ITEM: Study says sexual lyrics prompt teens to have sex.
I have never understood why anyone wouldn't come to this natural conclusion. I mean, did you just pull into a McDonalds one day, not knowing what it was, just to see if they served food or furniture? No, I suspect you either heard a commercial or were once a five year old in desperate need of an order of fries.
Commercials (and I oughta know) are only for one purpose: to get you to buy the product. Thus, you respond to the "call to action" in the ad, like, eat at Joe's, run to Jane's for their winter coat sale, etc.
Only, in the case of the above, the "call to action" is, well, have some sex. And in today's teen world, I understand this can be a wide open term. Is it actual "sex" as we know it to be? Is it oral? Is it touching? Are they really "dating", or are they part of this phenomemon calling "F-Buddies". No, I ain't publishing the F.
One way or another, though the music doesn't FORCE, nor is it the ONLY call to action teens face concerning sex (ah, movies, TV, hormones, friends, peer pressure all come to mind), it is one.
To deny that is simply sticking your head in the sand.
The most telling part of the article to me was the following:
---Natasha Ramsey, a 17-year-old from New Brunswick, N.J., said she and other teens sometimes listen to sexually explicit songs because they like the beat.
"I won't really realize that the person is talking about having sex or raping a girl," she said. Even so, the message "is being beaten into the teens' heads," she said. "We don't even really realize how much."---
-------------------------------------
Excuse me? Sex, yeah, but, rape?? Rape?? And you don't know? Later in the article, check out the lame excuse from Benjamin Chavis (see article for his title) who says the lyrics reflect "...social and economic realities."
That gives them a pass to promote rape? What's next, murder? Mass suicide? Many horrible things are, sadly part of our reality in this world, but decent human beings would choose not to sing about them. And, even if they're using the song to stand against one of these events, if their message isn't clear cut and in your face, I suggest it shouldn't have been done in the first place.
When I was in high school, we had some songs with "overtones"...some I caught, and some I didn't.
I hated the Divinyls' "I Touch Myself" for blatantly obvious reasons.
Meanwhile, I sang along to Cyndi Lauper's "She-Bop", having no idea she was singing about, well, the exact same thing.
Even to this day I'm discovering songs I liked in high school, and when my feeble 39 year old mind realizes its real meaning, it goes off my playlist....hopefully....and sometimes I fail.
American Bandstand was a cultural icon for at least two generations of teens. But there is one negative "term" that came out of it.....
"It's got a good beat and I can dance to it."
Teens really didn't listen to the social implication of the song, whether personal or global. For heaven's sake they only played a hook.
Parents, and I have a 14 year old, do NOT just let your kids just listen to anything. Check out the lyrics with them before you go to the store to buy a CD for them, or they buy it with their $$$. Go online and read them. Talk about them. You'll be surprised how much, at some point in life, they will appreciate it.
See why I fill my kids with fun 80s music and Christian rock?
Now, I'm trying to figure out---where did I go wrong with Rachel? I never endorsed country music.....:)
---------------------------------------------------
ITEM: Billy Graham.....THIS is a must-read. Period. At 87, he continues to show great humility, and set a wonderful standard for believers everywhere.
---------------------------------------------------
FINAL ITEM: Sunday Night Football on NBC. It was REALLY strange to see Bob Costas and Al Michaels (not to mention John Madden) on the same screen during a football game. Being a HUGE follower of news and sports anchors, play-by-play guys, etc., I saw last night as one of those moments I "thought I'd never see".
But, in this era of billion dollar rights contracts, I shouldn't be as surprised as I should. Anyway, a couple of SNF points and one additional as I get ready for bed.
1) I hope they're saving some impressive stuff for the season opener September 7th. I'm not talking about ridiculous, needless bells and whistles that reduces NFL coverage to that of a circus. I hate that. But last night's telecast seemed to be a "first dry run" for them, too. Being that they haven't aired an NFL game since Super Bowl 32 in January, 1998, maybe that wasn't such a bad idea.
2) The main score, clock, down and to go graphics at the bottom of the screen were a little hard to read. I don't know, too much silver? Hey, so long as I can figure out those basic needs to know where a game is, I'll live, so, this is a minor picky point.
3) Did Al Michaels have note cards posted all around him that said "NBC" with the "N" underlined ten times?? And how weird was it to hear him even say "NBC". He will make a tremendous addition to NBC Olympic coverage beginning in 2008.
FINALLY----that point that has little or nothing to do with SNF on NBC....but....
Is Joe Buck placing himself at Fox in the same position Brent Musburger was at CBS when, ah, Brent was suddenly shown the door? Admit it, CBS Sports from 1975 to 1990 was "all Brent, all the time".
Fox circa 2006 is Joe Buck, Joe Buck, and....it's a good thing he doesn't call NASCAR. He, if things go his way, is on the way to being the voice of sports for this decade, and two or three more if he wishes. My kids will look at Joe Buck in football like I did Pat Summerall, and in baseball like Joe Garagiola and Tony Kubek.
Good luck, Joe; you are a tremendous talent! Keep listening to dad, you'll be fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment