"Baby It's Cold Outside" is not rapey
 

It's a perfectly wonderful song about flirting, where the lady is entirely into the idea of staying the night, but feels it polite to give a moment of hard-to-get resistance.

"What's in this drink" was a common jokey saying of the day, I am told

Go ahead, change my mind

Cerys has the last laugh in this video, my favourite version.

No. He's a rapist. You're a rapist for liking the song. I'm a rapist for associating with you. We're all rapists now.

No means no.

Wait. No doesn't mean no?

Yeah, no.

Is tricksy; 'cause, "no" could previously be a white lie.

No means no, but she didn't say no. She says, "I ought to say no no no", in other words no is expected of me but I don't want to say it.
This is the way the game was played for most of the 20th century when people noticed the walk of shame. Now it's the walk of I did it and I'm glad.

Just say no, while nodding your head. :yesnod:

Coercion.[/debbil'srapi--Imean-advocate]

Yes.

Wait. No. Wait.

Fuck, now I'm confused.

Pete and I were speculating on how it is on campus today. We decided that turnabout being fair play, guys borrowing Pink emblazoned tops and sweats making the walk is inevitable.

Yes your right..... The PC crap in this country has ruined alot of things!

Yes.


This is why laws are long and complicated. Because some asshole finds a loophole that needs to be fixed.

Anyone, please, correct me if you disagree anywhere. I'm really fascinated by this.

I think that:
#1: the behavior depicted in the song is, at face value, what we now consider "rapey" behavior, e.g. being pushy and trying to wear down someone's resistance over an extended period, where you're physically preventing them from leaving, until you achieve a nominal "green light"
#2: the behavior was considered "okay" at the time so some people figure the song gets a pass for historical accuracy
#3: some people value cultural touchstones such as baby boomer's fond childhood memories to the degree that they trump* other considerations, such as an updated sense of cultural norms
--and that somewhere in the debate--
#4: some people are so steadfast in defending the song that they've skipped right over reasons #2 and #3 and are saying that the original behavior--at face value!-- is okay




*is there another word for this?

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.

It's rapey if you keep trying to have sex with someone who said they don't want to. Nothing complicated. It's annoying, creepy, and it's rapey because you're hoping to get coerced consent.

This is true, because we are biological organisms. It only requires a little bit of situational awareness for most people to operate within these parameters, but some people who are socially-challenged completely miss this stuff. And those people, I think, can get a bad rap for no intentional misbehavior on their own part. And I wish there was more attention paid to this, and sensitivity in general towards people on the autism spectrum, and who for other reasons are socially challenged, but not "bad" people.

Just so we're clear on definitions, I believe the common use of the diminutive term "rapey" is synonymous with "sexual harassment" such as an HR department might define it.

The character Will Riker on Star Trek: the Next Generation is an example of an generally-considered-attractive man who is sexually harassing as hell. And when I watch the show now (which I do all the time, because it's basically my favorite show), Riker seems problematic to me.

I don't throw the whole show out because of it, and that's a value judgement on my part. So to wrap up the whole thread, for me, I've just proven myself to be doing the same thing as people who still like that song. So, go ahead. I'm doing it so you can do it too. Or, we're both wrong.

A gradient is the opposite of a line. Literally

I said I'd do A but not B, and you said A is not B. I agree.

I couldn't take my eyes off J's tits on our second date, was that rapey?

TBF she was wearing something you wouldn't wear on the job. Well, office jobs.

This whole putting harassment into it is weird. The workplace is the workplace. Dates are dates. They are entirely different conditions.

Yeah, I overstated that. Nevermnd. On mobile. Should have said "some of"

:thumbsup: Riker stands, though - Deanna Troi is his co-worker! And a direct report, a subordinate!

And what's more, everyone kind of conveniently forgets this, but they're in a military command structure; where these relationships pose a danger to the entire division and mission.

