Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On one hand, I can personally say that I either had no or only a very vague idea of what they were talking about in the lyrics that I listened to back in the day. My childhood was predominantly in the 90's, so the lyrics were cleaner than today, although not absolutely spick and span. Still, when I heard singers say "I wanna take you home tonight....sweet dreams of passion through the night" (to give one example of one of my favorite songs at the time), I thought nothing of it. By then I did have an understanding of sex, but not the nightclub pick-up culture. So I don't think the children dancing to "Sexy and I Know It" really is an example of them being sexualized. They probably have little to no idea (more likely the latter) of what the lyrics mean and simply feel that it is a good beat. To them, it would be no different than a kid in 1995 dancing to a song with clean lyrics like "Rhythm is a Dancer" or "Runaway". And I object to the OP's general statement that society does not object to the sexualization of young children - give it 20 years, maybe, but young children (e.g. below the age of 13) are still seen as "pure" in our society. Look at the rage child molesters stir up from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps this author was one of the rare people who did not object, or perhaps she saw it from the children's point of view and wanted to insert the song title in to make it more realistic.
On the other hand, I do agree with the OP in that this sort of media sets a dangerous precedent for children. As they come to the age at which they understand the lyrics, many of them see what is glorified in their music (and other media) as worthy of imitation, or at least admiration. They certainly see it as more normal - and therefore less deviant - than they would if they were not exposed to it, and parents do not always have a say in whether their children will be exposed to such music, and certainly not a definite say in how the music will affect their children. That's why I posted a thread a while back here asking parents how the cope with raising daughters in a society where singers like Rihanna and Lady Gaga are held up as role models.
I'm quite surprised people say they didn't know what song lyrics meant. I was a teen in the 70's. Some of the popular songs at that time were very sexual in nature, and myself and my peers knew what they meant. So what? We knew it was just music, not a directive to be followed.
Anyone remember Lady Marmalade? Meatloaf's Paradise By The Dashboard Light? Hot Chocolate's You Sexy Thing? Anything from Alice Cooper's Muscle Of Love (none of those songs were particularly subtle). Donna Summer's Love To Love You Baby? Max Romeo's Wet Dream? And the list goes on and on.
Oh for Gods sake, we've got a gun in every school bag, porn on every home computer, meth in every second lunchbox, and OP is worried about a freakin SONG????????
Probably concerned with the colour of the china on the Titanic, too...
I think you should take it to religion where it belongs. This is way past parenting and way into the catholic church.
Oh, baloney. I haven't made a single argument here that is unique to Catholicism. Not one. Prove me wrong. I linked to one compelling article by Fr. Basil Nortz, whose arguments you obviously ignored - and his arguments aren't uniquely Catholic either. I suggest you brush up on the distinction between a Catholic making an argument and an actual Catholic argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu
I've given you the solution. Expose your children to all of society instead of being so afraid they will ignore your narrow teachings and start thinking for themselves.
Your "solution" - exposing children to all of society - has already created a nightmare for millions. The nation's policemen, courts, juvenile halls, county jails, prisons, abortion mills, pornographers, divorce attorneys, drug dealers, maternity homes, and halfway houses thank you for the business.
The thing is, you don't really believe it yourself, you just preach it as a defense against anyone who challenges your own arbitrary limits. If I were on the other side of those limits you'd be singing a different tune.
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 10-16-2012 at 02:22 AM..
Oh for Gods sake, we've got a gun in every school bag, porn on every home computer, meth in every second lunchbox, and OP is worried about a freakin SONG????????
It's all of piece, love.
"Music can both establish and destroy morality. For no path is more open to the soul for the formation thereof than through the ears. Therefore when the rhythms and modes have penetrated even to the soul through these organs, it cannot be doubted that they affect the soul with their own character and conform it to themselves." - Boethius
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 10-16-2012 at 01:45 AM..
Still, when I heard singers say "I wanna take you home tonight....sweet dreams of passion through the night" (to give one example of one of my favorite songs at the time), I thought nothing of it. By then I did have an understanding of sex, but not the nightclub pick-up culture. So I don't think the children dancing to "Sexy and I Know It" really is an example of them being sexualized.
Sadly, I think there must be tens of thousands of 3-8 year olds in America who have seen the sexually charged video multiple times. And much worse besides. When they dance, they dance the way the people in the video dance. I've known parents and grandparents who actually think this is cute.
Keep in mind that the music by itself, quite apart from the lyrics, is also sexually charged. It seems reasonable to assume that music which sexually energizes adults will also sexually energize children of a certain age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer
And I object to the OP's general statement that society does not object to the sexualization of young children - give it 20 years, maybe, but young children (e.g. below the age of 13) are still seen as "pure" in our society. Look at the rage child molesters stir up from both sides of the aisle.
This is true, but that's only because many parents refuse to think about what popular culture does to children, and to the way some adults will think about children. A while back there was a popular video that went viral of a 4 or 5 y/o boy bumping and grinding to hip hop. A relative of mine thought it was the cutest thing ever and shared it with us. This same relative is outraged at child molesters, but somehow she sees nothing wrong with what looks like sexual expression in children for entertainment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer
On the other hand, I do agree with the OP in that this sort of media sets a dangerous precedent for children. As they come to the age at which they understand the lyrics, many of them see what is glorified in their music (and other media) as worthy of imitation, or at least admiration. They certainly see it as more normal - and therefore less deviant - than they would if they were not exposed to it ...
Absolutely. Children grow up and they connect the dots. And modern parents are shocked when that happens.
Thanks for your comments, tvdxer.
Sadly, I think there are thousands of 3-8 year olds in America who have seen the sexually charged video multiple times. And much worse besides. When they dance, they dance the way the people in the video dance. I've known parents and grandparents who actually think this is cute.
Keep in mind that the music by itself, quite apart from the lyrics, is also sexually charged. It seems reasonable to assume that music which sexually energizes adults will also sexually energize children of a certain age.
Still, I don't think most of them associate it with sexuality. Not to say that it's OK or "cute" they dance that way, though.
As for house music being "sexually" charged, I really wonder if that's the truth. Lots of artists has been the target of the accusation by more conservative Christians and Muslims, but the fact is there are a lot of Christian musicians making the same kind of music (for every secular music trend today, there's a Christian counterpart), and whether that's "sexually" charged or not is up to you. Does "sexually charged" mean "arousing"? If so, I don't think I've ever been aroused by music alone. What it does arouse in me sometimes is a sense of euphoria - which I'm sure classical music does as well to its devotees.
Yes, yes, yes, and so said parents about Elvis, The Beatles, yadda yadda.
Nothing new to see here folks.
Rubbish! No one was sexualizing kids in pre-school and early primary grades in the Fifties and Sixties.. I was there and it was NOT happening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
