"Baby It's Cold Outside" -- Holiday Song? Rapey?

It's probably the Loesser of two evils, anyway

I was in two minds, until GMB played th song from the film, what Piers called "a nice happy Christmas movie".

Basically, bloke invades woman's personal space, chases her around the room only slightly slower than Benny Hill, shuts curtains, crams next to her on a seat she sits on, etc. All this after she's already said "The Answer Is No".

The staging/performance in the movie is (surprisingly) mediocre... even the sets are cheap. This was clearly not a top-shelf MGM production.

That said, the song predated the movie and became popular thanks to dozens of recordings afterward (as discussed above); the movie is by no means the “original/definitive” interpretation. No one knows the film, anyway.

Have come around to think the song is def not rapey, but I think the same cultural context that made the song not rapey (women having to coyly put up a front of not wanting to be "easy") provided cover for a lot of actual rape, so it's good we've moved beyond that.

i continue to take more issue with the word "rapey"

I apologize for using it. I would not object to a mod replacing it with something more appropriate.

“Say what’s in this drink” is an old movie line from the 30’s that means “I’m telling the truth.”

I'd still be curious to hear some backup for this.

I apologize for using it. I would not object to a mod replacing it with something more appropriate.

― I Never Promised You A Hose Harden (Eric H.), Wednesday, December 5, 2018 9:40 AM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it was 2013, it was all anybody was saying about "blurred lines" too. i take more issue with it being used now

or maybe i don't actually care lol, god this song is so boring

Key line — “put some records on while I pour”

swap "rapey" for "engenders a feeling of warm nostalgia for a time when the notion consent was a cutesy little joke"

I'd still be curious to hear some backup for this.

Yeah, I've seen this asserted a few times, without seeing examples of it. Even otherwise, though, I think it's a real stretch to read "what's in this drink?' as implying "her drink was secretly spiked with drugs".

googling "what's in this drink" brought this up first thing: https://medium.com/@jeffreydenny77/say-whats-in-this-drink-9d720f79918b

Doesn't actually clear up the '30s origin story claim, but does slice up the positions the song draws people into circa now.

For the politically woke, the song represents classic white Western patriarchal, phallocratic Weinstein-style sexual dominance and coercion, so the song should be abolished immediately from playlists lest our children grow up gender-insensitive and un-woke like we did.

For the politically tone deaf, the Weinstein Defense suffices; “all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. That was the culture then.” The guy in the song was just innocently cajoling a gal he liked to possibly achieve sexual congress, just as our fathers did with our mothers to spawn us.

For the politically advanced, the song represents “an anthem for progressive women… and even [a] subversive message about woman’s sexuality in its own time,” a Washington Post guest columnist, a Georgetown University graduate student, explained in 2014. Even if the woman in the song wanted to stay, she worried about slut-shaming by family and neighbors. “In this light, the song could be read as an advocacy for women’s sexual liberation rather than a tune about date rape,” the columnist noted.

To the politically regressive, the oversensitive safe-space snowflakes and PC Police are overreacting deliciously as usual. Noting that Loesser wrote the song to perform with Lynn Garland, his wife and musical partner, at parties, a Daily Caller writer argued, “It was written in an era when seduction was not synonymous with sexual assault, you didn’t need to sign a consent form to hold a girl’s hand, and men weren’t assumed to be vicious predators. In fact, the only vicious one in this song is the woman’s aunt.”

Doesn't the "say, what's in this drink" trope relate more to blurting out something that's probably truthful but you wouldn't ordinarily say in that situation?