~ to be clear i say all that unironically ~ Riker is :facepalm: ... Riker

Whoa, hold on here. I'm not talking about propositioning a secretary at work, or a waitress at a restaurant. I'm talking about dating someone and during the evening she says no. If I ask again a couple hours later at the end of the evening I'm rapey? If I ask again the next time we go out, I'm rapey? Good thing I'm not dating or I'd be a pariah to these whippersnappers. :eyebrow:

Evidently the game has changed significantly, saying no was always the ladies prerogative, mine too but that never happened. (Should have once but that was my mistake and I can't blame her.)
Anyway it wasn't bad form to ask as long as there was no force or coercion.

Oh, and drugs/alcohol were allowed, not roofies, but shit done knowing what it was, of their own free will.

Yeah, I know there are nuances of peer pressure and stuff but that hasn't changed since forever, and never will.

If you ask at the beginning of the night and she says no, if she changes her mind later SHE. WILL. LET. YOU. KNOW. if SHE wants to do it. If you keep bugging the fuck out of her everytime a stopwatch goes off, you're being an annoying douche. Go home and jack off.

She KNOWS you want to do it. You already told her.

The only thing that's really changed here is that women have been given agency to be the initiators. So there's really no need to keep pestering them, because if they want to do it they will let you know. They do that now. It's a better system, it takes the pressure off of you. And the absolute simplest, easiest, and most logical thing about it is that you never need to wonder "whether or not something is being done without consent" because it's real simple-- if she wants to do it she will fucking tell you.

Bah, no stopwatch. Earlier while making plans for the evening that would end up at my place or somewhere else, then at the end of the evening, is not by stopwatch, they are natural pauses of opportunity.
If she thinks I'm "being an annoying douche" and says or even telegraphs that, then fuck her, I won't be back. Not because she said no which is probable, expected even, but if she is angered by being asked.

Oh, and if she said yes last week, I'd never assume she wouldn't say no this week. That's always her prerogative, as asking is mine.

Well anyways, people get laid MORE now and everybody enjoys it better, because there is no "person in charge of always asking" and women aren't afraid to let you know that they're also horny, and like to fuck just as much as you do. It's a better system because its LESS complicated.

No they are not. People are having less sex. Experts are blaming everything from still living in the folk's basement to the internet.

It's a better system on it's own merit.

The old "man keeps asking the lady" system was a Rube Goldberg that fell apart under the weight of it's own complexity and arbitrary requirements.

The new system just says, "decide it like people decide any other thing." Equal players, equal agency, and equal stakes. The simplest, least complicated, and most effortless path.

Taking multiple living generations into account, there is still a point where "annoying" becomes "rapey" to just about everyone. It's where annoying is maxed out and the threshold into rapey is crossed, which varies with individual tolerances. There is a range of overlap when looking at groups of people. It's just a line, however, for each individual...the straw that broke the camel's back so to say.

That point is reached when the behavior becomes...
WAIT FOR IT

,,,intolerably irritating.

If you're into pushing the envelope, consider yourself lucky if told your behavior is kinda rapey. Be smart enough to desist before reaching the point of no return.

Men of the thread, can you imagine being asked by a woman to have sex, in the beginning of a date, saying no, and then... OMG... having to endure the horror of being asked AGAIN later in the evening

the HORROR


the



HORROR

Yabbut the context changes when one person is strong enough to force the other. Try this instead:

Men of the thread, can you imagine hanging out with a dude friend and he asks you to have sex? And you say no, but hey, you're an enlightened guy and it's cool, no harm done, you just go back to playing video games... and then just before you're about to leave, he leans in at the doorframe and asks again?




Now imagine that you say no, again, and he says "too bad" and rapes the shit out of you.

But hey, awful things happen, you report him to the cops, you go to therapy, you get over it... And a few years later, you're hanging out with a new dude friend, and he asks you to have sex with him. And you say no.

And then he asks again.



There is an inherent vulnerability to being a woman that is very, very hard for dudes to grasp. Yes, most men aren't rapists, and most women want to assume the best of most men. But sometimes men can be so fucking blind to the power dynamic. Believe me, women never forget the power dynamic. It's always in the back of our minds. Always.

But just to lighten the mood again, no, I don't think the song in question is rapey. It's just an illustration of an older, shittier system of formal courtship.

