Have you watched any Keith Floyd cookery programmes? He used an instrumental version of Peaches a lot, as well as WaltzInBlack as his programmes theme.
1 Like
Obligs, because it’s that time of year:
I can’t lie, I like this song, and I like Frank Loesser as a songwriter. My dad grew up listening to Frank Loesser, and it’s like one of the only things he and I have in common, because we sure as shit can’t discuss sports or politics. Still… listen to this… ugh.
I really don’t want to swear this song off, but, do I really have a choice?
9 Likes
While I disagree that the words inherently and in their original context are about date rape, I have to admit that:
- as people slipping things into drinks has become a lot more common since the song came out, that line, at least, should never be sung in a modern rendition, and
- the whole idea of a guy as a “Wolf” preying on a girl who is a “Mouse” is definitely inappropriate.
That said, I know it by heart just because I’m fond of duets, and I wish it weren’t so problematic.
7 Likes
I won’t be able to find the article, but I did find a good blog post that described the whole vibe of this in a much better way than the literal reading so many people are giving it right now. The whole thing is a pretense that she wants to say No NO NO when obviously she wants to say yes but the rules of the time meant she was supposed to not want to stay. So he’s giving her all these excuses why she HAS to stay (totally against her will, of course, because good girls wouldn’t WANT to stay).
9 Likes
I was just thinking about this. About a year ago on The Other Place, I got resoundingly smacked for suggesting that there could be any other interpretation of this song apart from date rape. I also quoted a couple of women bloggers who see some nuance.
Here’s some of what I said (mashing together two of my posts):
It could well be my male bias, but I always read this song as a bit of mutual flirtation, with both parties knowing the game they’re playing. After all, the man’s arguments are too lame to really persuade anyone…
“Say, what’s in this drink?” is the woman coyly making an excuse to stay
Right after that she says:
I ought to say, no, no, no sir
At least I’m gonna say that I tried
She knows what society expects of her. The way this song is always presented, it’s clear that she isn’t putting her foot down very hard. This was the era of “the boy chases the girl until she catches him.” Women were expected to be coy, and so men had to be persistent (respectfully). This gave the man a chance to show that his interest was more than superficial, and gave the woman time to assess the man’s character and work out her own feelings towards him.
That line (“At least I’m gonna say that I tried”) could also mean, “I can tell myself I put up an acceptable amount of resistance, so there’s more to this than lust, and I’m not easy”.
This couple is in the middle of the game, not at the start. There is clearly mutual attraction. She dropped in on him, and he had been hoping she would. His only argument is that it’s cold outside, but she manages to find her own excuses to delay leaving - maybe half a drink, maybe a cigarette. She says “I wish I knew how to break this spell”, and I don’t think it means that he’s been using actual sorcery. (He even asks consent at one point - “You mind if I move in closer?” - just like a proper 21st century man.)
Here’s a different take on the song, in the response to this tweet
Quote: “So it’s not actually a song about rape - in fact it’s a song about a woman finding a way to exercise sexual agency in a patriarchal society designed to stop her from doing so. But it’s also, at the same time, one of the best illustrations of rape culture that pop culture has ever produced. It’s a song about a society where women aren’t allowed to say yes…which happens to mean it’s also a society where women don’t have a clear and unambiguous way to say no.”
This blog
https://www.manrepeller.com/2016/12/in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside.html
sort of agrees, and breaks down the “what’s in this drink” line, but concludes,
“The counterpoint, of course, is that the historical context doesn’t matter. That perception is reality. That the song propagates the blurring of the word “no,” regardless of its original intention.”
Maybe it’s time to retire it as a cultural artifact, but I don’t think it should be utterly condemned.
edit: @ChickieD, is the article I linked to the one you are thinking of?
11 Likes
Found another article defending the song:
http://persephonemagazine.com/2010/12/listening-while-feminist-in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside/
3 Likes
This, exactly. Stepping back the requisite number of decades, it’s much easier to read this song as not being about forcing someone to do anything, but instead about a woman wanting to say “yes,” and a man trying to answer all of her excuses as to why she shouldn’t.
