#MeToo and Time Travel

[nakedfrog]

Its clearly established in the lore that there were not cabs out there.

Allegedly

 

[cytg111]

Its a rabbit hole, but, the Left has recently been supporting sexual expressions of very young children.

"The left" has what? You are turning full Slow mode now.

 

[Vic]

7 pages so far because a privately owned radio station decided to go fishing for some publicity.

I wonder if there is any link between that station and the copyright owners of the song under discussion?

 

[Viper1j]

I wonder if there is any link between that station and the copyright owners of the song under discussion?

Copyright has expired, or will expire next year. It's good for 70 or 75 years. I don't remember which.

 

[realibrad]

"The left" has what? You are turning full Slow mode now.

No, its becoming a thing with children expressing sexuality more and more as a left supported thing.

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article...ide-has-homophobes-outraged150615/#gs.ia6PI2A

"This video of a young boy twerking at Pride has homophobes outraged"

Or this...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonnie-fuller/seven-year-olds-dancing-t_b_580618.html

I would link you to the vid, but, its apparently NSFW and was already removed from this thread. So yes, its a growing thing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I wonder if there is any link between that station and the copyright owners of the song under discussion?

I think that it was simply a publicity move. Station trying to cash in on #MeToo. A few more stations will join in and then, by the end of January, everyone will have forgotten about it.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

Some things are too stupid to be real.. The song was written in 1944, that's 74 YEARS ago!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/01/us/baby-its-cold-outside-cleveland-radio-trnd/index.html

Cleveland radio station bans 'Baby, It's Cold Outside'

Star 102, WDOK-FM, calls itself "Cleveland's Christmas station." But its listeners are discovering that one holiday chestnut has been kicked to the curb.

"Baby, It's Cold Outside," the duet in which a man tries to dissuade a woman from leaving a party despite her repeated protestations, has been pulled from the station's Christmas playlist amid concerns about its predatory nature.

Penned by "Guys and Dolls" writer Frank Loesser in 1944, the Christmas song is perceived by some as unworthy for the most wonderful time of the year -- particularly in the age of #MeToo.

"People might say, 'Oh, enough with that #MeToo,' but if you really put that aside and read the lyrics, it's not something that I would want my daughter to be in that kind of a situation," midday host Desiray told CNN affiliate WJW-TV.
"The tune might be catchy, but let's maybe not promote that sort of an idea."

The 'Christmas Date Rape Song'

On the radio station's website, host Glenn Anderson wrote he didn't initially understand why the lyrics were offensive.
"Now, I do realize that when the song was written in 1944, it was a different time, but now while reading it, it seems very manipulative and wrong," he wrote. "The world we live in is extra sensitive now, and people get easily offended, but in a world where #MeToo has finally given women the voice they deserve, the song has no place."

In fact, Urban Dictionary defines "Baby, it's Cold Outside" as a "Christmas Date Rape Song."

"What's in this drink?" the woman asks.

"Mind if I move in closer?" the man implores. "What's the sense in hurtin' my pride?"

"The answer is no," she later says.

"But baby, it's cold outside," he responds.

Some listeners protest decision

Sondra Miller, president of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, told WJW-TV that she backs the decision.

"The character in the song is saying, 'No,' and they're saying well, 'Does no really mean yes?' and I think in 2018, what we know is consent is 'Yes' and
if you get a 'No' it means 'No' and you should stop right there," she said.

"I've asked them to stop and think about the perspective of a survivor who was raped in that type of circumstance."

Still, some Star 102 listeners, including women, disagree with the decision, according to comments posted on the radio station's Facebook page.
"I will not be listening to this station anymore myself if they give in to sensitive people," one woman wrote. "The song has been out there for a long time and now it offends people. Come on. This is getting out of hand with all the people that are offended by stuff."

It's not the first time people have taken offense to the song.

In 2016, a couple from Minnesota re-imagined the classic for a 21st-century audience, changing the lyrics to emphasize the importance of consent.
"I really can't stay," the woman sings in their rewritten version.
"Baby I'm fine with that," the man responds.
"I've got to go away,"
"Baby I'm cool with that."

