What's the appeal - - Honestly

[Erozetta]

I was trying to stay out of this, but I am weak. Forgive me.

My read on the lyrics is that is about a woman is being pushed to be in a situation where she is likely to do something she believes she should not be doing.

It is certainly not about roofies. It predates that as a predominant thought. (I do too.)

It is not about rape by any legal definition, even the stricter legal definitions now.

But the woman is repeatedly being pressured into a situation she says she does not want to be in. I don't know how anyone can read those lyrics and see anything else. Part of her may want it to happen. But she knows it should not and she has said so. Why is that not end of story?

I would hope everyone can we see we have a societal problem of men thinking they know what a woman is thinking to the point of "No, what you mean to say is ..." is almost a trope. Encouraging men to think that women really mean that they want sex when they say no is an invitation to more rapes. It has to. I have to believe that anyone who doesn't see that is living in a delusional world.

We have the opportunity to write about worlds where men only push back when women want that push back. That can be wonderful. Sometimes we may write something darker for many reasons. I wrote an assault scene early in my first series. It was a hard scene to deal with (and those were not tears of joy when I wrote that). But it was a reality I wanted to confront. (It was notably punished in the ratings, but I don't care. It was the right thing to write.)

I will take a deep breath and try harder to stay away. I am sorry to those who see this differently. I just cannot read those lyrics and see any other interpretation.

The words don't exist in a vacuum. How they are delivered is just as important as what the base words are and what they mean.

"No, I can't," can be said with disdain, with a laugh, with a moan, with insistence, and many tones of voice. Add in body language and the meaning of a phrase can mean a myriad of things. As a writer, you should know this.

Words are important, no doubt, but so is intent and delivery.

I have this issue where when I'm nervous or uncomfortable, I laugh. It's a defense mechanism that has gotten me into trouble with people thinking I'm being playful when I'm really looking for the nearest exit. When I laugh while pushing the guy away in that situation my face contorts with obvious discomfort. I'm expressing two no's and a maybe unintentionally. But I'm showing more discomfort than interest. It all works together, no single aspect can be used to determine my intent with delivery of those words.

A lot of people will willfully disregard anything but the positive aspects and play it off like I'm being playful. I've had occasion more than once where a friend intervened because he could read me and got me out of there.

The same is true the opposite way. Laughing with a sigh and eye roll, then smiling as I say, "No, I can't." Gives a different interpretation of my reaction to the situation.

There are many words that could look extremely bad taken out of context of delivery and that is important to remember.

When people say they don't see the rapey intent of the song, they are saying they've never heard it performed in any way but a lighthearted and flirty/playful way between two people who want to be together, but maybe society, or just their families, would have a problem with it.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It's no different than political correctness or any other effort to treat people with dignity.

It started out as a sincere effort, then people who oppose it or think it's stupid co-opted it to mean absolutely nothing by applying it to everything and everyone they hate.

Thinking that the song is kind of rapey to current morals is society changing and ideas of acceptable/appropriate behavior have shifted.

If you like it, enjoy it. However other people do not like it and they have the right to speak their mind. Don't like what they say, leave the spaces where they are speaking.

This perfectly encapsulates the problem with woke thinking.
It's just an attempt to "treat people with dignity" yet it's done by policing people's speech.
So it's perfectly acceptable for you to object to what other people say.

But when it comes your speech, if we don't like it we have to leave the spaces where you are speaking.

Why doesn't that apply both ways? Why is it never the side of view that favors woke to leave the spaces where other people are speaking?

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

NO 'W' Word!!!!!

Using it completely eliminates all credibility.

 

[iwatchus]

It's worth noting that you say, "when I read those words".
You lose the tone, the inflection and so much of the nuance when we go from thr spoken word to the written.

There was a great bit in an old sitcom where two of the characters finally get together after a bunch of "will they or won't they."
They start kissing passionately and the FMC says," No........Don't.......Stop....."
The MMC pulls away and apologizes.
The FMC response is, "what are you doing, I said don't stop!"

Well I didn't manage to stay away long. Oh well.

I am looking at the words because people misread intonations in speech all the time. It leads to many problems. Listen to the intonations in the start of clock work orange. Does that make Alex's actions okay? Yes I know actions are different than words, but I hope you get my point.

