Posted on 08/12/2006 7:01:22 AM PDT by USA Girl
Face the music, parents Posted: August 12, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By David N. Bass © 2006
News flash: What teens watch, listen to and read affects their thinking and behavior.
Sound common-sensical? In years gone by, it was. But today, in our increasingly permissive culture, otherwise well-intentioned parents often ignore the obvious. Some even downplay the notion that the media influence behavior at all. Kids are resilient, right? They can see the fakery in lurid music and risqué movies. But such sentiment rings hollow in the face of those nagging things called "facts."
Yet another study highlighting this reality was announced this week. A Rand Corporation survey published in the August issue of the medical journal Pediatrics monitored the music choices and sexual behavior of 1,461 teens over a three-year period. The result? According to the organization's press release, "Researchers found that adolescents who listened to a lot of music containing objectifying and limiting characterizations of sexuality progressed more quickly in their sexual behavior than did adolescents who listened to less of this kind of music."
The statistics are hardly surprising: 51 percent of teens who listened to music laced with sexual debauchery ended up engaging in sexual activity, compared to just 29 percent of those who listened to little or none of the same types of music. The study also showed that sexually explicit tunes are an equal opportunity offender – teens are influenced regardless of gender or ethnicity, "even after accounting for a wide range of other personal and social factors associated with adolescent sexual behavior."
The fact that teens who listen to explicit music end up engaging in the types of behavior described in the lyrics is a glaring no-brainer. Entertainment is not some innocuous habit with no impact on the psyche of young adults. Anything and everything we do has an influence on us.
In our amusement-obsessed society, much of our lives is spent in the pursuit of the next big media "thrill." This is especially true in a youth culture that is steeped in all things entertainment-oriented. With the ever-increasing physical and emotional absence of parents in the home, kids are coming to rely more and more on the words of Madonna and P. Diddy to discern right from wrong.
But the words show only half the picture.
The problem with modern pop music is not only the often-lurid lyrics, but the sound of the music itself. Numerous sociologists, psychologists and behaviorists have documented the fact that the noise of pop music, not just the words, affects the listener. In "Sound Effects," Dr. Simon Frith outlines this principle, stating, "The sexuality of music is usually referred to in terms of its rhythm – it is the beat that commands a directly physical response."
Should anyone be surprised at that? Even the term itself – "rock 'n' roll" – is a not-so-thinly-veiled reference to a sexual act. There's no doubt that the noise of pop music is laced with the sensual and has a decided impact on the listener. This is especially true among young people who are steeped in the rock culture. With the absence of parental involvement, music becomes predominant in their world and determines their values.
This issue is even more pressing for Christian parents, who are commanded to fill their minds with the things of God and guide their children in truth. Colossians 3:1 exhorts the faithful to set their hearts on heavenly things, "where Christ is seated at the right hand of God." (NIV) The minds of Christians are to be continually renewed in the knowledge of Christ. (Romans 12:2) Does a heavy metal, driving beat really foster setting a mind on things above, especially for an impressionable teen? Given the associations of rock in the secular world, not to mention the psychological and physical implications for the listener, does such music really contribute to positive transformation of our minds?
Polls continually show that most Americans think our nation is going down the tubes morally and that kids are exposed to way too much, way too soon. But there is a major difference between acknowledging a problem and actually doing something about it. How much further research is needed and how many more teen pregnancies are necessary before parents get a clue and realize the responsibility for upholding decency standards in music is theirs?
And so the downward moral slide continues. It won't stop until parents stand up and take on their God-given role as guardians of what their children see and hear.
David N. Bass is a 20-year-old Christian homeschool graduate whose columns have been featured on AmericanDaily.com, IntellectualConservative.com and RenewAmerica.us. While attending college through distance education, he interns at a pro-family public policy organization. David's blog is "The Pundit."
Bump.
It all started going downhill when Elvis started swinging those hips.
Tell that to the ACLU.
Which is why I started playing guitar at age 13...:>D
Rock Music?!
God, the author of this article is a flaming idiot.
Did I read somewhere that Madonna screens what her kid/?kids? are exposed to?
LOl, they need to listen to Billy Milano M.O.D.
Start with "Makin Friends Is Fun".
Extensive research has linked sandwiches to eating....!!!!
I think we've got trouble,.... trouble with a capital T, that rhymes with R that stands for rock and roll, right here in River City!
I know that that rock & roll led me right down the path of sin, sex and the drinking of the beer.