***

The 2018 rewrite should be:

"I really can't stay,"
"Then get the fuck out"
"I've got to go away,"
"Then get the fuck out. "
"I really can't stay,"
"Cool, someone else is on the way..."
"I've got to go away,"
"Then get the fuck out"..

That works..

People are stupid. Some are even stupider.
All the me too BS is causing women to be passed over for jobs because they are too high a liability and could make false claims and ruin careers on a whim.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost

 

[Victorian Gray]

No, its becoming a thing with children expressing sexuality more and more as a left supported thing.

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article...ide-has-homophobes-outraged150615/#gs.ia6PI2A

"This video of a young boy twerking at Pride has homophobes outraged"

Or this...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonnie-fuller/seven-year-olds-dancing-t_b_580618.html

I would link you to the vid, but, its apparently NSFW and was already removed from this thread. So yes, its a growing thing.

It ain't "leftists" promoting shit like this. In fact, it's a multi billion dollar industry

https://www.psychologytoday.com/int...eauty-pageants-what-are-we-teaching-our-girls

 

[blackangst1]

#metoo has completely backfired. Not only are many people now starting to question alleged victims, but many workplaces are becoming sterile and cold.. I know in my workplace, in a huge company almost everyone has heard of, changed their "Winter Celebration" from some establishment rented out for the night to a 3 hour lunch in the middle of the week during work hours.

 

[realibrad]

It ain't "leftists" promoting shit like this. In fact, it's a multi billion dollar industry

https://www.psychologytoday.com/int...eauty-pageants-what-are-we-teaching-our-girls

Its a sick industry, but, the examples I gave were from the Left. In no way am I trying to say that all the people on the Left agree, as clearly they do not. What I am saying, is that there are people on the Left using what they think are Leftist ideas to defend this crap. That is why I said it was a rabbit hole to go down, but, its not incorrect either.

 

[Zorba]

I'm just shy of 10 years in my current relationship, and was 15 years into my last one when we went our separate ways, and no matter what was going on if she said 'no' or 'stop' I came to a full stop and asked her what was wrong. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Even if it was that she was just not feeling it I said okay, and stopped. because I am not an asshole.

This is how a relationship is supposed to work. You are supposed to make sure that your partner actually wants to have sex, and with you, and at this time. If you think otherwise it seems it is your idea of a relationship is the one that is broken.

I agree with you as far as anything sexual goes, but disagree that No is a hard stop for things like tickling, especially in a non-sexual way. I pick on my wife all the time and she always says no or stop, but I keep picking on her because it is fun (non-sexual, just rough housing, similar to how you'd play with a kid) and she doesn't actually dislike it.

 

[Zorba]

No, he wanted to get his dick wet, and the cold was a convenient excuse to try and convince her to make that happen. If he was chivalrous he would have put on his coat and walked her home, or driven her home, or called her a cab.

He said there were no cabs outside.

 

[realibrad]

I agree with you as far as anything sexual goes, but disagree that No is a hard stop for things like tickling, especially in a non-sexual way. I pick on my wife all the time and she always says no or stop, but I keep picking on her because it is fun (non-sexual, just rough housing, similar to how you'd play with a kid) and she doesn't actually dislike it.

I would imagine that his response will be that tickling is different than sex and therefor its different. A mistake of a tickle is not in the same space as sex as it would become rape. The problem is that the point still stands that not everything is so black and white and a No in the context of the song is very different. So if his point is that No requires a different response for a tickle vs sex, then it should be equally different for sex vs getting someone to stay. If she were to still stay no after she stays then we could talk about something more. Even accepting his premise I still think the conclusion is that he is mistaken.

 

[nakedfrog]

He said there were no cabs outside.

Allegedly

 

[hal2kilo]

Anachronistic term for the song. In the 40s, the term would be "slipped a mickey."

chloral hydrate was/is the active ingredient.

 

[pmv]

There are no unambiguous answers to be had here. I merely think it's preposterous to say that we can't recognize cultural differences between now and the 40s which affect greatly the interpretation of the song even though we can never be sure about its intended meaning at the time. Some things in life aren't well-defined. And that doesn't necessarily mean we've yet to define them. Often times we just can't. But if they're important things, I think we should try our best and not simply write off the merits of attempts to do so because they are significantly flawed. They can't be anything else.

