Eye rolling moment (NSFXMAS)

[Bad_Witch]

9 hours ago, tsar4 said:

I'm not sure if it's a case of you and those seeing more than is there because you've ingested too much moldy rye bread or just a type of neo-"Tail Gunner Joe"-ism.  There are no Witches nor Commies.  Just a woman that wants to stay, but the societal morality of the time dictates that she shouldn't, so she hedges.  You want to be offended, you go right ahead, but it doesn't mean you're right. 

The guy that wrote the song did so for him & his wife to sing at parties and it was meant to sing the end as a duet, signifying agreement to stay, which she wanted to do all along.

It has nothing to do with ingesting too much moldy rye bread, or anything like that. It has to do with the generation listening to the song today is about 2 generations removed from the original meaning. In the same vein that it would have been scandalous for a woman to spend the night at a man's house, a man she isn't married too, it is just as much unthinkable that a woman today spending the night at a man's house would even raise an eyebrow. A lot about society has changed since 1944, and expecting the generation of today to listen to this song and apply a concept that is foreign to them is foolhardy at best. Even explaining the idea to them and expecting them to just nod their heads and shrug their shoulders and act like it's okay is ignoring why they find the song so offensive in the first place. In this case you're attempting to demand they not only acknowledge the original meaning but also apply that same meaning today and to just ignore the troubling parts.

At it's heart, the main problem people have with this song are two lines and how they affect the meaning of the song. "Say, what's in this drink?" and "The answer is no." A generation that doesn't bat an eye over a woman spending the night at a man's house but was taught to watch for assholes putting a roofie in their drinks are having alarms bells going off. Why should we expect anything different? They should be concerned over the idea that someone may have put something in a drink. That notion may have been absent in the song's original meaning....but meanings change over time. Then she tells him the answer is no and people in support of this song are defending the song by saying..."she didn't really mean no. She wanted to stay but social norms of the time were telling her she should leave so she really didn't mean no." See any problems with that defense? Amid the entire rape debate is the notion if a woman doesn't want to have sex she should just say no and the guy should stop. Does the man stop in the song? Nope.

You can say people can be offended but that doesn't mean they're right, and continue to ignore the reason they are offended and also not be right. In 1944, this was a song about the social norms and the woman really wanting to stay and looking for a reason. In 2018, especially if this song was written now, it's a song about a woman who says no and keeps getting hounded by the man until she finally gives in, at best, or a song about a woman who was roofied and forced to stay. Not exactly ideal. There is a reason many songs of yesteryear don't get a lot of play on the radio, expect on dedicated oldies stations, and that reason is the meaning of those songs has been lost with the passage of time. The original meaning of "Baby, It's Cold Outside" has been lost. It had a long run....really long run, but it's time for it to retire. The original meaning isn't coming back.

Honestly though....I can't wait for someone to play this song backwards. If the 80's taught me anything it's that that is the only real, true way to find the actual meaning of a song.

[Bad_Witch]

14 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

It's patently absurd to assume that young men would not understand the context of this song's duet and still understand the basic precepts of consent.  To suggest a song should be eliminated solely because its context isn't apparent is to suggest that men are not capable of determining acceptable context without prompting.

Except it isn't. How we understand things is based on what we are taught and the conditions in which we are raised, both at home and society at large. Young people, both men and women, are going to apply their understanding of the situation in the song to what they know. So it is entirely possible for someone to not understand the context of the song and still understand consent and because of that conclude that consent wasn't given in the song. However....

Take dating advice. Do you know the number of times I had to take my sons aside and reteach them some stupid idea and older, male family member taught them. Boys, like girls, are most likely to ask the family members of their gender for dating advice. It's just the way things are. It's natural. The number of times I had to tell them....no just because she didn't leave the date early, or she let you walk her to the door doesn't mean you can go in for the kill. They would ask how do you know if a girl wants you to kiss her, and the overwhelming advice from these men was basically if she didn't leave she wants it. No, that is not how consent works. Just ask her.

That's just an example. I shudder to think how many young men are given bad advice on what consent is. Because of that, one may not understand the song, or understand consent, and conclude that is the way things are supposed to go.

Now as for you last point....well men are stupid. Especially in this regard. How many times does a man claim he doesn't know when consent is given? Is that all men? Of course not. But then again I came across a lovely rape case out of Indiana, https://nypost.com/2018/12/05/woman-tricked-into-sex-with-boyfriends-pal-exposes-loophole-in-rape-laws/ but because of how rape laws are written, often without the pesky notion of consent, the man who openly admitted to committing rape be fraud was acquitted. So, first let me say no this young man has no fucking idea what consent is, or worse knew he didn't need consent to get his dick wet...and since my youngest son was close by and heard my "What. The. Fuck." and asked what it was about, and I told him, and his first words were to get under my skin because I just didn't beat him enough and he felt like he really needed a beating were "What state is that? I need to move there."

He's not moving anytime soon. He should be able to walk in a couple months. Young men are stupid. For the funny, and to get under mom's skin, they will remain within arms reach when spouting bullshit.

[KimopoBotar]

26 minutes ago, Bad_Witch said:

Except it isn't. How we understand things is based on what we are taught and the conditions in which we are raised, both at home and society at large. Young people, both men and women, are going to apply their understanding of the situation in the song to what they know. So it is entirely possible for someone to not understand the context of the song and still understand consent and because of that conclude that consent wasn't given in the song. However....

Take dating advice. Do you know the number of times I had to take my sons aside and reteach them some stupid idea and older, male family member taught them. Boys, like girls, are most likely to ask the family members of their gender for dating advice. It's just the way things are. It's natural. The number of times I had to tell them....no just because she didn't leave the date early, or she let you walk her to the door doesn't mean you can go in for the kill. They would ask how do you know if a girl wants you to kiss her, and the overwhelming advice from these men was basically if she didn't leave she wants it. No, that is not how consent works. Just ask her.

That's just an example. I shudder to think how many young men are given bad advice on what consent is. Because of that, one may not understand the song, or understand consent, and conclude that is the way things are supposed to go.

Now as for you last point....well men are stupid. Especially in this regard. How many times does a man claim he doesn't know when consent is given? Is that all men? Of course not. But then again I came across a lovely rape case out of Indiana, https://nypost.com/2018/12/05/woman-tricked-into-sex-with-boyfriends-pal-exposes-loophole-in-rape-laws/ but because of how rape laws are written, often without the pesky notion of consent, the man who openly admitted to committing rape be fraud was acquitted. So, first let me say no this young man has no fucking idea what consent is, or worse knew he didn't need consent to get his dick wet...and since my youngest son was close by and heard my "What. The. Fuck." and asked what it was about, and I told him, and his first words were to get under my skin because I just didn't beat him enough and he felt like he really needed a beating were "What state is that? I need to move there."

He's not moving anytime soon. He should be able to walk in a couple months. Young men are stupid. For the funny, and to get under mom's skin, they will remain within arms reach when spouting bullshit.

I hope he learned. My step son is very respectful, so I'm not worried about him even pressuring a girl, but i still try to make sure he knows what consent is and why it's important. 

I'm not how i grew up knowing that consent was important but i remember as a teen knowing that rape was one of the worst things a person can do. I didn't ever think a whole a lot of the way men pursue women as contributing to it until later though. I just realized at some point that the aggressive, manipulative ways guys try to get sex are often rape.

[KimopoBotar]

1 hour ago, scoobdog said:

It's patently absurd to assume that young men would not understand the context of this song's duet and still understand the basic precepts of consent.  To suggest a song should be eliminated solely because its context isn't apparent is to suggest that men are not capable of determining acceptable context without prompting.

For the record, the song was not written for a movie, but it was premiered to the public as a song in Neptune's Daughter in which the duet (two pairs as it turns out) are establishing their mutual attraction for each other.  The movie as a product of its time tends to have its issues with portraying women, but the consent of the women to be courted by the men is not in question at any point.  Furthermore, there are no explicit expectations expressed by either side, even though the man is clearly hitting on the woman.  She doesn't refuse his advances because he also doesn't ask anything of her other than to stay longer; in such a situation, saying to no doesn't mean anything in particular.  This might be different if, in context, she had told him she wasn't interested in romance.  This is to say that if this exchange were to happen today, it wouldn't necessarily be considered overly aggressive in the absence of the man (1) asking the woman for something, (2) the man ignoring an explicit request to stop the flirting, or (3) a physical attempt to prevent the woman from leaving.

There is one caveat, of course, and it deserves special attention.  Women are almost always in a position of disadvantage when it comes to courtship because there will always be unreasonable obstacles to a woman being treated as equally competent.  That is clearly missing from this song, as it is from the movie (which was a romantic comedy) as a whole.  Even though Eve / Betty allude to the fact that they will suffer repercussions for being permissive with the men, it's understood that no such disapproval will in fact come to pass.  However, that the lines are even uttered still speaks to the existence of restrictive mores on female sexuality in a general sense, and its most certainly worth noting that both women are taking a risk by flirting with their handsome suitors.  Furthermore (and more critically), the song does not address the influence of male dominance in courtship, that is to say there is no indication whether or not the women are being forced to suppress their own intuition and feelings.  Ordinarily, this would be contextual as well, but a romantic comedy isn't likely to address the concept of a woman feeling social or other outside pressures to court a man.  That's not suggest the song is in any way apologizing for such, just that it's an obvious blind spot that can't be ignored even as it is outside the scope of the song's interactions.