I believe this author is correct. Howevr, the rock music itself is not the problem. It is only a symptom of a deeper problem within our culture: the rejection, within large segments of our society, of the Christian God of the Bible. This rejection paves the way for the cultivation of multitudes of harmful behaviors, of which the rock music culture is only one example.
The behavioral restaints of Christianity are being thrown off in favor of a destructive moral license masquerading in the name of freedom.
I had to look to make sure this article wasn't printed in 1958
Well as that fifty year old song by Danny and Juniors ( at least i think it was this group and not Bill Haley) said"Rock and roll is here to stay, it will never stop" So deal with it.
If parents did their job, and churches, and schools, the promiscuity would be more limited. But we live in a world where someone or something has to take the blame.
Hey what was wrong with 1958 anyways? LOL!
What about making kids listen to broadway show tunes, Judy Garland...er wait, thats bad too.
Could be. I started getting horny about the time I started listening to rock-n-roll. Or could puberty have something to do with it?
"The behavioral restaints of Christianity are being thrown off in favor of a destructive moral license masquerading in the name of freedom."
Good comment, Orca.
All I know is that anytime someone dares criticize rock music it is like they've smashed the face of someone's god.
I've a question for some of the rock afficionados out there. Maybe you personally attend classical music concerts and spend 2 hours per week listening to Bach or Beethoven. But let's get real and admit that most rock listeners don't like classical music.
Why do you suppose that is?
Tell me why so many teenagers hooked on rock can't sit through a classical music concert without being bored to death?
I'm serious. I'd like to know your opinion.
I thought it was rap that did this.
They used to say the same thing about Jazz. And before that Ragtime. Hell even the Waltz was considered sexually suggestive at one time. And Offenbach's work was described by one American critic as 'The Sexual Instinct in music'.
It's an attention span question. In the pre-rock 1940s people who lsitened to songsters like Sinatra and Rudy Valee didn't like Classical music either.
And such "facts" ring hollow in the face of a thing called "cause and effect." Does it occur to the authors of this specious claptrap that the music doesn't cause promiscuity as much as teens who are already promiscuous tend to listen to this type of music? I'll bet that most promiscuous teens also drank milk as infants, and that many of them have hair. No doubt those are also contributing factors to their aberrant behavior.
This is one of those "tigers in Nebraska" arguments. I have sitting on a shelf in my living room an ordinary looking rock. That rock is a powerful talisman, whose power drove all the tigers out of Nebraska. "But," you say, "there ARE no tigers in Nebraska." Yes, that's true. See how well it worked?
Yeah, I think Wing Nut Daily has reached astounding heights of either idiocy or deliberate fabrication, even for them, with this article.
I honestly think the author is such an immense square they don't even know what "hip hop" or "rap" is and was so used to bashing "rock and roll" they didn't notice that only one artist in the RAND study was actually "hard rock" and they had no sexually degrading lyrics.
All I know is that anytime someone dares criticize rock music it is like they've smashed the face of someone's god.
I've a question for some of the rock afficionados out there. Maybe you personally attend classical music concerts and spend 2 hours per week listening to Bach or Beethoven. But let's get real and admit that most rock listeners don't like classical music.
Why do you suppose that is?
Tell me why so many teenagers hooked on rock can't sit through a classical music concert without being bored to death?
I read it also. Apparently Madonna also will not let her child watch TV because of the harmful messages it promotes.
Let's get honest here.
Real honest.
When you're thinking of sex what kind of beat do you enjoy at the moment?
A waltz?
A polka?
Some of you are not being honest about how sexual rock music is for you personally.
I suspect you'd have found that kids who were big Wagner fans in 1880 wouldn't "sit through" a Josquin Desprez concert.
Honestly a 14 year old kid today wouldn't "sit through" a 2 hour concert of the reunited Cream or Yes or even Roger Waters doing "Dark Side of the Moon" even though those are all "rock and roll."
Simple answer: Kids mostly don't like old stuff.
My main form of "rock and roll" is listening to Rush, and not many people have sex to songs in 3 different time signatures that are about Ayn Randian rebellion against futuristic collectivist tyranny.
I'll try to, and report back, if you're doing some sort of scientific study.
I don't know, play that naughty "Bolero" by Ravel and they might start having spontaneous orgies.
News flash: What teens watch, listen to and read affects their thinking and behavior.
Its true I always watch where the huskies go and never eat the yellow snow
Here is what I think:
There's a saying that a good musical ear has to be developed. In other words it's like good food. We naturally gravitate towards junk, but have to cultivate and be exposed to good food in order to really appreciate it.