As I said originally, the version of the song most popes hear is the Dean Martin one, which is very playful. Playful exchanges like this between people who know each other well are wonderful. All of my fears are for people who take no means yes as a given when they want it to. "She is just being playful." I can;t believe anyone here doesn't understand these situations are rampant. And always have been. And that anything that portrays this playfulness has a risk. I hate to cut off a valid part of people's play; play is important and healthy.

Someone had complained about Wokeness banning speech, although through social pressure rather than governmental censorship to touch on another thread I eventually abandoned. I think society always discourages some speech and always because it models behavior those in power don't want. Do you want to surprise speech about the reality of people being trans and healthy, as was done twenty years ago? Or that people who are gay exist and can be happy as was the norm forty years ago? Or that people of other races are actually people, as was done sixty years ago? Or would you rather discourage speech that will increase the occurrence of rape, as is being discussed here. If you choose any of the other three I have a real problem.

 

[iwatchus]

The song was also performed in reverse, with the woman, whose name escapes me, pressuring the man (Red Skelton, I believe) to stay because, "Baby, it's cold outside." Does that make it more or less acceptable in today's world?

My point being, it's a product of its time, not ours.

The famous one is Dean Martin. And that is part of my time. He recorded that in my formative years. I agree that it would be unlikely to be recorded quite that way now.

I hope that the "ours" in your statement was those of us in the forum. I am not the oldest one here, so several of us may view this differently.

Its time was the first time where women could be reflected as having sexual interests (which was beyond good, IMO). But the times had not really learned to deal with some of the implications of the sexual freedom the sixties brought.

 

[iwatchus]

One ironic note on this. And maybe one that has influenced my position right now. I went back to writing my current WIP, a romance between the MC, a 32 yr old divorced woman who is starting to date, being pestered by a notorious local man, famed for his bag, tag and release approach to women. But is also handsome and charming, so she finally accepted a date with him. Here is the section I wrote almost immediately after my post a while ago. Sorry, this is completely unedited, just as it flowed out of my fingers.

Xavier picks me up at ten of and I do give him a quick kiss before getting in the car. Dinner itself is wonderful and the conversation is good. I am having a good time. Over dessert, he starts with the innuendo. A little too heavy. I think my discomfort with him is beating down my desire for sex. And his pushing is starting to make me very uncomfortable.

He senses my discomfort. “Come on Olivia, we both know how we both want tonight to end. Just relax and enjoy.”

“Do not assume you know what I am thinking! And I don’t know what you are thinking. Do you care about any of the women you sleep with?”

“I care about you.“

“But you haven’t got me in bed yet. I certainly don’t think you truly care about any of those lonely women you take pictures of and use your condoms up on.”

He is silent now.

“You seemed to say you didn’t care about all those friends who you don’t have to bother to date. The ones who’ll happily jump in your bed when you call. Did you ever care about any of them? Did you care about Elaine Horning?”

“Who?”

“And that is my point in three letters. I’m not going to be another notch in your totem pole, Xavier. Have a good evening. Thank you. The dinner was wonderful. I will get myself home.”


I walk out of restaurant with him sitting there in stunned silence. I cannot believe I just used Cheryl’s nonsensical line on him. I walk across the parking lot to the Hardee’s. I don’t want to be standing in the parking lot if he comes out.

The concept of this dinner has been planned out for a few days. Certainly, some of the specifics of the dialogue were influenced by this thread.

 

[SimonDoom]

Using “woke” how you did is most definitely a shibboleth. No two ways about it.

Again, so what? You use the word like it's a showstopper. I don't see how it is.

Now that’s putting words in my mouth. When did I say anything about purging the past

I didn't say you did. But many people do. That comment wasn't targeted specifically at you.

Then who needs nostalgia when we are bringing back the good old days of high infant mortality and science being equated with witchcraft?

This is what one calls "false equivalence."

 

[MissEmmEss]

This song was originally written by a husband and wife for their housewarming party, to tell people to leave in a humourous way. It is very much about two people who both want to stay, but context is everything.

Honestly, I'm more upset by "Santa Baby" and that spoiled gold digger XD

 

[EmilyMiller]

Again, so what? You use the word like it's a showstopper. I don't see how it is.

Words in mouth again, Simon. I said it was a shibboleth, and it is.

