have boost it further into the public consciousness, but it was definitely a holiday classic prior to that
Also Sigourney Weaver and Buster Poindexter covered it on SNL waaaaaaaaay back when Buster Poindexter was a name people recognized.
This whole idiotic nonsense is Elf’s fault.
No.
I defy anyone to claim this song has been a “beloved holiday classic” for any longer than the last 15 years or so.
It’s been a ‘beloved holiday classic’ for longer than the last 15 years or so.
I’m 55, and I sure don’t recall ever hearing it very much prior to that.
Then you weren’t paying attention.
I hate to say it, Shatner is right about this song. People need to calm the fuck down.
I mean, this particular song is not a hill I would think to care about, much less die on, but I agree with the Shatnerkirk in theory. Judging old shows/music/movies through the lens of your 2018 “wokeness” is so lazy and masturbatory. If you were really woke and actually gave a shit about making the world a better place, there are literally a million other things you could be talking and/or thinking about, all of which are more consequential than mounting petty, clickbait indictments of stuff like old Christmas songs and Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer (who is also on the 2018 wokebaby hit list).
If you were really woke and actually gave a shit about making the world a better place, there are literally a million other things you could be talking and/or thinking about
Hey man, just because you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time doesn’t mean no one can.
Judging stuff from the past by the standards of today is called Presentism, and I agree with you about how it’s dumb. I look forward to 2039 when all the people upset by this song have kids who find things their parents said and did in 2018 offensive by 2039’s standards.
Yeah. While we’re at it, let’s bring back blackface, which nobody had a problem with back in 1920.Oh, you mean some people had a problem with it and were ignored? And that’s a good enough reason not to bring it back? And we’re sure that nobody in 1944 was concerned about women being sexually assaulted by men?
You’re dumb as fuck and need to stop trolling every fucking time I write something on here. What I wrote in no way deserved a “So you like blackface and rape, then?” response.And again, I know your user name, you “comes for me” every time I have an opinion on anything, no matter how normal my take is. So, seriously, do not engage me on here, because you’re trash bag and all of your idiotic takes are not worth one more of these comments.Please don’t stay, dirtside, it’s cold outside. I hope you get hypothermia and die. Oh baby, it’s cold outside.
I paid no attention at all to the username of the person I was responding to. Looking at your username now, it doesn’t seem particularly familiar to me. The notion that I’m following you around to attack everything you say is silly. You’re not that important.
Judging stuff from the past by the standards of today is called Presentism, and I agree with you about how it’s dumb.Wait, why exactly is this dumb? If the standards of today are correct, then I see nothing dumb with judging things from the past by those standards. Of course, there’s no guarantee that the standards of today are correct in all cases, but in those cases where they are correct (e.g., that it’s seriously wrong for husbands to rape wives), then I see nothing dumb about applying them to the past (e.g., judging it was seriously wrong when some particular Roman centurion raped his wife).
And it’s not even being judged by modern standards, or even completely ignoring the language of the time (basically doing the equivalent of banning all languages from having the combo of phonemes that are profane in English), but actually lying about the content of the song, saying that the female part states a desire to leave rather than clearly doing the “I really shouldn’t eat this candy” thing.
It’s the TekWar on Christmas!
He’s not wrong but he may not be the guy you want to be right with…. 🙂
A question for all you members of the Woke Twitterati who want to see this song removed from the airwaves: “Fairy Tale of New York” is a genuinely beloved Christmas song, and it features a bickering addict couple hurling anti-gay and sexist epithets at each other. Does that one need to go too?
