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.
Well, the discussion never really got around to me "proving" anything because most posters here were either railing against my religion (despite my not having brought it up), defending the kind of music referenced in the OP, or attacking me for even suggesting that parents might be culpable.
If, for you, it's just a matter of "proof", that makes it easy. The official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, despite its foolish pro-contraception bias, has done its homework when it comes to media influence:
"Numerous studies have delineated the media's powerful influence on adolescents' sexual attitudes, values, and beliefs. Unlike the media violence research literature, in which some 2000 studies exist, there have been only a handful of studies on the effects of sexual content on actual behavior. At least a dozen correlational studies have examined the relationship between the amount of sexual content viewed on TV and early onset of sexual intercourse. The most recent studies have revealed that (1) listening to sexually degrading lyrics is associated with earlier sexual intercourse, (2) black female teenagers' exposure to rap music videos or X-rated movies is associated with the likelihood of multiple sexual partners or testing positive for an STI, (3) teenagers whose parents control their TV-viewing habits are less sexually experienced, and (4) exposure to sexual content in the media is a significant factor in the intention to have sex in the near future.
Nine longitudinal studies have given potential answers to the question of whether sexy media contribute to early sexual activity, and the answer seems to be 'yes.' Results of 7 of these studies have shown that exposure to sexual content in TV and other media in early adolescence— particularly for white teenagers—can as much as double the risk of early sexual intercourse. Adolescents whose parents limit their TV-viewing are less likely to engage in early sex. Younger children who have viewed adult-oriented TV shows and movies are more likely to begin having sexual intercourse earlier. The study samples together total nearly 10 000 teenagers nationwide, and the most ambitious studies included other media such as movies, music, and magazines. In addition, a recent study revealed that early exposure to sexual content doubled the risk of teen pregnancy. Clearly, the media play a major role in determining whether certain teenagers become sexually active earlier rather than later, and sexually explicit media may be particularly important."
Read the whole report here, and please note the many references with links to other studies. There is a corresponding body of literature available when it comes to gratuitous violence in popular culture. If you need more "proof", just let me know.
That isn't going to satisfy most posters on this thread, however. They're not looking for proof. They have made up their minds that pop culture doesn't influence children's values or behavior, against all the evidence and plain common sense, or they simply don't think there is anything wrong with pop culture in the first place.
Ok, I have had a chance to re-read both of your links (media wrt sexual behavior and violence; am familiar with both but wanted to freshen up my facts). I am going to focus on the former for brevity's sake (I know, brevity is not my strong suit!). It is going to take me awhile longer to go through the methodology of each study cited, which I will if you want me to, but I can already tell you there are underlying third variable questions that popped to mind while reading the summary statements. That is not at all a criticism of the research - just that the methodology of each study is not readily available in a review/policy statement to address issues that one might want to call causation, but are in fact correlation. I have to read the methodology to know that. "Associated with" vs. "caused by" makes a big difference in a conversation like this.
What this means is that one can't read the policy statement and then say unilaterally "pop culture corrupts children." One can absolutely note the potential drawbacks of pop culture influence in the specific instances of the parameters studied. Interesting to me that both statements explicitly refer to the importance of media literacy (i.e., critically thinking about what one consumes). I believe I mentioned upthread the ameliorating effect of (parental involvement in helping to) critically think about media on the relationship between media and its influence on behavior. Also interesting that there are demonstrated positive influences of media on behavior as well.
Tabling that for a moment, I think it is interesting that you quoted the section of the sexual behavior/media policy statement that you did, rather than perhaps the recommendations the AAP made on the basis of all of the information presented in the article (http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...3/576.full.pdf #s 1-8 at the end of the statement that I can't fully quote without breaking TOS because it is rather lengthy). The gist of the recommendations have to do with parents being aware of what their kids are watching/consuming, restricting based on age-appropriateness, encouraging conversations and critical thinking about media, agitating for more realistic portrayals of the responsible sexual behavior and potential consequences of sexual behavior in the media, etc. Oh, and encouraging information about birth control options and providing comprehensive sex education beyond abstinence-only programs which have been demonstrated to be ineffective wrt curbing teenage sexual activity. But let's leave that last piece out, for right now.