But that interpretation doesn't fit in the context of the preceding lines

Interesting. I completely believed that "what's in this drink?" meant something innocuous: if not the meaning given earlier, either something to the effect of "my, you're really sweeping me away" or just "oh, this is a nice drink; what's in it?". However, in both versions of the song in the Neptune's Daughter clips upthread, the 'mouse' does sing the line while reacting as if there is something funny in the drink and putting the drink aside.

god this song is so boring

no, horror films are boring

This song is a horror film.

maybe everybody could just chill about policing the cultural remnants of bygone decades in cases when no one's being hurt

it would free up a lot of time

“say what’s in this drink?”
http://persephonemagazine.com/2010/12/listening-while-feminist-in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside/

So let’s talk about that drink. I’ve discussed solely looking at the lyrics of the song and its internal universe so far, but I think that the line “Say, what’s in this drink” needs to be explained in a broader context to refute the idea that he spiked her drink. “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. The drink is the shield someone gets to hold up in front of them to protect from criticism. And it’s not just used in these sort of romantic situations. I’ve heard it in many investigation type scenes where the stoolpigeon character is giving up bits of information they’re supposed to be protecting, in screwball comedies where someone is making a fool of themselves, and, yes, in romantic movies where someone is experiencing feelings they are not supposed to have.

the movie is by no means the “original/definitive” interpretation

Here's a version by Frank Loesser and Lynn though (direct mp3 link)

no, horror films are boring

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, December 5, 2018 1:05 PM (fifteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

take it to ile

VG, that explanation has been posted here a couple of times, including that same article, I think. I and jmm are interested in actual examples of the line being used that way in films of that time (or other sources). I'm not convinced that the scenes from Neptune's Daughter do show the line working in that way.

I'm not in favour of banning the song at all, tbc.

maybe everybody could just chill about policing the cultural remnants of bygone decades in cases when no one's being hurt

it would free up a lot of time

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, December 5, 2018 3:07 PM (twenty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otfm

I'm being deadly seriously when I say that I'd love to hear Julia Holter's take on something like, I don't know. . . 'Call Me Maybe'.

― Totally different head. Totally. (Austin), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:42 (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Now here's the real horror

I'm not in favour of banning the song at all, tbc.

I'm not either. I don't appreciate it as a holiday song, but whatever. I try to only listen to church crap during the month if I can manage.

When they came for "Baby, It's Cold Outside", I grimaced. When they came for "Wives and Lovers", I whimpered. When they came for "You're Sixteen", I grinned. When they came for "Seventeen", I helped them load the other Winger cds into the windowless van.

this whole thing cropping up again bugs me not because there are multiple opinions on the matter, but because of how many people have adopted the "it's sexual assault" angle not due to their own close reading, but because of the received wisdom. half the convos I've seen in the last week have boiled down to (and I apologize for bringing up Brad's least fav word)

(song plays)

"Oh, I love that song"
"Huh? don't you know it's rapey!"

and that's where the convo ends because it's treated like this thing you learned in 3rd grade. which is why I actually liked this thread lol

whats in this drink

means

its a strong drink

you are all fucking mental

is "you are all fucking mental" the part the guy sings in response

in the adele version iirc

Very prescient thread...I always liked the Ray Charles/Betty Carter version. I'm pretty close to absolute against banning any song. Close, not absolute--wherever my line is (it's not something I think about a lot, or ever), there are songs that would cross that line. This is far from that line: it requires interpretation that may or may not be valid. Frank Loesser, who wrote the song, has been dead for almost 50 years. You'd have to hook him up to a lie detector test to be sure of his intentions. You can't do that.

If a particular station wants to ban it, they're free to do that. If their listeners don't complain or stop listening, then their decision is cost-free.

Otherwise: attack, criticize, find it creepy, make it a cause, whatever you want.

If a particular station wants to ban it, they're free to do that. If their listeners don't complain or stop listening, then their decision is cost-free.

every radio station that has ever existed has banned 99.99999% of all songs ever written under this definition of banning

True enough. This song doesn't exist for 99% of stations anyway. If a jazz station were to ban the Ray Charles/Betty Carter version, or a station that plays a wide array of Christmas music were to ban all versions--and it's not really a Christmas song, although it seems to have been subsumed into that category--then you'd know. If they announced the ban, that is--even those stations could ban it without you actually knowing. Which all underscores how silly this is.