Man, I hate when that happens.

That's because y'all have all the pussy. That's power, right thar.

Maybe we're blind to it because the thought of forcing ourselves on a woman never enters our mind.
Every time I drive down the road the car coming the other way could swerve into me, but I don't worry about that every time I drive or I'd drive myself nuts.
I don't see how the "new system" changes that. Regardless of the evenings conversations, in the end if he's a rapist and wants her, he'll try to take her.

There's been a couple of hypotheticals proposed where there's two proposals of sex during a date, accompanied by "two isn't so bad, right?". If you get that concession, will you stick with that, or move on to "well, how about three? Three requests in one night isn't so horrible, is it?"?

If you'll stick with two, the second one seems like it would be more appropriate and likely to succeed than the one at the beginning of the date, so why not stick with that one?

And that's awesome that it gets to be that way for you. Not being a horrible person is step one. Making an effort to remember that other people have every reason to be afraid of horrible people is step two.

The new system does very little for you, a not-horrible person. But it makes it easier for us to figure out which people are horrible. Women do have some ability to extricate ourselves from borderline situations--and history has shown that we will be blamed if we don't. So anything that makes it clearer is a good thing.

Well, they do say "bitches be crazy."

Well part of being a not horrible person is probably having a dick too short to even consider sex with someone who's is not helping. :lol2:

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha!!:lol2:

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
--Theodore "Rough Rider" Roosevelt

Context matters and so does intent.

Of the several things that put me off Dave (that guy I dated for a few months after being friends for about 3 years)was an occasion where being into me tripped over into being a creep.

I had the flu - I felt wretched so I called him to say I didn't really feel up to getting together that day. We hadn;t planned anything major - we were just going to hook up, maybe go get a meal and then land back at his.

He showed up at my door with a bunch of flu remedies and a hot water bottle - this was very sweet of him. It wasn't what i wanted but it was very sweet. He persuaded me to go back to his place with him and he would look after me - he said we won't do anything, just chill and watch some movies under a duvet.

Like a fuckwit I thought he was being genuinely solicitous and would not pester me for sex.

We were 30 minutes into the movie and he made his first attempt to french kiss me and slip his hand under the duvet - I pulled away and said, seriously i don;t want to do anything, I feel horrible and absolutely not in the mood. He backed off for about 30 minutes then tried again. Again I said no - I explained I really really didn't feel up to anything like that. I didn't feel sexy, I felt shit and getting jiggy was the last thing I wanted at that moment.

This time he waited for about an hour before trying again.

None of that was for me. It was all for him. It was among the final nails in the coffin.

Dana, I have limited experiences with men, bet I empathize. Here’s two case studies:
Case Study #1: Gay friend hits on me, I turn him down. He never asks me again, because now I know he likes me-- and if I’m ever interested I will let him know. We’re still friends 20 years later.
Case Study #2: I’m spending a lot of time with a bisexual friend, and he does a lot of nice, supportive things for me. But, over time he puts increasing pressure on letting me know he’s interested in me and wants to hook up. I never reciprocate those feelings, but he keeps trying for the “magical number” of asks. We don’t hang out anymore.

For the guys: “How to get laid, guaranteed!”
Case study #1: One of the girls I’m seeing is a cute, twenty-something, pink-haired lesbian who hasn’t slept with another man for her entire adult life (verified by a mutual friend who has known her since middle school). Question: do you think I hooked up with her by a) constantly pestering her to have sex, or b) by letting her know I was interested and then waiting for her to decide if she felt the same way, and letting me know? Bonus question: if she’s been getting stuffed with huge, rock-hard, vibrating dildos for the last ten years, how soft and gentle do you think she wants it?

Summary:
1) One ask, one no (end).
2) Multiple asks, multiple noes.
3) One ask, one yes (repeat).

Conclusion:
Asking one time is all it takes to determine if someone is interested in you (or not). Asking more than once doesn’t change the response, because the respondent’s decision is external to the control of the requester.

The Texas answer:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-c...reventRape.jpg