Baby, That's Cold (analysis of subtext)

Apparently, a Cleaveland radio station made international news for deciding not to play "Baby, It's Cold Outside," citing the #MeToo movement. If it triggers bad memories, then change the station, but is it a rape song?

Historical questions to ask:  Would the 1940s era radio knowingly play a rape song? Would the FCC have allowed it?

Read the ending before debating. They both agree about the outcome. Both sing together, "Baby, it's cold." If they agree, the implied statement is that the wooed will stay. He has accepted her argument.

The song is a standard that switches things up. In the above video, the genders are flipped, changing who is wooing whom. However, this wouldn't alter whether the song is about rape.

Think of the song as a negotiation, as a sales pitch. It isn't necessarily a sexual pitch although that seems likely, especially given that the temperature won't get warmer until the morning. But a night of all kissing or touching might be all that is on the agenda.

Let's analyze the lyrics:

"I really can't stay... 

I simply must go

"Really" and "simply" suggests that the speaker is contemplating staying but is telling himself and the wooer he should go. "Simply" is doubly intriguing as it suggests it should be easy for him to choose to go, but it isn't.

Both admit they've had a good time up to this point:

This evening has been

(Been hoping that you'd drop in) 

So very nice
(I'll hold your hands, they're just like ice)

You've really been grand...

Note the touch. They apparently are in a touching relationship. He accepts her invitation, which is how she is able to pronounce the hands cold.

He refers to this touch later, where "warm" is both literal and figurative ("nice" indicates he likes her physical and personal warmth):

Your welcome has been... 

So nice and warm

In fact, their touch progresses to the lips. Note the change in her dialogue, she must have confirmed her suspicions with a kiss (it could be a non-consensual kiss; however, there are no complaints about the kiss, and he does end up staying):

(Gosh your lips look delicious)... 

(ooh your lips are delicious)

He doesn't say that he has to do something, or be somewhere, or doesn't want to be with the wooer, only that his family and others might have a problem with his sticking around, not to mention the gossip of neighbors. In other words, it isn't he who has a problem being there but others (or at least he says so):

My mother will start worry... 

My father will be pacing the floor... 

The neighbors might think...

My sister will be suspicious... 

My brother will be there at the door... 

My maiden aunt's mind is vicious... 

There's bound to be talk tomorrow... 

At least there will be plenty implied

Now there are a few problematic lines:

The answer is no

This seems to be definitive, but he's been showing doubt all along. There's also the next set of lines:

But maybe just a half a drink more
(Put some records on while I pour) 

Say what's in this drink

Now that last line sounds like the date-rape drug; however, what would be implied in the 1940s would be alcohol, something to lower his inhibitions. He did ask for the drink. His asking for more says they have already been drinking. Had they not been drinking alcohol before? Was he wanting alcohol? Was he wanting his inhibitions lowered, wanting to be convinced? Was there more alcohol than he expected? The song doesn't say or imply.

However, he does admit that he wants to stick around a little longer, making excuses to stay. Here he is again, making excuses to stick around:

But maybe just a cigarette more

He is hopelessly attracted to her:

I wish I knew how... 

To break this spell

She asks for permission:

(Mind if I move in closer)

He admits that he's going to stay and come up with some excuse to tell the family and gossipers:

At least I'm gonna say that I tried

To make this song about rape ignores a lot of subtext. There is one line that's problematic, but the others put it into a different context. The ending says it all.

ETA: Here is another, earlier article that I just read that says similar things with less analysis but more historical context.