However, it’s a much different time culturally now, compared to when the song debuted. Sung today, especially in light of the recent (and still spreading) allegations of sexual harassment and assault by various celebrities and politicians, the “Funny or Die” version rings horribly true. And even in the most benign interpretation I can give the lyrics, it’s still reinforcing the idea that “no doesn’t really mean no.”
I’ll miss this song, and I’ll miss singing it; it’s a wonderful duet. And I will defend it whenever someone calls it “the date rape song,” because it, really, really isn’t supposed to be.
But I think I’m coming around to believing that yeah, it’s time that it gets retired as a Christmas classic.
Right after “Do They Know It’s Christmas.”
Segue!
There won’t be snow in Africa this Christmastime
The greatest gift they’ll get this year is life
Where nothing ever grows
No rain or rivers flow
Do they know it’s Christmastime at all?
It takes a great deal of effort to be worse at geography than I am.
But even I know that that’s a horrible description of the continent of Africa (which includes the world’s longest river, largest rainforest, and is (mostly) in the Southern Hemisphere so of course there isn’t snow in December).
I mean, famine relief is great, but this song really promotes the — I’m not sure of the right word: racist? imperialist? Eurocentric? — belief that Africa is nothing but a backwards, barbaric desert continent.
12 Likes
Exactly this. This is one of those cases where the song is a product of its time. She’s singing about not wanting to want to stay, which is a completely alien concept today. Today, we think, of course she can stay if she wants, she’s a grown-ass woman. But anyone who’s older, grew up religious, or is from a small town knows that “good girls” don’t spend the night 
So, if the societal implications have changed so much, is the song still relevant? I think it can be, but times have changed so much that I always have to say “it’s not about rape, it’s about social mores that indicated that a woman should never spend the night with a man she’s not married to… yes that was a real thing… yes, as someone who grew up surrounded by ‘turn or burn’ billboards, people still think these things… no, my opinion on this isn’t contingent on me being male…” Just so much explanation is required, that it’s just easier for me to not defend the song.
Speaking of which:
Not a song to be deprogrammed, but a song that I like that covers similar topics.
People slipping things into drinks has always been a thing. Regardless, I don’t think she’s singing about roofies but about a drink that’s smooth but unexpectedly strong… not that that makes it any better.
Yep. It’s a little rapey, and also helps to cement really ridiculous gender roles, like men should always be sexually aggressive and women should be little wilting flowers. I’ve never bought into that shit, and don’t think we should be reinforcing it.
I’m not convinced that this is what the song is about, but it’s definitely about at least pretending to fall into these roles.
4 Likes
For another uncomfortable song, which I won’t defend, see Flanders and Swann’s Have Some Madeira, M’Dear, which by modern standards is not defensible even as a joke (which it was intended to be).
I’m a great fan of Flanders and Swann, but I’ve always thought this was an uncharacteristic lapse in judgement.
3 Likes
Yes, but at the time (from what I’ve heard) people joked about it more than they took it seriously. Since the advent of rohypnol and GHB, “Say, what’s in this drink?” is a lot less funny.
6 Likes
I think it was the article @teknocholer posted that I read. I agree with the point that it was a flirtation and not a woman being forced to do something without consent - but I think it fits this thread well in that it is not a song that would be written today.
2 Likes
I think the song is so horrible, the whole thing about Africans not knowing it’s Christmas, sad. Is like, well, many of them be Muslims so…probably they could give a shit? And also, as someone who worked in food relief, our policies there have led to many a famine situation as so many of these countries are dependent on food aid instead of their own agriculture. So that song just is the worst.
10 Likes
Yeah, I remember that shit heap of a thread.
While we’re at it, can we double-deprogram this shitty ‘modernized’ cover?