Well, it's partly about what one is arguing for. I'm not suggesting the song should be erased from memory and scourged from the world, or that whoever wrote it should be dug up and have their body displayed over a major throughfare "pour encourager les autres"! I'm just saying I don't personally care for it, and, mainly, that I'm just unconvinced that that dislike is simply a consequence of some absolute cultural difference between 'eras'.

I don't currently know anyone old enough to have been dating in the 40s, but my parents certainly had many, many disagreements at the time with what I've since been frequently told were allegedly un-questioned cultural norms of the '50s. And actually my grandparents equally were out-of-step with many things I've been told were uncontraversial in the 30s and 40s. I just can't see eras as being hermetically sealed-off from each other in that regard, it seems to me what changes is which beliefs are dominant and most visible and publicly expressed, but oppositional ideas don't emerge from nowhere.

I do accept Realibrad's link about the likely 'collusion' of the woman in the song...but to me that just shifts the effect from 'disturbing' towards 'depressing'.

And all of that would be different (and more awkard) if, as with the Rolling Stones and many other examples I can think of, I liked the music in the first place. I find that a bit tricky, in fact, there's music I like but wouldn't risk playing in the presence of certain people, because I'd find the lyrics impossible to defend. At the most extreme it makes it hard to enjoy those songs any more. I guess that's just life - with every change there's a loss.

 

[realibrad]

Well, it's partly about what one is arguing for. I'm not suggesting the song should be erased from memory and scourged from the world, or that whoever wrote it should be dug up and have their body displayed over a major throughfare "pour encourager les autres"! I'm just saying I don't personally care for it, and, mainly, that I'm just unconvinced that that dislike is simply a consequence of some absolute cultural difference between 'eras'.

I don't currently know anyone old enough to have been dating in the 40s, but my parents certainly had many, many disagreements at the time with what I've since been frequently told were allegedly un-questioned cultural norms of the '50s. And actually my grandparents equally were out-of-step with many things I've been told were uncontraversial in the 30s and 40s. I just can't see eras as being hermetically sealed-off from each other in that regard, it seems to me what changes is which beliefs are dominant and most visible and publicly expressed, but oppositional ideas don't emerge from nowhere.

I do accept Realibrad's link about the likely 'collusion' of the woman in the song...but to me that just shifts the effect from 'disturbing' towards 'depressing'.

And all of that would be different (and more awkard) if, as with the Rolling Stones and many other examples I can think of, I liked the music in the first place. I find that a bit tricky, in fact, there's music I like but wouldn't risk playing in the presence of certain people, because I'd find the lyrics impossible to defend. At the most extreme it makes it hard to enjoy those songs any more. I guess that's just life - with every change there's a loss.

If you accept my perspective, what is depressing?

 

[interchange]

Well, it's partly about what one is arguing for.

Is it? Do you think it would be possible to accept that there's no right answer here and thus the action that we choose being of little importance so long as it is reasonable and cooperatively chosen?

I suggest that the value in exploring this topic lies in eliciting and appreciating as much of the complexity of this uniquely human conflict as possible and not to do with how we "solve" the problem. I prefer the idea of compromise here to solution. If we do as I suggest, that means tolerating the uncertainty of our answer and the awareness that we might be choosing something which doesn't do all that is possible to prevent rape. On the other hand, we gain a greater flexibility and awareness of human sexuality and culture that can be applied to even more difficult situations where a more informed compromise could have a larger benefit to society.

We could otherwise choose to make things as concrete and simple as possible. We'd gain a greater confidence that we've made a "right" decision. I don't think that benefit is worth the cost.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Anyway... one more harmless, benign thing the liberals have ruined for everyone.

 

[realibrad]

Is it? Do you think it would be possible to accept that there's no right answer here and thus the action that we choose being of little importance so long as it is reasonable and cooperatively chosen?

