#MeTooFar

[Rev. Rye]

Meh, it's a song about a woman saying no over and over again, a man putting something in her drink and not letting her leave, and her still saying no.

I'm okay with radio listeners saying they'd like to hear Christmas music but the messaging in that one has had it's day.

Well, here's a feminist take on the song that actually defends it; Note: read the lyrics sheet. Of all the objections she makes, not one is "I'm just not that into you." Most of them involve society's expectations. At the time the song was written, the line "say, what's in this drink" was less likely to have roofie-related connotations and more "if anyone objects to my deviating from social norms by staying with this man in his home, I can just blame it on the alcohol."

To be fair, there was always something about this song that led itself to more nefarious interpretations: When the song was originally written, it was more a personal piece for Frank Loesser and his wife to song, and he'd introduce himself as "the evil of the two Loessers" due to his playing the man's role. And, after four years of being played at parties as a closing act, he finally sold it to MGM for Neptune's Baby and we can see the two differing interpretations:





The way I understand it, the difference between seduction and rape is the difference between salesmanship and just mugging some poor bugger. In the end of the version with Esther Williams and Ricardo Montalban, despite her reluctance throughout much of the song, you can see her relax near the end, showing that, well, the seduction has worked. That said, they could have played up the more daring interpretation, but I strongly suspect the Hays Office would have been on MGM like a ton of bricks if they did.

Betty Garrett and Red Skelton's version, however, reverses the gender roles, and he just gets more and more terrified. Presumably, Betty raped Red after she turned the lights off.

[Shell B]

From the link:

Glenn Anderson, a host at the Star 102 station, blogged that although the song was written in a different era, the lyrics felt "manipulative and wrong".

"The world we live in is extra sensitive now, and people get easily offended, but in a world where #MeToo has finally given women the voice they deserve, the song has no place."

It's not about the original meaning of a specific phrase in the lyrics. It's about the overall message of the song being contrary to what the MeToo movement is about and to the modern Christmas spirit.

It's a classic for sure, and you can freely listen to it online somewhere, no problem.

The overall message is that a woman shouldn't succumb to societal standards if she wants something. She should just spend the night if she's feeling frisky. It's entirely in line with feminist notions.

[Homeless Nutter]

I think the underlying message of the song is pretty clear - climate change denial. What's in this fizzy drink? CO2, but don't worry about global warming, because it's cold outside...

I think it's a sh*tty song, that I would never willingly subject myself to. If any radio station doesn't want to play it - for whatever reason - fine by me. I don't see how that's "a ban".

[Minimalist]

---

Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro" is about a noble trying to screw his wife's maid.  I suppose we need to ban that from the opera halls, too?

I don't remember the maid be forced though

---

Well here you go, with English subtitles.
Lucky for you the segment in question begins at the 7:30 mark...

[Shell B]

A modern feminist would tell you a maid fucking a noble is always forced because power or some shit.

[Amarok]

A modern feminist would tell you a maid fucking a noble is always forced because power or some shit.

Often it was . Masters would threaten their employment if they didn't .

---

---

I don't remember the maid be forced though

---

Well here you go, with English subtitles.
Lucky for you the segment in question begins at the 7:30 mark...

Yes i grant you it's questionable line

[I_am_not_mafia]

It's about a woman being plied with drugs to lower her inhibitions so she can have sex when ordinarily she wouldn't to. You could make the same argument about spiking a woman's drink with a date rape drug.

I'm not saying it is equivalent, but I can understand how if some women have been coerced into being sexually exploited using these very same techniques, Ithen they may not find the song as amusing as most men do.

You (and SC) must not have read the article. 'What's in this drink' isn't a reference to a spiked drink.

Boru

Doesn't matter if her drink is being spiked, or she is being plied with alcohol, the intention and effect is the same. You're just arguing about to what degree it is acceptable.

[Amarok]

You (and SC) must not have read the article. 'What's in this drink' isn't a reference to a spiked drink.

Boru

Doesn't matter if her drink is being spiked, or she is being plied with alcohol, the intention and effect is the same. You're just arguing about to what degree it is acceptable.

That's also a fair point

---

From the link:


It's not about the original meaning of a specific phrase in the lyrics. It's about the overall message of the song being contrary to what the MeToo movement is about and to the modern Christmas spirit.

It's a classic for sure, and you can freely listen to it online somewhere, no problem.

The overall message is that a woman shouldn't succumb to societal standards if she wants something. She should just spend the night if she's feeling frisky. It's entirely in line with feminist notions.

That's one interpretation though an odd one to be singing with your husband  at Christmas

[I_am_not_mafia]

But if we start banning music based on interpretation or based on pressure from action groups, where does it stop? 

People always refer to songs as being banned when in fact they are not. It's normally just radio stations choosing not to play them. Normally for commercial reasons. After all, why would they want to play a song that risks putting some of their audience in a bad mood when the intention of the station is to retain their audience by making them feel good? This then allows them to sell adverts.

Referring to it as banning demonstrates a sense of entitlement.

[Amarok]

Meh, it's a song about a woman saying no over and over again, a man putting something in her drink and not letting her leave, and her still saying no.

I'm okay with radio listeners saying they'd like to hear Christmas music but the messaging in that one has had it's day.

Well, here's a feminist take on the song that actually defends it; Note: read the lyrics sheet. Of all the objections she makes, not one is "I'm just not that into you." Most of them involve society's expectations. At the time the song was written, the line "say, what's in this drink" was less likely to have roofie-related connotations and more "if anyone objects to my deviating from social norms by staying with this man in his home, I can just blame it on the alcohol."

To be fair, there was always something about this song that led itself to more nefarious interpretations: When the song was originally written, it was more a personal piece for Frank Loesser and his wife to song, and he'd introduce himself as "the evil of the two Loessers" due to his playing the man's role. And, after four years of being played at parties as a closing act, he finally sold it to MGM for Neptune's Baby and we can see the two differing interpretations:





The way I understand it, the difference between seduction and rape is the difference between salesmanship and just mugging some poor bugger. In the end of the version with Esther Williams and Ricardo Montalban, despite her reluctance throughout much of the song, you can see her relax near the end, showing that, well, the seduction has worked. That said, they could have played up the more daring interpretation, but I strongly suspect the Hays Office would have been on MGM like a ton of bricks if they did.

Betty Garrett and Red Skelton's version, however, reverses the gender roles, and he just gets more and more terrified. Presumably, Betty raped Red after she turned the lights off.

It's a fine line though