This is a classic example of overcorrection. It’s actually making me uncomfortable how much this guy is going out of his way to prove that he isn’t a rapist. He’s making a point of being a super nice guy who takes “Netflix and chill” literally, makes a point of not plying her with alcohol, and says “you reserve the right to say no” like that’s really something that needs to be pointed out. After all, it’s not like “nice guys” never turn creep real fast, especially if they spend so much time going out of their way to prove what Nice Guys ™ they are
Besides, it’s nice that they live in a city where they don’t have to worry about small-town busybodies and outdated social mores (“The neighbors will think you’re a real nice girl”, “I don’t know what you’re talking about”, etc.) On the one hand, it’s seriously a good thing that they don’t have to deal with that shit, but it also shows they have no frame of reference in dealing with people who do have to deal with it.
Also, there’s something about the “bye” “bye” that makes me think he’s trying to rush her out of there. It’s like she’s teasing him, trying to play hard to get, and he’s like, fine, leave, whatever. What’s his deal? Is he trying to rush her out of the house so he can bring his side chick over? Is he autistic and not able to understand the most basic social cues? Or is he just not that into her? If I was that woman, and I was trying to send signals to that guy that he should show me exactly how much he wants me, and was answered with “you want to leave? I’ll get your coat”, I would be pissed.
This is overcorrection if I’ve ever seen it.
6 Likes
Do we know it’s Eid al-Fitr? Maybe they should try to teach us, seeing as that’s worked so well in the past…
…what do you mean it doesn’t work both ways 
7 Likes
That’s an overcorrection song waiting to happen.
4 Likes
I’m incredibly offended by that song.
I mean, who would possibly think it would be okay to rhyme chacun a son gout with “without?”
ETA: And the rhyming in the Liza/Lemanski version of “Cold Outside” is nauseating.
Seriously, people, invest in a rhyming dictionary.
7 Likes
There is no rhyming.
…and listening to the song again, my inner twelve-year-old came out when she asked about the “front or back door”. Yeah, if I were sending signals that obvious, I would be pissed if the guy responded with okay, whatever, bye.
1 Like
Listen again. They’re actually trying to make it rhyme, and it’s horrible. These two are listed in the video as “songwriters,” so they really have no excuse.
I’m seriously considering looking up their songwriting credits and avoiding anything on that list.
2 Likes
Aw, I like it. Actually, I’ve never liked the original, though I think the defenses posted above are perfectly valid.
Basically I think the updates in this version are pretty damn good. And personally I applaud an end to mixed signals and a “hard-to-get” flirtation that risks misunderstanding consent. Flirtation can be perfectly fun and thrilling without duplicity, doublespeak, insincerity, and all that.
I was once in the middle of an extremely steamy embrace with a woman wherein things were unzipped and erogenous places were being fairly thoroughly explored. At a certain point, she breathlessly whispered in my ear, “We should stop.” And so I did. Zipped everything right up, but continued to hold her as we caught our breath. She certainly did not expect me to react so promptly and decisively, but that was that. In retrospect it was very hard to do, but I never regretted doing it. She had every opportunity to change her mind and re-grant consent, but since she never came out and said so, I’m glad I did the right thing. At the time, I was (and remain) 100% sure that she was saying that in precisely the same mindset that the lady in the song enumerates the myriad reasons why she should leave; my companion did not want to stop what we were doing, not at all. But since I reacted like I did, I gave her the impression that I did think we should stop, and thus reinforced the idea that what we were doing was wrong.
Listen to me, going on and denying her agency and downplaying what she wanted and second-guessing her reasons and talking like what I decided was more important than what she decided. Whatever. That part of the equation only took place in my head. The point was: she expressed a preference, and I honored it immediately. And that’s how it should always be.
“I ought to say no, no, no sir” as flirtation? Nope. Homie don’t play that. If I’m gonna risk guessing wrong, I’m gonna side with the not-rapey side.
Then you’re gonna have to be pissed. Stakes are too high for mixed signals like that.
5 Likes
The first verse includes the lines:
He was old, he was vile, and no stranger to vice,I take it to mean they are not seeing the man's actions as OK. The rhyming and syllepsis are so clever that I can forgive them, even now. Given their otherwise leftist views, I can't condemn them.
He was base, he was bad, he was mean.
4 Likes