The generally-wise Mr Maurer is as wrong-headed this holiday season as last, so I will repeat same comment: "this is wrong: 'she clearly doesn’t want to get pursued that night.' Quite wrong. The song is a sexual dance to a certain climax, and both partners are enjoying the steps . . . she's just doing hers backwards in high heels."
You are exactly correct. I can’t get my head around how the normally astute Jeff Maurer gets this one so wrong. Very uncharacteristic. The word dance they are doing is so obvious.
Very occasionally Mr Maurer reflexively hits the progressive-knee jerk-PC button. Not often but occasionally. That was last year. Then, for this year's repost, I figure, he was just too lazy, too ill, or too stubborn to write anything new or moderate his past error. We love him anyway.
Yes! I was going to say this also. She wants to be pursued; she can't give in too easily because cultural mores require her to resist. It's similar to "Thank you no dessert, No I couldn't possibly, OK one tiny bite." Or the "resist the leftovers routine" (You must take some when you go [no], Share them with your family [no], Please I'm only going to throw them away . . . [ok, thank you]."
I strongly disagree. She DOES want to be pursued. The whole point of the song is they both want it, and they’re doing a dance around the subject to preserve the contemporary mores.
I’ll never forgive the people who injected the most negative interpretation possible into this song. Flirtatious pursuit and seductive courtship became de facto coercion and sexual harassment, god damnit it made me hate it here.
Yes, there used to be a time when sexual pursuit of women by men (and less overtly, pursuit of men by women) was considered a standard part of social life, indeed, one of the reasons that one had a social life. The song itself was extraordinarily popular, garnering an Academy Award and over 400 recordings. That didn't happen because it annoyed women listeners!
We seem over my adult life to have come to idealize "Eunuch Land", where people interact in public as if they are sexless. This seems to come from the idea that if a man sexually admires a woman, he is threatening her. I reflexively think of this as ridiculous, but it may have come about because The Kinds These Days have been raised with so little psychological adversity that they are emotionally fragile and girls freak out if they have to "Say no and make it stick."
Piling on the comments that the woman's behavior in the song is actually respectable false modesty and the man is creating a permission structure for her to do what she really wants to (him).
'I’ll teach him a simple rule: “Never, ever press. At all.” And I’ll also teach him the second part of that lesson: “If it turns out she was into it, she’ll schedule another date and jump on you like a grizzly on a hiker the second she walks in the door.”'
Eh. That's decent advice: as observed by Robin Thicke, pursuit of women can involve "blurred lines." But it's not as simple as "never press" - there are a lot of women who will never be interested in a man who hasn't "pressed" a little bit. I keep trying to figure out a way to say that without sounding like a bitter incel, but "flip Robin Thicke reference" is the best I could do.
Really, it's okay. "Not getting involved with women who need aggressive pursuit" is not the worst thing that can happen to a guy; plenty of more proactive/patient women for us shrinking violets.
One more defense of it - there is an episode of Glee where it is performed by two boys, one of whom is gay and the other of whom is ambiguous. When I saw two teenage boys performing this song I teared up, because the flirt-resist dynamic was so fucking normal. I made my partner, who justifiably hated Glee, come watch the scene, and we concluded that the times they were a-changing.
The song was meant to be playful because anyone alive then understood all the moral and social tisk, tisk, tisks of that time (and how the song made fun of them). One did not simply hop on their phone to find a sex buddy for a night of casual sex. Nor could one just saunter on into a pharmacy and get some "protection." Pregnancy was going to happen. That aside-and believe it or not-it was supposed to be fun to court and flirt (which is what this song is). Actual romance was a thing, and most everyone wanted some. I know that's tough to understand if you're younger and live in an age where men are all predators and women are either haters or whore-which all of us should find terribly depressing-and therefore see/hear the song as not flirty and fun but manipulative and predatory.
