I think there's a #2a in there somewhere, where misogynistic cultural expectations create a negative incentive, where if a woman just says yes, she's deemed to be morally defective, so she may say no for a while when she wants to say yes, and then a man (to whom those cultural expectation do not apply to nearly the same extent) may make the assumption that that is true in every instance, and keep pressing for yes even when she does mean no.

Or, worse, he may claim what that's what he was doing, when he never had any intention of accepting a no in the first place.

Yes and no.

Yes actually trying to wear someone down like that is now considered rapey but wasn't back then -however, alongside that is the fact that 'good girls' were expected to put up some sort of overt resistance. It wasn't seemly just to give in, even if that's what you wanted.

In the context of the times, that could just as well be seen as the courtship game as it could genuine attempts to wear down genuine objections.

And that is ok - if everybody is playing the same game and knows the rules.

I understand that the woman was supposed to "play along" but let's flowchart this: if she wants to say yes, she says no; if she wants to say no, she says no; so who decides what both parties are agreeing to? Only the other party can decide in that case, because it's impossible to give, or determine, consent. That's why we call it "rape culture" --not because every individual man is a "bad" person, but because the system is poorly designed.

And once you learn that, you can't un-know it. You can choose to ignore it, but you still know it.

It doesn't make rapey things un-rapey.

Well yeah - what that culture absolutely allowed was for someone else to misinterpret a no as a yes when it was not intended to be - whether in ignorance or by design.

Of its time though, it reflected a courtship dance with an assumption that every one knows the rules of the game (clearly a dangerous notion)

It's as flawed and complicated and dangerous and problematic as most courtship rituals. But also like most courtship rituals it can be charming if viewed in context. The very idea of a rape culture - the importance we place on consent in our modern culture can't be retrospectively applied, because we cannot retrospectively imbue the people of that time with that knowledge and mindset.

By which I mean it's ok to look back fondly, and nostalgically at those courting rituals, and the songs that reflect them - in much the same way as we individually might look back fondly on an early foray into love. I look back at teenage relationships and they were highly problematic by today's terms, but they are still fond memories, because we didn't know that.

There are degrees of wrong - and we have shifted the slide along the rule - that doesn't negate the romance of all that went before. People shouldn't be made to feel like apologists for rape if they still like the songs they kissed their childhood sweetheart to.

I have way more of a problem with a track like Blurred Lines which came out at at a time when we were fully aware as a culture of the dangers of the no means yes courtship game.

The song is an historical artifact that merely acknowledges a part of our cultural heritage, challenges encountered during the evolution of sexually oriented behavior, and it does not affect current heterosexual relationships.

Detractors shouldn't expect it to be shunned by everyone just because they dislike it.

~ UT's bait is always top rate! ~

Unless he knows she wants to stay.

We know that: musically. At the end of the call and response verses, they BOTH sing the line "Baby it's cold outside". It's indicating her agreement with his point. And what's more -- if it's written like the versions I've just listened to -- she sings the melody on that line, and he harmonizes. Musically, by taking over the melody for the title line of the song, she is making that point more strongly than he is.

What's more, this song has no chorus; that single co-sung line is the end of the first half, and the conclusion of the whole thing. They meet in agreement, and they end in agreement. They were always in agreement.

We also know her concern is mostly with what her family and society will think. In turn, she worries about her mother, her father, the neighbors, her sister, her brother, and her maiden aunt.

My mother will start to worry --
My father will be pacing the floor --
The neighbors might think --
My sister will be suspicious --
My brother will be there at the door --
My maiden aunt's mind is vicious --

It's not by chance that the song goes in that order. By the time we're down to her maiden aunt, we know her objection is more than diminishing. It's not just that the maiden aunt is lowest rung on the family ladder. It's way more specific than that, the songwriter put her there for a reason:

Since her aunt is maiden, her aunt passed up the opportunity to stay the night, if she was ever offered it.

Wow, huh? That's art!

Hmmm, imagine if the roles were reversed!

OK, if I say please and she says no, how long do I have to wait before I ask again to not be rapey? An hour? 4 hours? 24 hours? A week? A year? :confused:

Or if the response to the call was reversed

Forever, until she indicates that she is physically interested in you. Whether she "is" is open to interpretation, of course, and not everyone is as good at "taking the lead," but even introverts in today's open-and-honest communication environment understand that if you are not giving some signal of positive affirmation, then you're putting the other person in a bad situation where they'd have to make uninformed decisions, and that's uncool towards them. So everybody takes responsibility for communication. Girls will tell you if they're interested. And it doesn't hurt to ask, but if you're literally bugging them about it, you're just being a bit of a creep, right?

So if you ask and she says no, the ball is in her court. And since it isn't a one-sided game, she can actually make plays to score a goal on you.

And the great thing is: you're freed from all that responsibility.

Bingo

"bugging them about it" and "being a bit of a creep" is not "rapey". That is "annoying". We should have gotten definitions straight before proceeding

Also, remember the rules of paying attention to the opposite sex:

1. Be attractive

2. Don't be unattractive

We have noticed that undue attention from attractive people is, typically, not considered "creepy". It is instead considered "flattering".

Not mutually exclusive.

Then please do define where the overlap occurs!

Between "rapey" and "annoying"? I would think the overlap is a gradient, and the relative weight of each is the relative safety of the environment and prior knowledge of the man. Are they surrounded by her friends? Or are they surrounded by his friends? Or are they alone? Lots of factors like that. But I'm just throwing out variables. It's not really my place to draw the line.