It’s a different context. “Fairy Tale of New York” is supposed to be about people having a terrible time at Christmas. “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” is supposed to be romantic, but comes off creepy. I’m not saying it should be removed from the radio altogether, but re-analyzing the lyrics using today’s understanding of sexual relationships is important. Ignoring the fact that those lyrics do not come off romantic in our current times and dismissing those arguments as irrelevant because the song is a product of its time is bullshit. The song is constantly played in our time, so re-evaluating it based on now is worthwhile.And if it is removed from the radio, well, the internet exists. If you like the song, you can hear it as played by a fuckton of different artists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby,_It%27s_Cold_Outside#1949_recordings
“Fairy Tale of New York” is supposed to be about people having a terrible time at Christmas.
Which is why it’s one of the greats.
Absolutely! “Fairy Tale of New York” is intentionally skeezy to show the reality for a lot of people during the holidays. “Baby It’s Cold Outside” is unintentionally skeezy and people use the “unintentional” part of that to argue that there’s nothing wrong with it rather than doing the work to contextualize it and recognize the problems that exist in the song and in our culture as a whole.
I saw on Twitter Moments, where all of life’s frivolous battles are fought, and people are indeed trying to ban Fairy Tale of New York.As a writer, and someone who enjoys studying human nature, I am interested in what drives people to care, not care, care WAY TOO much, about these things. but personally, I have no strong opinion on these types of things. Seems like a needless assault on my own blood pressure for little payoff.
I would like to point out the vast majority of songs that I like have NEVER been played on the radio (well, maybe college radio). You don’t see me spouting off about it. If people want to speak out in favor of “Baby It’s Cold Outside”, let me voice my support for “Cold” by the Cure. It talks about the cold, therefore it’s a holiday song, apparently. How dare people not play it on the radio.
The oddest part of this whole ordeal was, why wasn’t it so controversial in 2017? what happened in the past year that caused it all of a sudden to be such a thing? or is it just manufactured outrage to get clicks?
This was written in 2010, so maybe you just don’t keep up with what people are talking about. http://persephonemagazine.com/2010/12/listening-while-feminist-in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside/
OR I don’t really care, but thanks for keeping track
Doesn’t matter whether you care; you asked why it wasn’t a big deal last year and someone pointed out that this has actually been on the radar for almost a decade.“Why wasn’t this a big deal last year?” “It was.” “Oh… well I don’t care!!”
oh look, here comes a rational thinker
You are very welcome!
You cared enough to post in the first place.
I cared enough to ask WHY its a big deal this year instead of last, I didn’t care enough to actually know its been a big deal since 2010 apparantly. at least according to some 4th string feminist blogspot post. I also know this is the first year that its been removed from playlists. so again, my question (which someone else answered btw) is why is it a big deal this year instead of last year (or the last 8) for those who can’t keep up with my train of thought.
Honest answer, I think it was the Cosby conviction. But you are right its not like this song is new
“How the choreography, which sees two couples so determined to force an unwilling partner into sex that they block their attempts to leave, are meant to improve the song isn’t super clear.”
What also isn’t super clear is why you have chosen such a dishonest read of the choreography.
Because AV CLUB
This debate is intellectual AIDS.
“Any fond memories you may have of his music…”I see what you did there.
The debate over what place a piece written so long ago, its lyrics perhaps meant to reflect cultural nuances that now put modern listeners in mind not of outdated social mores, but, instead, of sexual assault, is complicated and worthwhile. Well said.
It must be cold outside, since there are so many snowflakes in here! Oh!!!
For those of you keeping score at home:Shatner currently on the AVC Shitposting List. He shitposts on Twitter. AVC shitposts articles about him shitposting on Twitter things they didn’t like. Plus, he’s never seen The Good Place! MONSTER!
Not seeing the Good Place should get him deported back to Canada!
Agreed!
“Or is this 1984?
No, I’m asking. Where am I? Somebody, please help”
Fuck this. Where’s my KHAAAAAAANNNNN! moment of Shatner raging at Wonderful Christmastime, the absolute worst holiday song ever written.
1. Dozens of major websites write the same thinkpieces about [silly piece of pop culture] being “problematic,” year after year2. Someone pushes back with a fraction of that effort3. Those same websites respond with “LOL look at that weirdo, why’s he so OBSESSED with [silly piece of pop culture]??”I’ve seen this dance before.