This was a song performed in the dead of summer. All the "baby it's cold outside" is an obvious "here, have an excuse to stay." That's all. The lady is trying to be "classy" by making the guy pursue her (which he does, because he wants her), and she's folding. At any time, she could leave. He's not forcing anything (again, this only works because she's clearly into him. You could sing the song as a creeptastic Falco song, you COULD. but everyone would lynch you, because the song was Never ever ever meant to be creepy).
Let's make it simple. When this song was written (1944) people were not morons. But they were constrained by a lot of religious and cultural baggage. Therefor, you could not ask a "nice girl" to stay the night. But to suggest both parties are not active participants in the flirtation (yes it is flirtation) is to say your grandma in 1944 was a moron. She was not. They are both looking for excuses to get it on, but to blame it on the weather or the drink.
I'd go beyond that, to say that this kind of song has social value... theres a strong element of mocking the manipulative male and indirectly pointing of how ridiculous they can be.
Two more examples of this genre - that never fail to bring a smile to my face - are Matt Bianco's "No no never" and "It's getting late".
One point that nobody has mentioned is "Say what's in this drink?" -- at the time, one excuse a woman could give to her friends/relatives for "giving in" was "I accidentally got drunk." Even as late as 1990, "Life in Hell" could facetiously tell women "Next time drink enough you can say you didn't know what you were doing." (It was also an excuse to give the guy to indicate you weren't interested in a return engagement.)
song is dumb and boring and i used to never pay attention to the lyrics and it is one of those tunes-there are a lot of them- that has jack shit to do with Christmas. That being said lots of ppl like it so who am i to judge? I want to go back to when i didn’t know or care about the lyrics and simply put on headphones at the mall or changed the station in the car
The generally-wise Mr Maurer is as wrong-headed this holiday season as last, so I will repeat same comment: "this is wrong: 'she clearly doesn’t want to get pursued that night.' Quite wrong. The song is a sexual dance to a certain climax, and both partners are enjoying the steps . . . she's just doing hers backwards in high heels."
Exactly. It's a mutual seduction, following the conventions of the time.
This has been the standard take in favor of the song for a while now, so it's weird not to see him mention it whether positively or negatively.
You are exactly correct. I can’t get my head around how the normally astute Jeff Maurer gets this one so wrong. Very uncharacteristic. The word dance they are doing is so obvious.
Very occasionally Mr Maurer reflexively hits the progressive-knee jerk-PC button. Not often but occasionally. That was last year. Then, for this year's repost, I figure, he was just too lazy, too ill, or too stubborn to write anything new or moderate his past error. We love him anyway.
I agree. If she wanted to say a definitive No, she clearly could just walk out the door.
> she's just doing hers backwards in high heels.
Interesting phrase! Even in the 1980's, the concept of a woman "chasing from the leading position" hadn't been lost from the popular culture.
Yes! I was going to say this also. She wants to be pursued; she can't give in too easily because cultural mores require her to resist. It's similar to "Thank you no dessert, No I couldn't possibly, OK one tiny bite." Or the "resist the leftovers routine" (You must take some when you go [no], Share them with your family [no], Please I'm only going to throw them away . . . [ok, thank you]."
I strongly disagree. She DOES want to be pursued. The whole point of the song is they both want it, and they’re doing a dance around the subject to preserve the contemporary mores.
I’ll never forgive the people who injected the most negative interpretation possible into this song. Flirtatious pursuit and seductive courtship became de facto coercion and sexual harassment, god damnit it made me hate it here.
Yes, there used to be a time when sexual pursuit of women by men (and less overtly, pursuit of men by women) was considered a standard part of social life, indeed, one of the reasons that one had a social life. The song itself was extraordinarily popular, garnering an Academy Award and over 400 recordings. That didn't happen because it annoyed women listeners!
We seem over my adult life to have come to idealize "Eunuch Land", where people interact in public as if they are sexless. This seems to come from the idea that if a man sexually admires a woman, he is threatening her. I reflexively think of this as ridiculous, but it may have come about because The Kinds These Days have been raised with so little psychological adversity that they are emotionally fragile and girls freak out if they have to "Say no and make it stick."