Under that definition, Ed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" is not banned.

The only two bans I can think of that actually registered were when rock stations that used to play "Walk on the Wild Side" and "Money for Nothing" to death removed them from playlists. I was sick of the first anyway, and they did the world a gigantic favour by banishing the latter. No idea if they're still verboten or back.

it's funny, prior to learning anything about this song (besides this thread title) I had assumed the song was from the point of view of a man who was locked outside in the freezing cold begging to be let in to some lady's place (where he would subsequently ravish her a la the Wolf in lil Red Riding Hood)

”Oh, I love that song"

Do some people think cucumbers taste better pickled?

Everyone thinks that!

Here's a version by Frank Loesser and Lynn though (direct mp3 link)

Cool, thx! Neat to hear

The languorous quality of that performance definitely cuts against the “Ricardo Maltalbán as manic horndog” staging in Neptune’s Daughter.

If a particular station wants to ban it, they're free to do that. If their listeners don't complain or stop listening, then their decision is cost-free.

every radio station that has ever existed has banned 99.99999% of all songs ever written under this definition of banning

― sans lep (sic), Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:01 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

True enough. This song doesn't exist for 99% of stations anyway. If a jazz station were to ban the Ray Charles/Betty Carter version, or a station that plays a wide array of Christmas music were to ban all versions--and it's not really a Christmas song, although it seems to have been subsumed into that category--then you'd know. If they announced the ban, that is--even those stations could ban it without you actually knowing. Which all underscores how silly this is.

― clemenza, Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:06 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I assume that CBC had it in their playlists if they are making an announcement about pulling it. And I do think a national public broadcaster should be held to a different standard when it comes to this sort of decision than a local private business: it exists to serve some sort of public interest and it is appropriate to evaluate its decisions in those terms. I will freely admit, though, that I have no real idea how Radio 2 playlists are decided in the first place, although they seem to get a lot of listeners in Ottawa at least.

http://bigbutterandeggman.tumblr.com/post/154013148291/teachingwithcoffee-its-time-to-bring-an-end-to

Still the best response to this fiasco.

Again, though, some examples to support the historical claim would help. If the drink as a means of plausible deniability was such a common trope at the time, then it should be easy to settle the controversy.

I'd also like to see examples, out of historical interest -- but considering that the only alternative reading of those lines ("Say, what's in this drink? / I seem to be in some crazy spell / I ought to say no, no, no, sir / At least I'm gonna say that I tried") would be that he literally spiked her drink (while pouring it in front of her), I think it's fairly safe to accept the "performative show of plausible deniability" interpretation... at least following the "Occam's razor school" of holiday-song lyric interpretation.

Also, keep in mind that the song plays out for another full verse, which mirrors the first -- only this time, it's "maybe just a cigarette more..." (instead of a drink). She clearly didn't pass out from a roofie, and the drink didn't seem to put her into much of a stupor.

All this said, I agree with with Zelda's point above that the interplay of desire and consent in the song, and its arguable "trivialization" of / finding humor in the notion of consent, may not fit well with modern sensibilities ("it's nonetheless an example of that old highly gender-specific trope, whereby man tries to persuade woman to do something she has doubts about, for whatever reasons."). I like the song, anyway!

The song was written to get people leave. Mission accomplished, from my corner.

Doubt this song was on CBC R2 playlist to begin with, since it's not a mid-tempo semi-acoustic rocker.

considering that the only alternative reading of those lines ("Say, what's in this drink? / I seem to be in some crazy spell / I ought to say no, no, no, sir / At least I'm gonna say that I tried") would be that he literally spiked her drink

the reading is "woo this liquor is stronger than I thought, teehee" not "YOU HAVE GIVEN ME CHLORAL HYDRATE YOU MONSTER"