Monday, August 07, 2006



Tonight we're going to take a little departure from the usual political fare and talk about something else because things like this really piss me off.
Teens whose iPods are full of music with raunchy, sexual lyrics start having sex sooner than those who prefer other songs, a study found.

Whether it's hip-hop, rap, pop or rock, much of popular music aimed at teens contains sexual overtones. Its influence on their behavior appears to depend on how the sex is portrayed, researchers found.

Songs depicting men as "sex-driven studs," women as sex objects and with explicit references to sex acts are more likely to trigger early sexual behavior than those where sexual references are more veiled and relationships appear more committed, the study found.

Teens who said they listened to lots of music with degrading sexual messages were almost twice as likely to start having intercourse or other sexual activities within the following two years as were teens who listened to little or no sexually degrading music.

Now if you're old enough to remember, this type of shit has been going on for years. It happened in the fifties with Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis. It happened in the sixties with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. I, for one, can vividly remember the PMRC in the 1980s. (I've never been able to forgive Tipper Gore.) And who could forget the trial involving Judas Priest and subliminal messages. And now today we have this.

To suggest that the content of the music is the influence that pushes these kids over the edge and into sexual activity is absolutely ludicrous. Don't believe me? Try this one on for size - What if the most popular song of the day was about lawn care? Would we have an over-abundance of America's youth begging Mom and Dad for a riding lawn mower? NO! Of course not. Music doesn't influence the kids, the kids choose the music. There is just as much music available today that praises Jesus Christ as there is anything else. So why aren't kids choosing that overwhelmingly? Because sex is more interesting.

Elvis didn't cause kids to have sex - kids liked him because he was sexy and they were interested. Judas Priest didn't influence two young teens to kill themselves - they were drunk, high, and depressed and liked dark music like that of Judas Priest. And music about sex doesn't make kids want to get laid any more than they already do. Kids choose to listen to music with sexual references because they are interested in sex.

If the Rand corp. really wants to find something to blame early sexual behavior on, try starting with the parents. If kids are making the choice to have early sexual encounters, it's most likely because of a lack of parental involvement and discussion about sexual behavior. Need proof? Look at the shit their parents are letting them listen to on their iPods.

I'm not in favor of any governmental censorship. Everyone has a right to express themselves in the way they see fit. (That doesn't mean that there won't be any repercussion for that expression, but that's another story.) However, it is the job of the parent to make sure that their son or daughter understands what is and what is not acceptable. We can't shelter our kids from everything, but we can do our best to make sure that they understand what they see and hear and have the ability to place it in its proper context. And it's alright for a parent to tell their kids "no" once in a while. They won't hate you forever. But to gloss over a topic as potentially dangerous as sex and not discuss it with your own child is negligent. How else are they going to learn? Do you really want Snoop Dogg teaching your kid about the birds and the bees? I sure as hell don't.

Sidenote - Speaking of kids, it's the youngest kissfan's birthday this week, so I'll be away from the computer for the next couple of days. Everyone have a good few days and I'll see you back here later this week.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by