“Baby it’s Cold Outside”: Consent, Commitment, Sex, and Leftist Prudes

As if we needed any further confirmation that leftists really have no clue about sex, exhibit 343,553,432 is the recent hysteria over the classic song “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” What a sexy song!

Are leftists really so sexually obtuse that they can’t see that the song is about the sexual tension between a man and a woman in the throes of romance? Of course, the guy is trying to seduce her. But here’s the thing: she likes it. She’s playing hard to get. She likes that he wants her and she wants to stay, but is rationalizing why she shouldn’t precisely so he will continue to woo her. That’s part of the game that normal people, and even animals, understand.

Notice that we said that the song was about the sexual tension between a man and a woman. The source of that tension is a sexual morality that forbids intercourse between the unmarried.  That’s what makes the song even sexier: it’s about temptation. Forbidden fruit. Stolen water. Hot, sinful sex by the fireplace. Probably on a fur rug. (And the sexiness of the song doesn’t change when the sexes are reversed. Watch the video above!).

Leftists don’t understand this because they reject that sexual morality (i.e., true sexual morality). The main item that governs sexual ethics for leftists–besides whatever is the latest perversion they want to normalize–is consent (perhaps this is a holdover from when leftists were liberals). And being idiosyncratic in their prudishness, leftists think the source of the sexual tension in the song is a boorish man’s violation of consent! Sad! On this one-dimensional ethical plane, that kind of sexual tension is very, very unsexy. Not only is it unsexy, it is “rapey” (illiterate millennial leftists never learned how to properly unpack their adjectives). Surprisingly, we haven’t heard anyone complaining about how rapey “Santa Baby” is, which is about a woman intending to seduce Santa Claus—a married man—as soon as he comes down the chimney. Given how weak most men are when it comes to resisting sexual temptation, and how expansive the leftists’ definition of “rape” is, we don’t see why, on their view, seductresses wouldn’t be rapists.  Then again, we’re dealing with many who think that blacks can’t be racists.

Though making fun of the silly side of leftism is endless fun on this blog of comical conservatives, let’s end with a bit deeper philosophical reflection on the issue of sex and consent. Talk of consent in politics naturally begins with or turns to Locke. A reasonable interpretation of Locke is that he thought consent was a necessary condition to establish a legitimate sovereign-subject relation. The reason, he thought, that one has not only a pragmatic but also a moral obligation to obey the sovereign is that one has consented to be ruled.  Without such consent coercion from the sovereign would be (to speak anachronistically) “rapey”. Of course people rarely consent explicitly to be ruled by a sovereign, thus Locke appealed to tacit consent. One has consented to be ruled if one has lived in the state and benefited from it in various ways.

Hume, among others, destroyed Locke’s doctrine of tacit consent. We won’t rehearse those arguments here; we mention it just to note that many legitimate acts of governance have little to do with consent.   Perhaps certain practices in some way establish legitimacy over time by their very nature and usage regardless of consent. In certain circles of the conservative world, it’s a platitude that some practices can establish legitimacy without any explicit consent from the parties at all.

Take traditional marriages. Rarely, we suspect, is there much by way of explicit consent to have sex legitimately in the history of marriages. Yet the practice itself makes it known that on the wedding night that’s what is going to happen.  It could be embarrassing even to talk about sex if the couples are virgins, let alone explicitly consenting to have sex (though perhaps in this case entering into the marriage is an act of tacit consent to sex). Then going forward in the marriage it’s pretty much assumed that you don’t have to ask in order to have sex unless the other person is unconscious or otherwise obviously incapable. Social Justice Warriors get it all wrong. The burden is on the person who does not want to have sex to make it clear that she does not. “Not tonight, baby. I’m not feeling well.”

Why do the SJW’s get it wrong? Here’s a stab at an answer: since sexual license is the only controlling norm and there’s nothing wrong, per se, with the “hook-up” culture, they overlook traditions like marriage and the sometimes subtle norms that have been established through centuries of practice. When you can “legitimately” have sex with just about anyone or anything, anytime, anywhere, it could be with total stranger. In which case, since there are no guiding norms, explicit consent is the only game in town.

Sex with a leftist must be so incredibly boring and, well, unsexy, signing their consent forms before, during, and after, and all with no alcohol! No wonder conservatives report having more satisfying sex lives.


A former police officer, AR-15 (or “AR”) knows the difference between an assault rifle and home defense rifle. AR now fights with other weapons and demolishes arguments. He agrees that the pen is mightier than the sword, but he isn’t so stupid to bring a pen to a gunfight.

View All Posts

Federal Philosopher

Federal Philosopher is a philosophy graduate student in New Jersey. She was awakened from her political slumbers after listening to speeches by Margaret Thatcher. She loves philosophy, but thinks the profession has been hijacked by a bunch of leftist bullies who are little more than partisan journalists that happen to know philosophical jargon. She carries a recurve bow and quiver full of arrows at all times, so as not to trigger leftists by saying she packs a .380 in her purse.

View All Posts


  1. A nitpick: “the throws of romance” should be “the throes of romance.” Illiteracy ill becomes one who calls others illiterate. (I’m on your side, by the way.)

  2. Funny article with bite, nice! Also while we’re editing there’s no “E” in Santa’s surname unless you’re referring to the Tim Allen movie vehicles.

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)