My point in this is just that media in and of itself is not the only influence, it is one of many, nor does it have a causal relationship with societal ills. It does have a correlational relationship in these studies, which is why AAP issued the statement, I will gladly concede that. The problem with correlation is any number of third variables could underlie the relationship. For example, are the same parents who are not aware of what the kid is watching also not aware of who they hang out with or where they are? Are the kids watching sexually explicit media who are at twice the risk for early sexual activity seeking out sexual activity because of what they watched or are they seeking out the media because they are already planning or interested in early sexual activity?
I absolutely agree with you if you are recommending that parents should be aware of what their kids are consuming, that parents should exercise discretion in age-appropriate exposure or veto to certain media, and the most important two IMO, 1) that parents should have continuous dialogue with their kids about their values/what message the kids are taking from various media sources/their peers/etc., 2) that kids should be taught how to THINK not just passively receive information. If you had titled this thread "Parents Talk With Your Kids About What Pop Culture They Consume," I imagine you would have had half of the posters who are arguing with you on the current thread completely on your side.
My stance is what it has been throughout the thread - media does not influence in a vacuum. One cannot cherry pick studies and then presume a causal relationship between media and behavior if what has been demonstrated is correlational. Is there potential for serious negative effects associated with some media exposure under some social conditions? Yup. Should parents be aware of the specifics of this? Yup. Should parents take into account all of this information when making decisions about their kids and media? Yup. Should parents being talking WITH their kids about all of these things? Yup. Does that mean pop culture causes corruption in our youth? Yeah, that's overstating the facts.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 10-20-2012 at 09:18 PM..
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.
*snip*
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.
I just started reading this thread and couldn't finish reading it after reading this, so I apologize if this has already been addressed.
I am so annoyed by people that talk about the sexualizing of children. What is sexy about a baby in a bikini or a 5 year old "bumping and grinding" to hip hop? Nothing is sexy about it unless you are a pedophile. So, why do some people insist that we are sexualizing children? I honestly don't understand.
That is not at all a criticism of the research - just that the methodology of each study is not readily available in a review/policy statement to address issues that one might want to call causation, but are in fact correlation. I have to read the methodology to know that. "Associated with" vs. "caused by" makes a big difference in a conversation like this.
The "correlation doesn't prove causation" protest is often overplayed. It isn't always possible to "prove" causation in a scientifically rigorous way, even though causation may be present and certain. I don't think it is possible to "prove" scientifically that exposure to music or media causes any behavior whatsoever, good or bad, but that doesn't mean we can't legitimately draw conclusions from the available evidence. I'm not using the word "proof" in a scientific way, but in the sense that we can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
What this means is that one can't read the policy statement and then say unilaterally "pop culture corrupts children."
I don't know what you mean by "policy statement", but if the empirical findings of the study are true, they certainly legitimize the conclusion that "pop culture corrupts children". Unless, of course, you have an entirely different view of what constitute's "corruption", in which case our disagreement is not about pop culture's influence on children but about morality in general.
For the record, I don't think anyone needs to read and understand the data in order to know that popular culture corrupts children. But for over-educated hard cases, I'm glad it's there. (I tease.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
Interesting to me that both statements explicitly refer to the importance of media literacy (i.e., critically thinking about what one consumes). I believe I mentioned upthread the ameliorating effect of (parental involvement in helping to) critically think about media on the relationship between media and its influence on behavior. Also interesting that there are demonstrated positive influences of media on behavior as well.
