To start, here is one of the breakdowns of the song I really enjoyed reading:
In
short, some of the lines we think of today as suspiciously rapey are
actually common colloquialisms (read the part about the drink in
particular), not literal; and ultimately this is a song about a woman
who wants to stay, but the status quo is against it. She is on a date
with a guy helping her come up with excuses to actually do what she
wants to do rather than what society expects her to do (and incidentally
something he wants, too ;).
This
whole angle is, for me, supported by the fact it was written by a husband and wife music team who, as a matter of tradition in
their home, every Christmas party would sing a song to perform as a
duet for their friends. This was one of those songs (their first, by some accounts), originally
performed in their very own living room. And while misogyny was rampant
throughout the ages, I had a hard time imagining a husband and wife
writing a song about coercive sex/rape for a light Christmas
gathering...but...
While
I love that breakdown, on a friend's discussion thread about this song,
it is pointed out that the song does not have a "male" and "female"
part on the original sheet music. They are characters called the "wolf"
and the "mouse"--in short, a clear case of unequal power between a
predator and prey, right? But while this fact might keep me off-balance
on how to feel about whether this is a song about male dominance over a
weakling woman, I discovered that the first time this song was used in a
movie, it was performed twice in the film: once with a man playing the
lion and a woman playing the mouse, and the other was a woman in the
lion role and a man as the mouse.
Which
lead ME to conclude that this is about one lover (or hopeful lover)
simply trying every angle to get their intended to stick around longer
because they desire them. And I conclude for myself that pretty much
everyone I know has tried at least a few lines on at least one occasion
to try and convince a paramour to stay a little longer by offering any
available excuse. I wasn't being "rapey" when I tried to get my
husband-then-boyfriend to stay the night when he had to work the next
day by telling him it was icy out and warm in here, or I could give him a
ride in the morning, or many other ways I tried to knock down his
potential excuses so he would stay (which he and I both knew he wanted
to do, despite his protestations of trying to be "responsible" )
So
while I think there is one lingering manipulation I do not condone
("What's the sense in hurting my pride?" crosses the line for me into
pretty overtly-dickish), after all the research and soul-searching I am
in the "not rapey" camp on this one and enjoy the song immensely.
TL;DR Not rapey to me. Do your own research and let me know what you think.
As a reward, here is the ORIGINAL original. Well, nearly. It is Frank and Lynn Loesser, the two who first wrote and sang this song; with the original lyrics, which are a little different than we may be familiar with today, plus with a little banter!
As a reward, here is the ORIGINAL original. Well, nearly. It is Frank and Lynn Loesser, the two who first wrote and sang this song; with the original lyrics, which are a little different than we may be familiar with today, plus with a little banter!
And I love this Louis Armstrong and Velma Middleton version, full of improv and mirth.
