This isn't something I think about a lot, but it turns up fairly regularly when you read feminist blogs: Baby, it's consensual outside (http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2015/12/18/baby-its-consensual-outside-3/). In this case, the heartburn is over the rapey-ness of the song "Baby, it's cold outside", originally sung in the frothy romance comedy "Neptune's Daughter".
As Greta Christina points out, this song is all about one person trying to leave and another pressuring them to stay -- a violation of the first person's autonomy and consent. All of which is true enough, even if there's still room for disagreement about flirting and game-playing in romance.
As far as the movie, and song, go, on one hand I think it would have never occurred to our mothers and grandmothers who first saw "Neptune's Daughter" in 1949 that Esther Williams was in any danger of being raped by Richardo Montalban (much less that Red Skelton was in danger of being raped by Betty Garrett), so is our generation simply over-reacting?
But on the other hand, I remember the shock I got when I watched "Zorba the Greek" as an adult and saw how casually, almost flippantly, real rape was treated in 1964. And recall that marital rape was legal in the US until (I think) 1975. Which does suggest a certain amount of under-reaction by earlier generations.
In any case, I'm also on the fence about applying current day morals and standards to another time and, even tho it's only 67 years ago, 1949 really was another time. I totally agree that no should mean no without grumbling or argument, but in a historical context I think it's just as well to accept that things were different then and be thankful they changed. If they have.
Since Greta mentioned it, here is the Lady Gaga/Joseph Gordon-Levitt version:
Can one imagine this being produced 67 years ago? No, I thought not, neither could I. That's how far we have progressed in some countries. We shouldn't get all twisted up about what was done years, decades or millennia ago we should learn from their mistakes and be happy we wouldn't do that sort of thing any more.
[youtube width=700]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ[/youtube]
Another interesting, and accurate, take on the subject.
[youtube width=600]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEAgXMtcJ0w[/youtube]
Geez, it's not enough this song caused al-Qaeda, now it's promoting rape culture.
http://protect.expert/ideology-al-qaeda-prof-matthew-ogilvie/
QuoteSayyid Qutb was a radical Egyptian intellectual. He believed that Western civilization was decadent and promiscuous and the enemy of Islam. (A pivotal moment in forming this belief was apparently his attendance at a Colorado Christian Church social dance, during which "Baby It's Cold Outside" was played.) He came to believe that authentic Islam had been virtually extinguished and he condemned the leaders of Muslim nations for not enforcing strict Islamic conduct. Qutb also radicalised Islamic ideology by claiming that jihad should be undertaken not only to defend Islam, but to purify it of corrupt influences.
I didn't think it rapey, just ecouraging the woman to do what she wanted to.
(that's the song, I don't follow youtube links)
The copyright holders, I suspect the copyright holders are at the root of it all.
To be honest, I've disagreed with many things that Greta Christina has written over the years, but I think this piece makes valid points in regard to certain questions that trouble modern day society.
However, I do take issue with one thing Christina does in this blog post. I'll take the statement that "No means no" as a given. I completely agree with that, and also agree that the dangerous games that are played by both men and women in which "no doesn't really mean no" can have abhorrent results. The simple fact is that the woman in the original song (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/shehim/babyitscoldoutside.html) never says "no"; she is vacillating, and says that she should say "no." Christina's analysis depends on believing that the woman wants to say "no," and Christina basically assumes that the woman in the song has said "no" even if not explicitly. As long as I ignore the actual lyrics and accept Christina's gloss of them, I can agree with the rest of what she says. Just to note: in the "Consensual Outside" version, the woman does explicitly say "no."
ETA: Reviewing the movie version, the woman does say "the answer is no." So my point is shot down. :)
Still, the song needn't be viewed as malignant. In its context within the old movie, I don't think that it was.
Back in the modern world, I think it's right to place so much importance on the inviolability of "No means no." Given the wide dispersal of that meme, most people are aware of it, and I think both men and women should take it to heart. An implied "no" should suffice as well, in my opinion. People in the real world aren't that honest, though. Ideally, the "flirtatious game" Christina describes around ignoring boundaries should end, but some enjoy playing with fire. So we're back to "No means no." Games should stop when that line is explicitly drawn.