Annual reminder that many of the people who hate on this song are completely fine with gangster rap
Piling on the comments that the woman's behavior in the song is actually respectable false modesty and the man is creating a permission structure for her to do what she really wants to (him).
'I’ll teach him a simple rule: “Never, ever press. At all.” And I’ll also teach him the second part of that lesson: “If it turns out she was into it, she’ll schedule another date and jump on you like a grizzly on a hiker the second she walks in the door.”'
Eh. That's decent advice: as observed by Robin Thicke, pursuit of women can involve "blurred lines." But it's not as simple as "never press" - there are a lot of women who will never be interested in a man who hasn't "pressed" a little bit. I keep trying to figure out a way to say that without sounding like a bitter incel, but "flip Robin Thicke reference" is the best I could do.
Really, it's okay. "Not getting involved with women who need aggressive pursuit" is not the worst thing that can happen to a guy; plenty of more proactive/patient women for us shrinking violets.
One more defense of it - there is an episode of Glee where it is performed by two boys, one of whom is gay and the other of whom is ambiguous. When I saw two teenage boys performing this song I teared up, because the flirt-resist dynamic was so fucking normal. I made my partner, who justifiably hated Glee, come watch the scene, and we concluded that the times they were a-changing.
The song was meant to be playful because anyone alive then understood all the moral and social tisk, tisk, tisks of that time (and how the song made fun of them). One did not simply hop on their phone to find a sex buddy for a night of casual sex. Nor could one just saunter on into a pharmacy and get some "protection." Pregnancy was going to happen. That aside-and believe it or not-it was supposed to be fun to court and flirt (which is what this song is). Actual romance was a thing, and most everyone wanted some. I know that's tough to understand if you're younger and live in an age where men are all predators and women are either haters or whore-which all of us should find terribly depressing-and therefore see/hear the song as not flirty and fun but manipulative and predatory.
This was a song performed in the dead of summer. All the "baby it's cold outside" is an obvious "here, have an excuse to stay." That's all. The lady is trying to be "classy" by making the guy pursue her (which he does, because he wants her), and she's folding. At any time, she could leave. He's not forcing anything (again, this only works because she's clearly into him. You could sing the song as a creeptastic Falco song, you COULD. but everyone would lynch you, because the song was Never ever ever meant to be creepy).
Let's make it simple. When this song was written (1944) people were not morons. But they were constrained by a lot of religious and cultural baggage. Therefor, you could not ask a "nice girl" to stay the night. But to suggest both parties are not active participants in the flirtation (yes it is flirtation) is to say your grandma in 1944 was a moron. She was not. They are both looking for excuses to get it on, but to blame it on the weather or the drink.
I'd go beyond that, to say that this kind of song has social value... theres a strong element of mocking the manipulative male and indirectly pointing of how ridiculous they can be.
Two more examples of this genre - that never fail to bring a smile to my face - are Matt Bianco's "No no never" and "It's getting late".
One point that nobody has mentioned is "Say what's in this drink?" -- at the time, one excuse a woman could give to her friends/relatives for "giving in" was "I accidentally got drunk." Even as late as 1990, "Life in Hell" could facetiously tell women "Next time drink enough you can say you didn't know what you were doing." (It was also an excuse to give the guy to indicate you weren't interested in a return engagement.)
Finally. Some sanity in this wild world. Thank you. We can’t change the past but we can learn from it. We don’t have to cancel it.
song is dumb and boring and i used to never pay attention to the lyrics and it is one of those tunes-there are a lot of them- that has jack shit to do with Christmas. That being said lots of ppl like it so who am i to judge? I want to go back to when i didn’t know or care about the lyrics and simply put on headphones at the mall or changed the station in the car
Music.like books, are of their time, and we need to remember that - not damn them for it.