Christmas FM to pull 'Baby it's Cold Outside'

Deleted User wrote: »

Retards will be Retards

Can't say that anymore-it's insulting to those with mental disabilities...
It's crazy... (cue the thought police).

There was discussion of this on Ivan and Matt's show (but Anton Savage standing in for Ivan)...and, well...it went stupid pretty quickly. (They played a clip where Tom Jones and Cerys Mathews did a cover of the song). Their bias showed immediately-that video has a 'magic drink' where suddenly good girl Cerys goes 'bad'-and if you see how the video plays out, essentially she's made Tom her 'sex slave'. But they only play 'magic drink' bit/



First, the 'lady dj' comes out and 'ignore the analysis on the internet refuting this, because the person who wrote it was a man, Women end up in that situation more than men do and don't understand it's meaning''...yet they didn't mention that in the film from which the song was used gender reversed halfway through the song.
Niall Boylan was on to refute the allegations-and referring to the clip, referred to it as a 'magic drink' to make her fall in love with him-but then the lady DJ goes crazy about how 'creepy' that is.

Kevin Sharkey was there-he made an interesting point about how 'if you take out all these things in history, suddenly you're trying to erase history'. Books often have horrible incidents in them that are treated as everyday-but you take that out, suddenly you're removing history-and books are often historical, showing history and events that historians might ignore.

Songs are the same-some of the 'prettiest' songs are actually ugly as hell-
Gilbert O'Sullivan's 'Alone Again, Naturally' is a suicide letter, for gawd's sake.

The feminist video posted a few pages back seems to have an issue with all Christmas songs (in their own words). If that is where this started, how on earth did it get legs (how did it anyway)?

LON will be going mad this is finally getting some attention when she's off on sabbatical or wherever she is.

PhiloCypher wrote: »

I always just read it as a flirty song. There's far worse out there . Neill Diamond beloved of grannies everywhere came up with an actual paedo anthem by today's standards in "Girl you'll be a woman soon" whose lyrics include :

"Don't you know, girl, you'll be a woman soon
Please, come take my hand
Girl, you'll be a woman soon
Soon, you'll need a man"

I know it was a more permissive era , but Still, that's creepy as **** .

Wasn't this just about a person (of no discernible age) loosing their virginity?

(I mean making it about pedophilia is doing the same as those opposed to Baby its cold outside, and construing the worst possible meaning. Is it not?)

Zulu wrote: »

So put-up or shut-up!



Counter my offer, donate to the charity!


Or are you just all talk?

All talk. I couldn't give a shít really. A spotify playlist is 100 times better than Christmas FM

Cienciano wrote: »

All talk. I couldn't give a shít really. A spotify playlist is 100 times better than Christmas FM

Boooooo-urns.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That said the line where the lass sings 'say what's in this drink?' bangs of Hot Cosby, as South Park would put it.

"Say, what's in this drink?' is just as archaic a saying as "ain’t that a bite" or calling someone "daddy-o".

It means nothing in today's context.

Relikk wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's just from another era.

That said the line where the lass sings 'say what's in this drink?' bangs of Hot Cosby, as South Park would put it.

You acknowledge that the song is from another era, yet you still insist on taking the quoted line out of its era's real meaning and context, and twist it for today's agendas. You're a part of the problem.

Well the song is from another era. And maybe getting someone drunk to help you get the leg over was fine back then. But it's a bit off colour now. Can't you see that?

I presume it means he made her a strong gin and tonic that's more gin than tonic, as an example.

Like I said, it bangs of Hot Cosby.

PhiloCypher wrote: »

I always just read it as a flirty song. There's far worse out there . Neill Diamond beloved of grannies everywhere came up with an actual paedo anthem by today's standards in "Girl you'll be a woman soon" whose lyrics include :

"Don't you know, girl, you'll be a woman soon
Please, come take my hand
Girl, you'll be a woman soon
Soon, you'll need a man"

I know it was a more permissive era , but Still, that's creepy as **** .

Far worse out there than that.

Bruce Springsteen - I'm on fire
The Rolling Stones - Brown Sugar
The Kinks - Art Lover
The Knack - My Sharona
The Police - Don't stand so close to me




And on... and on... and on...

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well the song is from another era. And maybe getting someone drunk to help you get the leg over was fine back then. But it's a bit off colour now. Can't you see that?

I presume it means he made her a strong gin and tonic that's more gin than tonic, as an example.

Like I said, it bangs of Hot Cosby.