I do see the flaw in what I said, however, as you address, the cultural norms that enforce male dominance in courtship are kinda doing just what i said. 

The mores of the day that made women fear repercussions and enforced male dominance does lead to a dynamic that is only a few short steps from rape. A song that describes this dynamic in a way that is light and comedic reinforces it for those that listen. The other problem is that a lot of guys don't seem to understand the basic precepts of consent. 

So reinforcing a dynamic in which women are inferior, and where men are expected to be aggressive and assume that women are subject to repercussions for permissive behavior and so have to be persistent and expect false negative answers obviously fosters an environment in which rape is a real possibility. It's pretty clear. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by KimopoBotar

[KimopoBotar]

11 hours ago, tsar4 said:

I'm not sure if it's a case of you and those seeing more than is there because you've ingested too much moldy rye bread or just a type of neo-"Tail Gunner Joe"-ism.  There are no Witches nor Commies.  Just a woman that wants to stay, but the societal morality of the time dictates that she shouldn't, so she hedges.  You want to be offended, you go right ahead, but it doesn't mean you're right. 

The guy that wrote the song did so for him & his wife to sing at parties and it was meant to sing the end as a duet, signifying agreement to stay, which she wanted to do all along.

You literally, in this post, mentioned the societal morality of the time. 

See my post above this one about why that morality fosters a mindset ripe for rape. 

I never said the song itself was written about rape. I said it resembles rape. That's not nothing. It's clear and obvious and no amount of context makes it not resemble rape. 

However, I've explained several times why it doesn't matter if the context makes it clear that it wasn't written about rape. It describes a gender dynamic that has, in real life, countless times, caused rape. Is that not important at all?

[Bad_Witch]

28 minutes ago, KimopoBotar said:

I hope he learned. My step son is very respectful, so I'm not worried about him even pressuring a girl, but i still try to make sure he knows what consent is and why it's important. 

I'm not how i grew up knowing that consent was important but i remember as a teen knowing that rape was one of the worst things a person can do. I didn't ever think a whole a lot of the way men pursue women as contributing to it until later though. I just realized at some point that the aggressive, manipulative ways guys try to get sex are often rape.

Oh he knows better. He only said it to set me off. He was laughing the whole time. It's a game he likes to play...how far can I push this until mom smacks me upside the head. He wasn't serious and knows how to treat a girl.

[KimopoBotar]

10 minutes ago, Bad_Witch said:

Oh he knows better. He only said it to set me off. He was laughing the whole time. It's a game he likes to play...how far can I push this until mom smacks me upside the head. He wasn't serious and knows how to treat a girl.

I thought so. Seems like he's got a bad ass mom to make sure he respects women. 

[scoobdog]

4 minutes ago, Bad_Witch said:

Except it isn't. How we understand things is based on what we are taught and the conditions in which we are raised, both at home and society at large. Young people, both men and women, are going to apply their understanding of the situation in the song to what they know. So it is entirely possible for someone to not understand the context of the song and still understand consent and because of that conclude that consent wasn't given in the song.

For this statement to be true, the precepts of consent would have to be fundamentally different than the premise of consent.  It would seem illogical to suggest that a man could be trained to believe consent is given in one period while another in a later period could be trained that consent was not given.  Consent is itself simple:  the person has to willingly agree with the proposal and clearly articulate assent. The individual expressions of the latter might have changed over time, but body language is instinctually endowed and unlikely to vary across social groups and time periods.  What seems more likely is that men and women are taught how to look for signs of consent but they have always been expected to use their best judgement when determining what is consent and what isn't.  That, in turn, reinforces the notion that individuals would be expected to know the context of a given situation before determining either party's intention. 

[scoobdog]

44 minutes ago, KimopoBotar said:

I do see the flaw in what I said, however, as you address, the cultural norms that enforce male dominance in courtship are kinda doing just what i said. 

The mores of the day that made women fear repercussions and enforced male dominance does lead to a dynamic that is only a few short steps from rape. A song that describes this dynamic in a way that is light and comedic reinforces it for those that listen. The other problem is that a lot of guys don't seem to understand the basic precepts of consent. 

So reinforcing a dynamic in which women are inferior, and where men are expected to be aggressive and assume that women are subject to repercussions for permissive behavior and so have to be persistent and expect false negative answers obviously fosters an environment in which rape is a real possibility. It's pretty clear. 

That is all true, and that's most likely the reason it's excluded from premise of the movie and, consequently, the duet.