As for whether there is some over-reaction going on, I think there certainly there is. That doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of respecting boundaries. Taking that tack would be like the asshat MRA types who point to extremist statements made by some feminists and use them as a broad brush to justify their position that "feminism is bad, and should be opposed."
Who knew stick figures could be so evocative!? And no, that probably wouldn't have flown in 1949.
One other thing I meant to mention but forgot, was that the line that stands out to me as the most objectionable: "say, what's in this drink?", shows up unaltered in "Baby, it's consensual outside". I wonder if Greta just missed that, or if there's some non-roofy explanation for it that I don't get.
Recusant that is what safe words are for.
Quote from: Crow on December 31, 2015, 12:35:36 AM
Recusant that is what safe words are for.
People don't always plan things in that sort of detail. If they've got to the point of agreeing on a safe word, they're well beyond the territory I was discussing.
Quote from: Recusant on December 31, 2015, 12:38:00 AM
Quote from: Crow on December 31, 2015, 12:35:36 AM
Recusant that is what safe words are for.
People don't always plan things in that sort of detail. If they've got to the point of agreeing on a safe word, they're well beyond the territory I was discussing.
That is S&M 101. You never play about with it until both partners discuss and agree on the parameter otherwise it is rape.
Or no means no unless otherwise discussed.
Quote from: Crow on December 31, 2015, 12:46:27 AMThat is S&M 101. You never play about with it until both partners discuss and agree on the parameter otherwise it is rape.
Or no means no unless otherwise discussed.
Yes to all of the above.
In my early 20's I met up with an old friend and we decided to go to a club that we went to between the ages of 16 and 18 before I left for another city to relive past times. On closing it was the typical people hooking up and I was gone as it had been a long time since I had drinks for a pound a double with a mixer, however I noticed a troll of a guy fingering a girl and it looked all kinds of wrong. She hadn't passed out but clearly couldn't make heads or tale of a situation, her friend was asking me to go back to hers and even though I was wasted I wasn't that drunk and started to question her about the situation, the girl clearly wasn't giving any signs of pleasure or disgust and her mate simply said "it's her fault for getting so drunk", I stepped in pulled the guys hand out of her pants and asked her if she knew what she was doing. She couldn't even string a sentence together so a pushed him away. He started on me but thankfully saying that he had raped her already sent him and his mates on their way.
In this sort of situation I kind of get what Recusant is saying when it comes to the dangerous games bit, the person was equally as drunk as she was and she gave no indication either way, she was moving about as anybody would if their pussy was being rubbed like a scratch card in the hands of a tramp which would have given him some sort of indication that she was into it (even though it would have been incorrect) and the idiocy of alcohol would have been at play. Then there are situations when the person doesn't say anything, it is clearly rape and there are no two ways about it but how is the other person to know especially if alcohol or other drugs are at play. In these cases even though it is easy to classify as rape the chances for it happening have been increased by both parties, and the ability for either party of knowing when it has crossed over into rape is even harder.
In the example of the films it is pretty damn clear she isn't interested in him and he looks like a damn sex pest, at least she kind of looks into it at the end whereas the guy in the second part looks horror struck at the very end.
This whole thing reminds me of the movie
Gone with the Wind (1939). There's a scene in the movie, some call it love, others call it rape. :secrets1: I think it's rape.
I guess this was foreplay in 1939. :tellmemore:
Gone With The Wind - Tear You To Pieces
And the morning after:
Did we miss something between the rape, sorry, the love scene, and her happy face in the morning? :scratch:
QuoteI'd like to extend my apology for my conduct of last night.
Oh, but, Rhett.
I was very drunk and quite swept off my feet by your charms.
You needn't bother to apologize. Nothing you do surprises me.
I've been thinking, and I believe it would be better for both of us if we admitted we made a mistake and got a divorce.
