I have written this in past threads on this. I don’t agree with the backlash on this song. It’s obvious the Girl is being fun and flirty.She’s decided to stay before the song even starts. The rest is just a dance.
No date rape whatsoever in the original. The lyric changes in the Idina Menzel / Michael Buble version were done to be more in line with thekids they used in the video.
Coincidentally (or maybe not?), this was the topic of the C’est la Vie comics strip two weeks ago.
I’m on the side of not aged well.
In the time the song was written, “nice girls” didn’t just up and sleep around. There had to be the proper context, with deniability. It was an oddly puritanical age, considering that they had just as much out-of-wedlock sex as now, they just pretended they didn’t. So the song being coy and playful was OK. Audiences knew what was going on (wink wink nudge nudge) but kids and churchgoers could both like the song.
But now…women have the freedom to say yes, to say no, to even initiate sex! Shocking! So what’s the point of playing coy? Go or stay, I respect your choices, but don’t pretend you have to be talked into it. It gives mixed signals, and these days that’s not smart.
Mostly I hate it for the game playing. What a waste of time.
Anyone who sees that as an improvement isn’t getting why people are objecting to the song or, if they are, is not really getting what rape even is.
agree with all of this, and I think it deserves to be repeated.
“What’s in this drink” only looks like an issue out of context. If her later lines were about not being able to stand, then maybe we could all go “Oh no! Roofies!” but instead she’s saying “Eh, I’ll stick around for another cigarette”.
She knows what’s in the drink – it’s booze, just like she asked for.
Notice also that her protestations are all about what everyone else will think. There’s no hint that she herself is ambivalent; she’s just worried about all the a-holes that will label her a slut.
The “what’s in this drink?” bit is more coy “oh my, I feel I might possibly not be equipped to make the long trek home on account of I’m getting tipsy” angle. Really, people, enjoy the song or not, but parse it in the terms and the age in which it was written.
-
The song is charming/fine. This is obvious on the face of it.
-
There’s a historical context, beyond the prima fascia evidence. The song was written by Frank “Guys and Dolls” Loesser to perform with his wife. Apparently the thing you see on the old Dick Van Dyke show where people at parties entertain each other actually was a thing. Lynn, Frank’s first wife was a mediocre singer and he wrote the song for them to perform together.
Listen to the duet between Frank and Lynn and you can heat that there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with the song. It’s intended to be playful banter and nothing more.
“It’s so delicious! That Bacardi flavoring certainly makes a difference!”
“Oh, yeah. Nine times out of ten.”
“You know, this would be a wonderful way to get children to drink milk!”
The song is not about date rape, because there’s nothing in the song that indicates the woman actually wants to leave. The first line, “I really can’t stay” is what you say when something outside prevents you from staying even though you want to. And, if you notice, the woman only lists as excuses how other people would react. She wants to stay, but knows that it would be against society’s expectations. The man, OTOH, give her excuses that she can use when questioned by outsiders.
“What’s in this drink,” BTW, in context of the time it was written means “there’s nothing in the drink and I’m doing this of my own free will, but I want to pretend otherwise as cover.”
Ultimately, it’s a feminist song (see this analysis): the woman wants to stay, confounding societal norms. The man understands this, and tries to help her by giving her cover.
The song says, very clearly, that there’s nothing wrong with staying if she wants to stay – and it’s clear she does.
Uh, what?
That’s sweet. I remember when The Little Drummer Boy was that year’s brand new Christmas song. (I must be older than you. 
)
[quote=“Fenris, post:29, topic:774546”]
-
The song is charming/fine. This is obvious on the face of it.
-
There’s a historical context, beyond the prima fascia evidence. The song was written by Frank “Guys and Dolls” Loesser to perform with his wife. Apparently the thing you see on the old Dick Van Dyke show where people at parties entertain each other actually was a thing. Lynn, Frank’s first wife was a mediocre singer and he wrote the song for them to perform together.
Listen to the duet between Frank and Lynn and you can heat that there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with the song. It’s intended to be playful banter and nothing more.
[/QUOTE]Yes. I remember hearing on NPR (I think their kid was interviewed?) that it was meant to be their song - something they played to great effect at dinner parties. The fact that it was made commercial was not expected.
Yep, here: Baby, It's Cold Outside - Wikipedia
Except that’s dialog, which was not written by Loesser. The author is either Jo Swerling or Abe Burroughs (It doesn’t look like it was in the original Damon Runyon story).
Also, it was and is certainly possible that a woman can spend the night without anything sexual going on. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
As a palate cleanser, you can listen to Bob Dylan’s “If You Got to Go, Go Now (Or Else You Got to Stay All Night)” (1965). Refreshingly straightforward.
Some people should spend a little more time on serious issues. And I mean REAL SERIOUS ISSUES.
You PCers are getting pretty pathetic.
Is there any indication the woman in the song couldn’t have gotten up and left at any point? The man was persuading her to stay not forcing her to.
Same thing with “Blurred Lines”. It’s not about rape. It’s about men trying to hook up with women while the women are also trying to hook up with the men.
Now “Summer Loving” - that’s a rape song.
I know. This “war on Christmas” thing is getting absurd. And the recent yelling at Starbucks about the color of their cups? Man, conservatives need safe spaces!
The only ones I can think of are individual performances/staging, and are purely physical, and are therefore a matter of direction.
Right. As Wikipedia says ‘what’s in the drink’ was a common idiom of the period used to rebuke social expectations by blaming one’s actions on the influence of alcohol.
It’s ironic that people woud get their panties in a bunch over this yet many of those same people would listen with enthusiasm to modern rap which has lyrics a zillion times more offensive than this.