I didn't say you did. But many people do. That comment wasn't targeted specifically at you.

OK

This is what one calls "false equivalence."

Nope, just social commentary.

 

[SimonDoom]

Words in mouth again, Simon. I said it was a shibboleth, and it is.

The word has several meanings, according to Merrriam-Webster, including "a word or saying used by adherents of a party, sect, or belief and usually regarded by others as empty of real meaning" and "a custom or usage regarded as distinguishing one group from others."

If you're using it in the latter sense, I don't care, and if you're using it in the former sense, I don't agree. I think it's obvious that "woke" IS a meaningful term to describe a set of views, attitudes, concepts, and rhetorical strategies.

 

[EmilyMiller]

The word has several meanings, according to Merrriam-Webster, including "a word or saying used by adherents of a party, sect, or belief and usually regarded by others as empty of real meaning" and "a custom or usage regarded as distinguishing one group from others."

Second meaning.

If you're using it in the latter sense, I don't care, and if you're using it in the former sense, I don't agree. I think it's obvious that "woke" IS a meaningful term to describe a set of views, attitudes, concepts, and rhetorical strategies.

Using woke as a pejorative is the very essence of a shibboleth. I’m unclear why this is problematic to you.

 

[SimonDoom]

NO 'W' Word!!!!!

Using it completely eliminates all credibility.

In your mind. I don't agree with this.

I think it's obvious that "woke" is a real thing, and a characteristic of wokeness is the various rhetorical strategies it employs, which include:

1. Woke doesn't exist and if you use it you lose credibility. No, I don't agree with that. I think it does exist and we should just be upfront about what we believe.

2. You're a man and you have no right to speak on that subject. No, I don't agree that one's identity has any bearing on one's qualification to give an opinion on a subject.

3. You don't know what you're talking about. In fact, most of us are in no position to opine on what we all know. Better just to respond to the substance of what the other person says.

4. You're expressing an opinion in bad faith. Again, we don't know what's in other people's hearts and we shouldn't guess.


It's an unusual conversation with somebody with "woke" views that one or more of these tactics doesn't come up. They've arisen several times in this thread, including when Emily used the word "shibboleth" in response to me, or in this insistence on not using the word.

The funny thing about the denial of wokeness is that woke people invented and started using the term, just as politically correct people invented the term politically correct before it became a term of mockery by the right. I remember in the 1980s when some of my contemporaries would wear "politically correct" buttons in all sincerity.

 

[SimonDoom]

Using woke as a pejorative is the very essence of a shibboleth. I’m unclear why this is problematic to you.

It's not a pejorative. I use it as a term that I think accurately describes a set of views and attitudes I disagree with.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

The 'W' word used in that context may be the single-most offensive term in any language today and it should be banned wholesale from forums. But there are all sorts of other uses for it so ....


Well, that and the 'K' word.


Both emerged recently from a certain faction as expressions of hate and intolerance.

 

[SimonDoom]

The 'W' word used in that context may be the single-most offensive term in any language today and it should be banned wholesale from forums. But there are all sorts of other uses for it so ....


Well, that and the 'K' word.


Both emerged recently from a certain faction as expressions of hate and intolerance.

I don't agree, but out of a wish not to see this thread get derailed by politics, I'll stop using the term here.

 

[EmilyMiller]

It's not a pejorative. I use it as a term that I think accurately describes a set of views and attitudes I disagree with.

No. You use it - Humpty Dumpty-like - to mean what you want it to mean. The shibboleth element is relevant as you are taking common cause with a group whose other views - I at least hope - you disagree with.

Woke as you are using it as a straw-man battle cry. For the people who yell it, they mean “the other.” That’s what you are buying into. Do you want to die on the same hill as those who use it in the same way?

Words are important, as I’ve said many times before.

 

[PennyThompson]

I don't have a strong opinion on most of this, and I think it can only be an endlessly cyclical argument, but I'm really curious about this one:

I don't agree that one's identity has any bearing on one's qualification to give an opinion on a subject.

I genuinely want to know more about this, because I'm struggling to square it with the world around me.

Wouldn't being old have a bearing on the qualification of one's opinion on aging? Wouldn't being pregnant have a bearing on the qualification of one's opinion on childbirth? Being wheelchair bound and the Americans with Disabilities Act? Serving in the military and going to war?

