Susaga

joined 1 year ago
[–] Susaga -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Jesus fuck, this is some bad faith. I was ignoring nothing. I was asleep. You waited 7 hours to reply to me, and you couldn't let me sleep for 5 without me "ignoring what you don’t want to hear". Waking up and seeing three extremely long comments that amount to re-explaining the historical context of the song while not actually addressing how the song is about pressuring someone into staying over didn't really seem worthy of reply.

Plus, the idea that you copied someone else's comment as spam just makes it worse.

If you're allowed to use "it's an old song" as your argument, then I'm allowed to use the first presentation of the song to the public as mine. And since the presentation of the song has ALWAYS been one person pressuring another into staying over despite their protests, it's always been rapey.

The only real defence in pointing out historical context is to say that a rapey song was not unacceptable for the time period. So what?

The song is a problem for people who don't want to hear someone pressuring someone into illicit relationships. It's not "willfully ignorant", and your idea that someone not liking something is just because they don't understand it is DEEPLY troubling.

If it's okay to be bothered by the song, as you directly state, then why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

[–] Susaga -2 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

You provided historical context while not actually addressing the contents of the song. There's really nothing to respond to. Plus, I can't have been ignoring anything since I was asleep. There is no point in spamming this.

[–] Susaga 3 points 2 weeks ago

I admit, I would have brushed it off as just a bit weird if it weren't for the memory of the guy who kept posting about gut stabs. But seeing the comment where they describe the stomach as a soft and vulnerable area rang such a specific bell that I couldn't ignore it.

Plus, they asked this question in two question subs (deleting one of them), and they only seem to want to know the general opinion on justified self-defence. If they aren't a troll, their motives are bizzare.

[–] Susaga 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, pretty much. Look at how often the word "belly" comes up, especially combined with being described as soft and vulnerable. Then ask yourself why half the post was a vivid description of the stab, but there wasn't ANY description of the scene of the incident.

[–] Susaga -4 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

...No she fucking isn't. She never says she wants to stay.

I simply must go (Baby, it's cold outside)
The answer is, "No" (But, baby, it's cold outside)

She says no. He ignores her. I don't give a fuck what was intended, I only care about what was said. What was said was a violation of consent. If you want the intent to reflect in the song to a modern ear (which are the only ears we have) then change the lyrics.

[–] Susaga 18 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

You spent a strangely long amount of time just describing the stab, especially considering the 4 word sentence establishing the scene. Makes me think this is just an excuse to write about someone getting stabbed in the stomach.

Also, I remember someone on here who was also oddly fixated on gut stabs. Like, it came up a lot, and often seemed like a forced way to talk about gut stabs. I figured it was either an excuse for being bad at fencing, or it was a sex thing. I initially assumed it was the same guy who wrote this.

[–] Susaga -3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (11 children)

I understand that the film was not problematic for the time period, and it was seen as romantic. I also understand that the fact it was not seen as a problem was a fucking problem. And I understand that the only way to overcome a problem is to acknowledge that there is one. Hindsight is a fucking benefit, and with the benefit of hindsight, that song is pretty fucking rapey.

Once again, the song was played TWICE in the movie, and the second one was sung with a man being convinced to stay. It was not about reputation. It was about not wanting to be there.

Why are you so insistent that the woman saying no actually wanted it?

[–] Susaga -5 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

And the version where they tried to tone down the rapey elements was in 2019, shortly after the #MeToo movement. We are also having this conversation today, and not in 1949.

If you're saying the standards of the time make it acceptable, I say that reflects really badly on the standards of the time. By the standards of the time, black people had fewer rights than white men. I hope to fuck we can improve upon the standards of the 1940s.

[–] Susaga 7 points 2 weeks ago

I didn't know that. Looked it up. It was only publicly released around the film, and only sung at parties before that. Also, he sold the song without his wife's consent and it almost ended their marriage.

[–] Susaga 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I didn't know that. So I looked it up, and it seems the intent of the song is to tell their guests to leave. Also, he sold the song without his wife's consent, and it almost ended their marriage.

view more: ‹ prev next ›