I'm afraid you're completely wrong. But I think you know this and are just arguing the point.

"What's in this drink" as a phrase was used an excuse for behaviour that was unexplainable and out of character, by the person themselves. If someone was acting this way and recognising it in themselves, they would be looking to blame an outside influence - hence, mentioning the drink.

Here's a good explanation of the phrase, this was from 2010 about the same song:

The phrase generally referred to someone saying or doing something they thought they wouldn’t in normal circumstances; it’s a nod to the idea that alcohol is “making” them do something unusual. But the joke is almost always that there is nothing in the drink. The drink is the excuse. The drink is the shield someone gets to hold up in front of them to protect from criticism. And it’s not just used in these sort of romantic situations. I’ve heard it in many investigation type scenes where the stoolpigeon character is giving up bits of information they’re supposed to be protecting, in screwball comedies where someone is making a fool of themselves, and, yes, in romantic movies where someone is experiencing feelings they are not supposed to have.

http://persephonemagazine.com/2010/12/listening-while-feminist-in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside/

The world really is becoming such a boring place, can't say a word without offending some touchy ballbag these days. Fcuk people like this absolute sad weirdos, people are damn right to fight back against this marxist crap. It's not a trivial issue, it's the entire context of what is happening today, culture and history is being trampled on by these scumbags maggots and cheap lousy ******s.

Grab All Association wrote: »

What’s in this drink? In my day (and I’m a 1980s baby) that referred to the way you mixed it. Pretty sure drugs like Flunitrazepam, Flurazepam, Diazepam and other benzodiazepines didn’t exist in 1949. Majority of these drugs were actually developed in the 1960s or later. That’s not to say there wasn’t other drugs at the time that could but these wouldn’t have been widely available.

Let’s just all agree that everyone born after 1995 is incredibly stupid with their dumbed down leaving certs. We’re all ****ed expecting these people to pay for our pensions/medical cards in the future.

Yeah, the argument on Matt and Ivan (but it was Anton instead) was 'it meant that then, but it doesn't mean that now'...at least according to the dour feminists whose faces would sour milk at the thought of men being flirty.
Like, I never heard anything as foolish (and the show showed it was skewed already-when they showed that clip alone). They also said 'what is acceptable in the 40s isn't acceptable now' or something-but the clip they showed was from 1999.

And there are more recent covers with people like Lady Gaga (who herself is a rape survivor).

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The best idea ever regarding a Christmas song was Ronan Keating doing a cover of 'Fairy tale of New York'.

Surpassed the original...only Ed Sheeran came close too...:rolleyes:

Suckit wrote: »

Isn't that part of the attraction to old songs? That times were more innocent etc.?


I'm more confused as to how a small minority of idiots (probably 100 worldwide - I would guess and hope), were able to make such a loud noise that the bigger idiots listened to them and thought what they were saying made sense, and repeated it on twitter etc.
They would do the world a bigger favour by not repeating things that they haven't thought about first, and maybe stop listening to people with so much time to themselves that they come out with this rubbish.

It’s like saying trolling is wrong and young fat people in the 1940s were trolled on Twitter.

Twitter is something that didn’t exist until 2006 and neither did obesity among teenagers.

Date rape didn’t really exist back then either.

Grab All Association wrote: »

It’s like saying trolling is wrong and young fat people in the 1940s were trolled on Twitter.

Twitter is something that didn’t exist until 2006 and neither did obesity among teenagers.

Date rape didn’t really exist back then either.

I don't know if this is honest or sarcastic, especially the last two sentences...

Grab All Association wrote: »

So the guy in the song actually did roofie her by getting in his time machine and going into to the future to acquire the drugs capable of this that were only developed in the late 1960s?

Are you saying everyone was plus sized in the 1940s?

Rape existed obviously but the drugs used in date rape most certainly didn’t in that era.

Well, date rape's been around for quite some time-remember a man could rape his wife and not face criminal charges until relatively recently.

Date rape was a similar thing-it doesn't, and still doesn't, require roofies. (Date rape implies there may have been a relationship-but at the time of the rape, consent wasn't given). If one is severely drunk, and intoxicated, then they may pass out-and thus get date raped.

But that is neither here nor there-and not related to the song.

this world is getting harder to live in!!

Mrsmum wrote: »

For men.

not just men, everyone that has to listen to the rubbish

well able to speak it too

Mrsmum wrote: »

Well then this tiny little matter won't really make life any harder for men if listening to rubbish is a way of life for them already.

given too much free reign now