Surely there are endless examples of where one part of a person's identity might give them more experience (and more personal stake) in a given subject? I'm so confused that I feel like I might be missing part of your point

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

^^ Or being an author on Lit have some bearing on writing stories for Lit?

 

[SimonDoom]

No. You use it - Humpty Dumpty-like - to mean what you want it to mean. The shibboleth element is relevant as you are taking common cause with a group whose other views - I at least hope - you disagree with.

Woke as you are using it as a straw-man battle cry. For the people who yell it, they mean “the other.” That’s what you are buying into. Do you want to die on the same hill as those who use it in the same way?

Words are important, as I’ve said many times before.

Emily, this is w-ness. This is how W people speak to other people. Stop accusing me of bad faith and bad tactics. That's a classic W strategy. I stand by my use of the term as a useful way to describe a set of beliefs, concepts, attitudes, and, pertinent to this discussion, rhetorical strategies. I think the direction this thread has taken in response to what I said perfectly illustrates my point. I'm not taking common cause with anyone -- and, by the way, suggesting that I am is yet ANOTHER W rhetorical strategy. For purposes of this discussion, the aspect of W I take issue with is its intolerance, its desire to purge and cancel, and the overweening, and I think precious and silly, compulsion to nit pick cultural expression of the past that doesn't square perfectly with contemporary attitudes.

A good example: in the last five years or so I've noticed the rise of click-baity social media articles along the lines of "10 Movies that wouldn't get made today," "10 books that wouldn't get written today," and "10 Songs that wouldn't be composed today." I find it grating and ridiculous, and harmful too, because it reinforces and normalizes a societal attitude of wanting to purge and cancel, which I think is deplorable.

We can disagree. That's fine. I don't want to derail this thread with an unhelpful discussion of the W word. I'm fine with letting the subject go.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I don't have a strong opinion on most of this, and I think it can only be an endlessly cyclical argument, but I'm really curious about this one:

I genuinely want to know more about this, because I'm struggling to square it with the world around me.

Wouldn't being old have a bearing on one's opinion on aging? Wouldn't being pregnant have a bearing on one's opinion on childbirth? Being wheelchair bound and one's opinion on the Americans with Disabilities Act? Serving in the military and one's opinion on going to war?

Surely there are endless examples of where one part of a person's identity might give them more experience (and more personal stake) in a given subject? I'm so confused that I feel like I might be missing part of your point

You are right to an extent, but experiencing something firsthand and having a stake in it can make one biased, just as well.

For what it's worth, I do agree that @SimonDoom should drop this topic. But not because he's wrong, or because he's right. The truth is that most people who end up discussing, well, more like arguing on the topic of woke, PC, and such, are usually firmly entrenched on one or the other side of the argument.

In all my time here, I haven't seen a true attempt at a cool-headed discussion on these topics, nor the willingness to actually consider the arguments of the other side. Simon is usually a guy who tries to consider the arguments that the opposing side brings to the table, but for the reasons explained above, I don't think this will go anywhere.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I don't have a strong opinion on most of this, and I think it can only be an endlessly cyclical argument, but I'm really curious about this one:

I genuinely want to know more about this, because I'm struggling to square it with the world around me.

Wouldn't being old have a bearing on the qualification of one's opinion on aging? Wouldn't being pregnant have a bearing on the qualification of one's opinion on childbirth? Being wheelchair bound and the Americans with Disabilities Act? Serving in the military and going to war?

Surely there are endless examples of where one part of a person's identity might give them more experience (and more personal stake) in a given subject? I'm so confused that I feel like I might be missing part of your point

I think we need to distinguish between perspective and opinion.

One common distinction is that perspective encompasses the broader viewpoint or understanding one has based on experiences, situation, and knowledge, while an opinion is a personal belief or judgment about a specific matter.

In the examples that you cited in your comment, are they factors that would influence a person's perspective or their opinion? Since most are things that relate more to the person's experience, knowledge, or situation, rather than their beliefs, I would categorize them as perspectives.

If you disagree, I respect that.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Emily, this is w-ness. This is how W people speak to other people. Stop accusing me of bad faith and bad tactics. That's a classic W strategy. I stand by my use of the term as a useful way to describe a set of beliefs, concepts, attitudes, and, pertinent to this discussion, rhetorical strategies. I think the direction this thread has taken in response to what I said perfectly illustrates my point. I'm not taking common cause with anyone -- and, by the way, suggesting that I am is yet ANOTHER W rhetorical strategy. For purposes of this discussion, the aspect of W I take issue with is its intolerance, its desire to purge and cancel, and the overweening, and I think precious and silly, compulsion to nit pick cultural expression of the past that doesn't square perfectly with contemporary attitudes.

A good example: in the last five years or so I've noticed the rise of click-baity social media articles along the lines of "10 Movies that wouldn't get made today," "10 books that wouldn't get written today," and "10 Songs that wouldn't be composed today." I find it grating and ridiculous, and harmful too, because it reinforces and normalizes a societal attitude of wanting to purge and cancel, which I think is deplorable.

We can disagree. That's fine. I don't want to derail this thread with an unhelpful discussion of the W word. I'm fine with letting the subject go.

I don’t think you really understand what it’s like to be on the receiving end of loathsome vitriol from the anti-woke brigade.

Maybe if you had to suffer one tenth of what I’ve seen trans people subjected to in the name of anti-wokeness. Maybe if you had to suffer one tenth of what I’ve seen POC subjected to in the name of anti-wokeness. Maybe if you had to suffer one tenth of what women are subjected to in the name of anti-wokeness.

If you had to suffer any of that, you might think twice about co-opting the battle cry of the Uruk-Hai tendency.

This is not a nice debating point, it’s about using the same cudgel that others use to batter anyone they dislike. You don’t have to believe me, you’re lucky you’ve never had to deal with that shit. Do what you want, but at least you are now informed.

 

[PennyThompson]

I think we need to distinguish between perspective and opinion.

One common distinction is that perspective encompasses the broader viewpoint or understanding one has based on experiences, situation, and knowledge, while an opinion is a personal belief or judgment about a specific matter.

In the examples that you cited in your comment, are they factors that would influence a person's perspective or their opinion? Since most are things that relate more to the person's experience, knowledge, or situation, rather than their beliefs, I would categorize them as perspectives.

If you disagree, I respect that.

Hmm. So you're saying that identity can have a bearing on how credible a perspective is, but not on how credible an opinion is?

If one part of your identity is, like, 20 years of experience as a diesel mechanic, does that make your opinion on emissions or engine efficiency standards more credible than someone who knows absolutely nothing about how cars work?

I still think I'm missing something.

 

[AG31]

It’s bizarre (but not exactly surprising) to have a man so confidently tell a woman how her gender behaves. I can’t really see why you would think that was OK. You don’t know about all women any more than you know about me. What you know about is what you think women think. Not what they actually think.

Sort of like a lesbian making declarations about how straight women think and feel? Please be assured, I think it's fine for lesbians to have opinions about what straight women think and feel. But I also think it's fine for men to have opinions about shat women, in general, think and feel.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Well I didn't manage to stay away long. Oh well.

I am looking at the words because people misread intonations in speech all the time. It leads to many problems. Listen to the intonations in the start of clock work orange. Does that make Alex's actions okay? Yes I know actions are different than words, but I hope you get my point.

As I said originally, the version of the song most popes hear is the Dean Martin one, which is very playful. Playful exchanges like this between people who know each other well are wonderful. All of my fears are for people who take no means yes as a given when they want it to. "She is just being playful." I can;t believe anyone here doesn't understand these situations are rampant. And always have been. And that anything that portrays this playfulness has a risk. I hate to cut off a valid part of people's play; play is important and healthy.

Someone had complained about Wokeness banning speech, although through social pressure rather than governmental censorship to touch on another thread I eventually abandoned. I think society always discourages some speech and always because it models behavior those in power don't want. Do you want to surprise speech about the reality of people being trans and healthy, as was done twenty years ago? Or that people who are gay exist and can be happy as was the norm forty years ago? Or that people of other races are actually people, as was done sixty years ago? Or would you rather discourage speech that will increase the occurrence of rape, as is being discussed here. If you choose any of the other three I have a real problem.

What's the evidence that a song like this will increase the occurrence of rape?

There have been multiple discussions in the AH where people will vehemently argue that none of their stories will lead anyone to do anything. And those stories are far more direct and graphic than Baby it's Cold Outside. But somehow it is a gateway to rape?