[Bad_Witch]

22 hours ago, scoobdog said:

For this statement to be true, the precepts of consent would have to be fundamentally different than the premise of consent.  It would seem illogical to suggest that a man could be trained to believe consent is given in one period while another in a later period could be trained that consent was not given.  Consent is itself simple:  the person has to willingly agree with the proposal and clearly articulate assent. The individual expressions of the latter might have changed over time, but body language is instinctually endowed and unlikely to vary across social groups and time periods.  What seems more likely is that men and women are taught how to look for signs of consent but they have always been expected to use their best judgement when determining what is consent and what isn't.  That, in turn, reinforces the notion that individuals would be expected to know the context of a given situation before determining either party's intention. 

This is such a man answer devoid of how reality has played out over the years...or is even currently playing out in the here and now. Based on the notion that since you, personally, may have an understanding of what consent is and how it works every man does and by some logical deduction the laws would reflect such notions.

You are aware that there was a time when martial rape wasn't even a thing. It wasn't recognized under the law, and most people....especially men, firmly believed that a husband couldn't rape his wife because from the moment she said "I do" the idea of consent for sex was a given at any point when the husband wanted it. Hell, there are still laws on the books because that is how recent it is. Do you believe that the marriage vows intrinsically gives consent 24/7/365? That a wife can never not consent to sex? Would you say this is a change in how consent works over the generations? If you do, then how is it illogical to suggest that a man might be trained to believe of consent in one time period then be trained that that consent wasn't inherently given during another?

Or would you rather discuss the notion that a woman inherently gives consent just by showing up? How many times has a woman been cross-examined because she was assaulted/raped at a party? Both in the legal system and in the court of public opinion? How many times have women had to listen to bullshit spouted, predominately by men, that since she knew alcohol would be served it was her fault since she consumed so much. It was her fault because she chose to go to the damn party, and only a woman who wanted to have sex would put herself in such a situation. How many fucking times? How many fucking times in 2018? The idea that men spouted, that men somehow believed, that since the woman was there she was consenting. She wanted it.

Or would you rather discuss how the clothes she chose to wear meant she wanted to have sex? That her choice of attire somehow was a signal for consent? Do you think what a woman wears means she consents...because there are a lot of fucking assholes who still believe this.

Or, perhaps, you might wish to discuss the type of job a woman has? How many times are woman told they should expect certain types of behavior because of their jobs? The waitress at Hooters who constantly gets her ass slapped by assholes, who think since she works there she must want her ass slapped. How many times are women told to just put up with it, for the sack of their fucking job? Guess she consents hunh? She could choose not to work there. It's not like she has bills to pay or anything...nope, she wants he ass slapped.

So, we've covered the idea of consent as it relates to what social activities she attends, the clothes she wears, and the type of job she has. Do you want to argue that these activities were never a notion of consent? Or would you rather argue that these activities still give consent? It has to be one or the other....unless the idea of consent has changed over time and the social clues of a bygone era no longer apply.

Or would you like to discuss the rather new notion that instead of "No means no," that has been around for about 20 years, what we should look for is a "Yes, I would like to have sex with you." Ya know since the idea of a woman saying no was somehow foreplay and the man just needed to break down her defenses...and that's not really how it works. But hey, an entire generation was taught that, and now we are trying to teach a new generation something different.

Of course, I could just bring up some recent rape cases where men either get completely off, as in the link I originally posted where the very idea of consent was so foreign to the law the rapist was found not guilty, or just say Brock Turner, cause everyone knows his name by now and there is no way his victim could have given consent, or Jeffrey Epstein, who got such a sweetheart deal for trafficking and raping underage girls because that just pisses me off, or this asshole https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-varela-sentenced-to-34-months-in-prison-for-raping-alyssa-noceda-dying-from-overdose-today-2018-11-16/ who raped a girl, as she fucking died, and got rid of her body. Real winner there. Wonder what he was taught about consent, not that he fucking cared about consent anyway. Less than three fucking years for raping a woman as she was dying. Gee, I'm so lucky to be a woman living in 2018 where I don't have to deal with the barbaric notions of consent from yesteryear, and all men know not to stick their dicks into a woman unless she says yes, and when a man doesn't follow those rules the courts and laws with be there to service justice.

Wait....what the hell am I saying? No, I don't. But then we still live in a country that allows children to be married, even especially when a crime has been committed and the marriage magically makes the crime go away. Sorry, I can't buy the idea that everyone knows what consent really is, and how it works, when we live in a nation where a child, a young child, a child that might not even have gone through puberty, can be married. Nope..America still has not fucking clue how consent works.

And I didn't even touch in the idea that people are really fucking bad at reading body language.