I think when kids hear rock music predominantly then it's like their ear for music gets distorted and their ability to appreciate finer music is compromised.
The more sugar we eat, the more we crave. The more rock kids hear, the more they crave. What does that tell you?
Rock music appeals to the primitive ear. There is nothing intellectual about it. Nothing deep. Nothing of real value other than sexual pleasure. Or an increase in adrenaline rush. Like sugar.
Yeah, you'll get really far with young people telling them what they're listening to is "junk."
(Just as an aside, since we've gotten away from the original embarassingly stupid Wing Nut Daily Article, you have to understand that current "rock and roll" has very few sexual lyrics of any kind, and the RAND study which has gotten so much media attention was about the effects of rap and hip hop, genres of music very different from "rock and roll" and if you don't understand the differences you have no business commenting on much of anything.)
You'd likely find a surprising amount of classical music in the collections of most any rock artist - a great many have taken classical guitar lessons. There were whole genres of rock and roll music in the 70s that were VERY heavily influenced by classical music and classical structures - 30 minute+ songs - groups such as Yes, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Rush, etc. A number of the musicians in these groups - such as keyboardist Rick Wakeman of Yes - were actually classically trained and people who could have been near the top of their professions in classical music, and switched to "Rock and Roll" (horrors!)
You may want to check those groups out - you won't spontaneously rip the pants off the next guy you see and start having sex with them after listening to those groups, either, I promise.
And a variety of groups - Metallica, a heavy metal group, etc. - have performed with symphony orchestras and even recorded albums with them.
Otherwise you're just a sad purveyor of tired old fogeyism. People for the entirety of civilization have thought the music they liked was great and what the kids are listening to is crap.
It was a recession year and the GOP didn't do well at the polls. But otherwise, in 1958 teenagers generally were better behaved, got in less trouble, and had way fewer children wed or unwed. It was pre-pill days and illegitimacy was minimal compared to later. The music was far more benign, as was the entertainment culture generally, and the average teen, especially girls, didn't use the F-word routinely in mixed coimpany. Plus, cars had these realy wild tailfins-- you could spot a Plymouth a mile away.
Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?
I always thought James Bond was a lucky man and Raquel Welch was hot long before I started listening to rock music.
Or perhaps it was 1959?
Speaking of tail fins, there was a one box comic back then. Some guy in a sporty little job on the trunk deck of a car with huge tail fins...the guy is saying, "Oh, so sorry, I thought this was the entrance to the Golden Gate Bridge"!
Well it sure was funny at the time or why would i remember it for almost 50 years?LOL!
Two chickens. Then the egg makes three.
"....in 1958 teenagers generally were better behaved, got in less trouble, and had way fewer children wed or unwed. It was pre-pill days and illegitimacy was minimal compared to later. The music was far more benign, as was the entertainment...."
Insightful comment, Hinckley.
Maybe part of the problem on this thread is that some people have drenched themselves in today's media so much that they don't realize how good it once was - nor do they care.
Strategerist, I can turn my radio on and scan channels and I'll guarantee you I'll find sexual and/or violent lyrics with most of the rock music I find. That's a no brainer.
Sparsing over different types of rock music is like parsing over different types of sugar. Is it brown sugar, confectioners, or white? It will all still increase health problems if you get enough of it.
And this research just proves that when kids get a lot of junk rock into their system, their moral health breaks down.
The chicken first, or the egg, someone asked?
You tell me. Do you rock before rolling? Or do you roll before rocking?
I think a lot of people are not being honest in admitting how rock music makes them feel sexually.
There's a lot of pretending going on that's hiding something deeper.
People have been convinced the country has been in continuous moral decline since 1776.
In a similar vein, baseball writer Bill James once found a continous (and hilarious) series of quotes from about 1870 to 1980 from retired baseball players all claiming that the quality of play had gone to hell since they retired.
You are aware that the waltz was considered a very sensual dance that was corrupting the morals of the youth in the days when it was popular right?
In fact it was considered so improper that at first only the very fastest of hostesses would permit it to be played and it was limited to one waltz a night. Two was considered very daring and three could get you shunned from polite company.
Even when it became more accepted it was still restricted to young ladies. You had to petition one of the three grand dames of society for permission to dance the waltz and it would only be granted if they felt you were mature enough to hand the baser passions that such a scandalous dance would arouse in your pure young heart.
Obviously.
Well, I have better things to do than discuss music with someone that doesn't know anything about music.
This has been known since 1954. Blame Ike Turner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.