We don’t even know if you even read about it. Unless I have experience of what you’re talking about, I can’t say you’re wrong. Heck, even if I have experience, I don’t know that you didn’t just have a different experience.

You can find a good source for your claims, or some supporting evidence, or someone else can come along and back you up. I still wouldn’t know, given how easily you can fake sources on the internet, so you could still be lying.

At a certain point, you just need to take it on faith.

I’m not American. I don’t know what those terms mean. I just have a skybox.

My TV lets me pause live TV, so I pause, leave the room for a bit, come back and fast forward through the ads.

What wrong thing am I repeating? Where did you address the lyrics themselves and not the context the lyrics were written in? Why is my interpretation flawed? Why is your interpretation the only one allowed? How does the first portrayal of a song supporting my interpretation of the song make that a problem?

And as I asked before, yet you ignored, why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

Jesus fuck, this is some bad faith. I was ignoring nothing. I was asleep. You waited 7 hours to reply to me, and you couldn’t let me sleep for 5 without me “ignoring what you don’t want to hear”. Waking up and seeing three extremely long comments that amount to re-explaining the historical context of the song while not actually addressing how the song is about pressuring someone into staying over didn’t really seem worthy of reply.

Plus, the idea that you copied someone else’s comment as spam just makes it worse.

If you’re allowed to use “it’s an old song” as your argument, then I’m allowed to use the first presentation of the song to the public as mine. And since the presentation of the song has ALWAYS been one person pressuring another into staying over despite their protests, it’s always been rapey.

The only real defence in pointing out historical context is to say that a rapey song was not unacceptable for the time period. So what?

The song is a problem for people who don’t want to hear someone pressuring someone into illicit relationships. It’s not “willfully ignorant”, and your idea that someone not liking something is just because they don’t understand it is DEEPLY troubling.

If it’s okay to be bothered by the song, as you directly state, then why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

You provided historical context while not actually addressing the contents of the song. There’s really nothing to respond to. Plus, I can’t have been ignoring anything since I was asleep. There is no point in spamming this.

I’m not familiar with the reddit argument, but nice attempt to dodge what I said.

…No she fucking isn’t. She never says she wants to stay.

I simply must go (Baby, it’s cold outside)
The answer is, “No” (But, baby, it’s cold outside)

She says no. He ignores her. I don’t give a fuck what was intended, I only care about what was said. What was said was a violation of consent. If you want the intent to reflect in the song to a modern ear (which are the only ears we have) then change the lyrics.

I understand that the film was not problematic for the time period, and it was seen as romantic. I also understand that the fact it was not seen as a problem was a fucking problem. And I understand that the only way to overcome a problem is to acknowledge that there is one. Hindsight is a fucking benefit, and with the benefit of hindsight, that song is pretty fucking rapey.

Once again, the song was played TWICE in the movie, and the second one was sung with a man being convinced to stay. It was not about reputation. It was about not wanting to be there.

Why are you so insistent that the woman saying no actually wanted it?

And the version where they tried to tone down the rapey elements was in 2019, shortly after the #MeToo movement. We are also having this conversation today, and not in 1949.

If you’re saying the standards of the time make it acceptable, I say that reflects really badly on the standards of the time. By the standards of the time, black people had fewer rights than white men. I hope to fuck we can improve upon the standards of the 1940s.

I didn’t know that. Looked it up. It was only publicly released around the film, and only sung at parties before that. Also, he sold the song without his wife’s consent and it almost ended their marriage.

I didn’t know that. So I looked it up, and it seems the intent of the song is to tell their guests to leave. Also, he sold the song without his wife’s consent, and it almost ended their marriage.

Nope. In the original scene in Neptune’s Daughter, she is actively trying to leave and he is doing everything he can to stop her. Note that she never makes an excuse to stay, only to leave.

Watch the damn scene. She is trying to brush him off. She wants to leave, and he is not letting her. She is politely saying no, and he is politely forcing her to stay. Even if it is due to social pressure, let her fucking leave.

“Well maybe just a half a drink more” is said when he has just snatched the coat off her back and is still holding it. Her face is a picture of resignation, not coy flirtation. She then asks “say, what’s in this drink” and puts it down with a scowl on her face.

This is flirtatious by the standards of a Sean Connery movie.

Dang. Just looked it up. It’s a song about a girl he met once and was dating someone else, but he still wrote a damn ballad and sent her a copy. Then she had to live her life surrounded by a song about a stranger’s feelings for her.

And looking at the lyrics, they’re sweet if said about a long-distance partner, but really weird to sing to a vague acquaintence.

There is a version out there where they try to tone down the rapey elements. Sadly, it’s pretty clunky how they do it.

The original film the song appears (Neptune’s Daughter) in actually sings the song twice. The first one is very clearly “I want to leave” vs “but you can’t.” He literally takes the hat off of her head, and she seems very irritated throughout.

The second is a woman trying to stop a man from leaving, to the degree that he ends up putting her clothes on by mistake in an attempt to leave faster. And, as assault of men often is, it’s portrayed for laughs.

The entire song is someone refusing to take “no” for an answer. At no point does the typically female role ever make an excuse to STAY, only to LEAVE.

Edit: No idea why “the song where a man stops a woman from leaving is a bit rapey” is a controversial opinion.

How do you make a tissue dance? You put a little boogie in it.

There WERE mandates. This is something someone is currently doing, not something someone did several years ago. Literally nobody is telling them to do shit. The angry chucklefucks are upset someone else is doing something while demanding nothing from them. If people are still upset about masks, it’s not because of obedience.

Nobody’s demanding they wear a mask, and nobody’s infringing on their rights by wearing a mask. All that is being shown is another person not wanting to spread the disease. There is no demand to comply, other than their own conscience speaking in a quiet, quiet voice.

“They’re wearing a mask to stop the spread of disease, and I feel a need to react to this person’s wearing of a mask. Should I be wearing a mask to stop the spread of disease? I don’t want to be mildly uncomfortable, though. No, they’re the person in the wrong for wearing a mask. I should be angry with them.”

No self-awareness needed.