I suggest that the value in exploring this topic lies in eliciting and appreciating as much of the complexity of this uniquely human conflict as possible and not to do with how we "solve" the problem. I prefer the idea of compromise here to solution. If we do as I suggest, that means tolerating the uncertainty of our answer and the awareness that we might be choosing something which doesn't do all that is possible to prevent rape. On the other hand, we gain a greater flexibility and awareness of human sexuality and culture that can be applied to even more difficult situations where a more informed compromise could have a larger benefit to society.

We could otherwise choose to make things as concrete and simple as possible. We'd gain a greater confidence that we've made a "right" decision. I don't think that benefit is worth the cost.

I imagine the problem is that people do not want ambiguity when it comes to rape. Allowing for uncertainty allows for the possibility of a rapist to go free, and a victim to not receive justice.

The divide that I have not been able to bridge is how to form an argument that is not shot down by the following arguments...

Not me: Rape is when one person does not want to have sex, and it still happens anyway.
Me: Well sexuality is not always clear so I think its unfair to people to require explicit confirmation as that is not how human sexuality works.
Not me: You are a horrible person if you can't tell when someone is not consenting.

and...

Not me: Its simple, rape is when the person does not want sex, but it happens anyway.
Me: I think its wrong to punish anyone in that situation, as sexuality is complex and sometimes its reasonable to not perceive the signal.
Not me: So are you saying that because someone missed the signal, that they should not be punished for rape.
Me: Sometimes yes.

I think most realize that human sexuality is complex, which is why they have shifted to prevention. It becomes very hard to teach young people on how to read situations, so, they are taught explicit and direct rules. You can never claim a mistake if you follow the explicit rules, which kills many forms of sexual expression. I think most people think they are okay with the trade-off not realizing what it is that they are really giving up. Most people have committed rape by the very strict definition.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Anyway... one more harmless, benign thing the liberals have ruined for everyone.

Not for everyone. Only for those that were trying to pretend it was not already ruined, for the rest it is just calling attention to what was always there.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think most realize that human sexuality is complex, which is why they have shifted to prevention. It becomes very hard to teach young people on how to read situations, so, they are taught explicit and direct rules. You can never claim a mistake if you follow the explicit rules, which kills many forms of sexual expression. I think most people think they are okay with the trade-off not realizing what it is that they are really giving up. Most people have committed rape by the very strict definition.

We understand what they are giving up. We just think it is worth it. You don't because for you rape is not a serious problem that you have to actually face on a regular basis. For many women it is a constant fear.

The hope is that these things we are giving up is a temporary sacrifice while we try to teach our society and change our culture to one where consent is treated seriously. If we could believe that the vast majority of people did take consent seriously there would not be the need for strict and explicit consent rules. But for now society does not so we need them.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Not for everyone. Only for those that were trying to pretend it was not already ruined, for the rest it is just calling attention to what was always there.

I am grateful that we are having a debate about a song, evaluated within the context of the time it was written, is nothing more than a playful back and forth between two consensting adults dancing around the notion of having premarital sex at a time when societal norms, attitudes and behaviors were starting to diverge.

Projecting things that aren’t there. Hell, even the talking heads of “The View” see nothing wrong with the song. If even Joy Behar isn’t triggered by it, I would say its benign.

 

[realibrad]

We understand what they are giving up. We just think it is worth it. You don't because for you rape is not a serious problem that you have to actually face on a regular basis. For many women it is a constant fear.

The hope is that these things we are giving up is a temporary sacrifice while we try to teach our society and change our culture to one where consent is treated seriously. If we could believe that the vast majority of people did take consent seriously there would not be the need for strict and explicit consent rules. But for now society does not so we need them.

I think your response is the exact thing I was talking about.

So, I don't usually dive into my personal history, but let me ask you a question... do you think an 11yo could ever consent to sex?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think your response is the exact thing I was talking about.

So, I don't usually dive into my personal history, but let me ask you a question... do you think an 11yo could ever consent to sex?

That is a tricky question. It matters on what exactly we decide on for what it means to 'consent'. Ethically I think no, because I think that to consent one must be informed, and I know that an 11 year old is not able to really grasp sexuality enough to really be informed on what they are consenting to.