I really don’t understand why we are even debating this song, because by all rights, there is no reason it has entered the holiday song cannon. It is not a holiday song. California Dreamin’ could just as easily be considered a holiday song, because it talks about walking around in the winter. Is anyone advocating that the song should enter regular rotation throughout the year? Do any of the commenters on this site actually listen to the types of stations that go to holiday music in December? Why do we care? We can listen to whatever we want to whenever we want to. It’s 2018.
why any cares about this stupid song is beyond me.
Jesus God, he’s 87. If you don’t want to give him a pass for being tone-deaf to the cultural shifts regarding women and sexual aggression, fine. But what purpose does it serve to point out that an old man is glaringly out of touch with the times? Is your next article going to be chastising Betamax for not being able to stream digital movies?Here’s the best way to avoid being offended by old people: don’t follow old people on social media.That said, people who shrillishly condemn “Baby It’s Cold Outside” as date-rapey are more tedious than the FOX News cretins and their War on Christmas.
This whole controversy is, to me, another reminder of how much things can change, and not just what’s acceptable and unacceptable, but more how sociopolitical movements can switch. To anyone who grew up in the ‘80s, it was overwhelmingly the conservatives* who spoke out against music and tried to get it banned. The premise to “Footloose” really isn’t that far off. From the floor of Congress to churches to even classrooms it was very common for some indignant right-of-center person to recite lyrics and say “See!? They’re clearly singing about _______!” and then argue that the music needed to be banned or access to it majorly curtailed. You can see where this is going. Now it’s some indignant LEFT-of-center person reciting lyrics etc etc. Whereas the former movements usually emerged from Evangelicalism, the current movement seems to emerge from academia. *Yes I remember that the most public face of that movement was Al Gore’s wife, but I still maintain it was mostly conservatives (keep in mind that in Reagan’s America there were a lot more so-called blue-dog Democrats)… In fact, I was surprised that just a few years later, when Al Gore became vice-president, how effectively they disappeared Tipper Gore’s PMRC activities.
Oh, please. Leave it to The (current, crappy version of) AV Club to be firmly in the “offended by century-old Christmas songs” camp. This used to be the sort of thing you guys would have made fun of; now you’re just unironically taking part in the liberal version of The War On Christmas. Stop embarrassing yourselves already!
Whether it’s intended to be about sexual assault or not, the song is creepy as fuck. Don’t think so? Here it is with the genders reversed.
I side entirely with Bill on this one, but more importantly. How has NO ONE commented that in the accompanying video, the song is being sung by Ricardo Montalban – you know, Khan… KKKHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!
The song itself isn’t particularly problematic but certain versions of it have been. I think, specifically the Cerys Matthews/ Tom Jones was really creepy. Partly for the age difference making it a creepy old guy perving on a woman young enough to be his granddaughter. And the whole little red riding hood, big bad wolf sense it invoked.
The song itself isn’t particularly problematic but certain versions of it have been. I think, specifically the Cerys Matthews/ Tom Jones was really creepy. Partly for the age difference making it a creepy old guy perving on a woman young enough to be his granddaughter. And the whole little red riding hood, big bad wolf sense it invoked.
that now put modern listeners in mind not of outdated social mores, but, instead, of sexual assault No, it only puts “some” listeners in mind of sexual assault. The rest of us see the song for what it was and still is. This is the PC movement “jumping the shark” as it were. I guess next we will have to stop using the word grape because it makes me think, gee….rape.
Alternate take: both sides are taking this all out of proportion, and both sides should takes themselves to one side and have a word with themselves…
You know Trump is the POTUS be asue of BS like this, right? I hope you can make that connection. Despite a majority of the country leaning left, they continue to look weak. Stressing out over a decades old song is weak.