Quote from: Recusant on December 31, 2015, 12:38:00 AM
Quote from: Crow on December 31, 2015, 12:35:36 AM
Recusant that is what safe words are for.
People don't always plan things in that sort of detail. If they've got to the point of agreeing on a safe word, they're well beyond the territory I was discussing.
Quite right.
Quote from: Magdalena on December 31, 2015, 07:37:54 AM
Did we miss something between the rape, sorry, the love scene, and her happy face in the morning? :scratch:
I think we're missing the assumption that women are aroused by domineering alpha males who take what they want when they want it. To be fair, when I was growing up this assumption was reinforced by women more than men.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 31, 2015, 10:39:12 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 31, 2015, 07:37:54 AM
Did we miss something between the rape, sorry, the love scene, and her happy face in the morning? :scratch:
I think we're missing the assumption that women are aroused by domineering alpha males who take what they want when they want it. To be fair, when I was growing up this assumption was reinforced by women more than men.
Well...yes. The domineering alpha male has been around for a while. :-\
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.istockimg.com%2Ffile_thumbview_approve%2F15403146%2F6%2Fstock-illustration-15403146-cartoon-caveman-dragging-a-woman.jpg&hash=5023a6c18819e233c042e2b61e1b604a0c8be945)
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 30, 2015, 11:42:55 PM
Who knew stick figures could be so evocative!? And no, that probably wouldn't have flown in 1949.
One other thing I meant to mention but forgot, was that the line that stands out to me as the most objectionable: "say, what's in this drink?", shows up unaltered in "Baby, it's consensual outside". I wonder if Greta just missed that, or if there's some non-roofy explanation for it that I don't get.
I don't know that roofies were a thing yet, as far as the historical context of the song. The explanation I've always heard is that in historical context, women weren't really supposed to drink for the sake of drinking, but booze was also an excuse to other socially unacceptable behavior ("I'd never do this normally, what's in this drink anyway?"). She essentially blaming her "wrong" choice to stay on being buzzed.
As far as Gone With the Wind... It's not exactly a socially enlightened movie. I always took that scene to be rape, but I never took Rhett and Scarlett's "love story" as something to strive for or pine after. They're pretty much just horrible, manipulative people abusing eachother - which Rhett even says several times. He mistakenly takes it to mean they're perfect for eachother.
Not long ago, I read an article from a woman who had been raped twice. I'll try to find it but I doubt I'll be able - the jist was that everyone processes trauma of any sort differently. That includes rape. The narrative that rape is The Worst Thing You Can Do To A Woman (TM) and something that will cause life-long scars she will never recover from needs to end. For one thing, it takes male and trans* victims out of the picture entirely. It also continues to reduce a woman's value to her body and sexuality. And it's just not true - it is for some people, certainly, but many others including the author of the peice have moved on and don't feel ruined or truamatized or even very effected day to day at all.
I'd see Scarlett as falling in with the author. Here's this woman who is used to extreme hardships, she does whatever she has to do, often choosing unpleasant tasks that will provide personal gain. And she has most certainly used sex as a means to an end. Getting railed by her drunk husband when she doesn't feel like it probably isn't that bad a night for her. Not to say she deserved it or that his behavior is ok because she wasn't traumatized by that specific incident. It probably sucked, but it wasn't The Worst Thing Ever that ruined her life.
Quote from: Pasta Chick on January 02, 2016, 04:33:46 PM
As far as Gone With the Wind... It's not exactly a socially enlightened movie. I always took that scene to be rape, but I never took Rhett and Scarlett's "love story" as something to strive for or pine after. They're pretty much just horrible, manipulative people abusing eachother - which Rhett even says several times. He mistakenly takes it to mean they're perfect for eachother.
Not long ago, I read an article from a woman who had been raped twice. I'll try to find it but I doubt I'll be able - the jist was that everyone processes trauma of any sort differently. That includes rape. The narrative that rape is The Worst Thing You Can Do To A Woman (TM) and something that will cause life-long scars she will never recover from needs to end. For one thing, it takes male and trans* victims out of the picture entirely. It also continues to reduce a woman's value to her body and sexuality. And it's just not true - it is for some people, certainly, but many others including the author of the peice have moved on and don't feel ruined or truamatized or even very effected day to day at all.
I'd see Scarlett as falling in with the author. Here's this woman who is used to extreme hardships, she does whatever she has to do, often choosing unpleasant tasks that will provide personal gain. And she has most certainly used sex as a means to an end. Getting railed by her drunk husband when she doesn't feel like it probably isn't that bad a night for her. Not to say she deserved it or that his behavior is ok because she wasn't traumatized by that specific incident. It probably sucked, but it wasn't The Worst Thing Ever that ruined her life.
I so agree with what I have highlighted. Being a victim once does not make one a victim forever.
To the idea that "no means no", I would like to add the old man's perspective: "I can't" means "I can't." I just wish all these younger women would understand that.
Quote from: Pasta Chick on January 02, 2016, 04:33:46 PM
As far as Gone With the Wind... It's not exactly a socially enlightened movie. I always took that scene to be rape, but I never took Rhett and Scarlett's "love story" as something to strive for or pine after. They're pretty much just horrible, manipulative people abusing each other - which Rhett even says several times. He mistakenly takes it to mean they're perfect for each other.
. . .
I'd see Scarlett as falling in with the author. Here's this woman who is used to extreme hardships, she does whatever she has to do, often choosing unpleasant tasks that will provide personal gain. And she has most certainly used sex as a means to an end. Getting railed by her drunk husband when she doesn't feel like it probably isn't that bad a night for her. Not to say she deserved it or that his behavior is ok because she wasn't traumatized by that specific incident. It probably sucked, but it wasn't The Worst Thing Ever that ruined her life.
This is where I think we can get into trouble judging the past by the present. I remember first seeing GWTW in the late 60s (back then you had wait until a theater had a revival night for old movies) and altho I also reacted to the up-the-staircase scene as a rape, so that the morning after shot didn't ring true for me, the rest of my family thought it was pure romance. And I knew it was
supposed to be romantic because that's how Margaret Mitchell wrote it -- Scarlett loved that night with Rhett, she was embarrassed about enjoying sex but she definitely loved it.
I can remember, when I was growing up, being told point blank that husbands had conjugal rights -- something that wasn't merely accepted but unquestioned to the point were other women would not call a husband forcing himself on his wife rape. I'm sure they thought it was unfortunate, but it was the husband's right and the wife's fault if he felt he needed to use force. Again, bear in mind it was other women telling me this. And then they couldn't understand why I was unenthusiastic about marriage.
With that being how it was in the 60s, I can believe that in the 30s Mitchell really did consider Rhett Butler a romantic hero.
I can see how the "Baby, it's cold outside" song could be played off as some kind of playful type of thing. To me though, it sounds rapey.
There is nothing wrong with using our current level of knowledge and understanding to criticize older things. But I do think there is a problem by saying, "hey, it's old, so don't judge with your fancy new morals." It's fine to understand that things in the past weren't optimal, just like in the future we will learn that our current understanding is lacking.
Watching the original Star Trek series and seeing all the sexism is a bit disturbing. It's even more disturbing when you learn that as far as sexism goes, it was more progressive than most other shows at the time. Using my modern judgy eyes, I can see that Start Trek: TOS is both fairly sexist and also progressive for it's time. However if I look at GWTW and compare that with a lot of movies out at the time, there were some better films, in terms of not being rapey, and some worse ones. In that sense, I judge GWTW as at best about average. Even with my judgy modern eyes I can say that Star Trek: TOS stands out as a beacon of its time while I can't still say that about GWTW. Of course I'm talking about the movie, I never read the GWTW book.
The question I think is perfectly fine to ask, is whether the thing in question is helping to better things or not. Not whether it would help better things now, but if it did then. In that context, I find being judgmental from our more enlightened position to be just fine.
Hm... Words have meaning, but then again they don't. People tend to hear what they want to hear, whether it be no to sex or yes to higher property taxes.
I think the world would be a completely different place if people in general were only half as adept at twisting words as they are.