In my view, this misses the point entirely. The ubiquity of our morally corrupt media of course necessitates a heightened, time consuming, energy-depleting, innocence-robbing "media literacy" to navigate the mine field. I'm all for teaching children nowadays how to do this. But to expect that young children already have these skills in sufficient degree or numbers is completely unrealistic. Parents need to pro-actively censor the media. CENSOR! It's long past time for parents to rehabilitate the word "censorship": dialogue, discussion, literacy, etc. is not enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
Tabling that for a moment, I think it is interesting that you quoted the section of the sexual behavior/media policy statement that you did, rather than perhaps the recommendations the AAP made on the basis of all of the information presented in the article (http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...3/576.full.pdf #s 1-8 at the end of the statement that I can't fully quote without breaking TOS because it is rather lengthy).
I focused on the hard data, not the opinions of the journal's editors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
The gist of the recommendations have to do with parents being aware of what their kids are watching/consuming, restricting based on age-appropriateness, encouraging conversations and critical thinking about media, agitating for more realistic portrayals of the responsible sexual behavior and potential consequences of sexual behavior in the media, etc. Oh, and encouraging information about birth control options and providing comprehensive sex education beyond abstinence-only programs which have been demonstrated to be ineffective wrt curbing teenage sexual activity. But let's leave that last piece out, for right now.
Of course abstinence education - which takes up, what, all of fifteen minutes? - if implemented without regard to changing or limiting the toxic cultural influences on children, and replacing them with positive influences, is obviously going to be "ineffective" in changing sexual behavior all by itself. But it's still the right thing to do.
I have a lot more to say about it, but I agree that we should leave that for another topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
My point in this is just that media in and of itself is not the only influence, it is one of many, nor does it have a causal relationship with societal ills.
On what basis can you possibly say this? Multiple, repeated correlations with the appropriate controlled variables is very strong evidence for a causal relationship, even if not strictly "proof" of one. You can convict a criminal on less evidence than this. At most, you might say that a causal relationship remains scientifically unproven despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, but you can't say it doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
It does have a correlational relationship in these studies, which is why AAP issued the statement, I will gladly concede that. The problem with correlation is any number of third variables could underlie the relationship. For example, are the same parents who are not aware of what the kid is watching also not aware of who they hang out with or where they are? Are the kids watching sexually explicit media who are at twice the risk for early sexual activity seeking out sexual activity because of what they watched or are they seeking out the media because they are already planning or interested in early sexual activity?
What you seem to be missing is the fact that popular culture is culture. No one is claiming that exposure to one song, on one occasion, is enough to inspire one child from an otherwise wholesome background to imitate the misbehavior in the song. Popular culture is culture. It is what millions of American children breathe all day every day, even in their sleep, from the cradle to their 18th birthday. That's what influences behavior - and it influences specific behavior in direct proportion to the degree of exposure to specific content. To the extent that a child's parents, school, and friends are also immersed in that culture, so much the worse for the child.
Speaking of music and culture, this proud papa is off to watch a couple of his kids perform in a local symphony ... complimentary tickets for the family. Have a splendid evening.
I just started reading this thread and couldn't finish reading it after reading this, so I apologize if this has already been addressed.
I am so annoyed by people that talk about the sexualizing of children. What is sexy about a baby in a bikini or a 5 year old "bumping and grinding" to hip hop? Nothing is sexy about it unless you are a pedophile. So, why do some people insist that we are sexualizing children? I honestly don't understand.
Because you are sexualizing children. What could possibly be the motive for teaching a young child to "bump and grind"? What? It's only entertaining to the extent that it mimics adult sexual misbehavior.
The "correlation doesn't prove causation" protest is often overplayed. It isn't always possible to "prove" causation in a scientifically rigorous way, even though causation may be present and certain. I don't think it is possible to "prove" scientifically that exposure to music or media causes any behavior whatsoever, good or bad, but that doesn't mean we can't legitimately draw conclusions from the available evidence. I'm not using the word "proof" in a scientific way, but in the sense that we can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't know what you mean by "policy statement", but if the empirical findings of the study are true, they certainly legitimize the conclusion that "pop culture corrupts children". Unless, of course, you have an entirely different view of what constitute's "corruption", in which case our disagreement is not about pop culture's influence on children but about morality in general.
For the record, I don't think anyone needs to read and understand the data in order to know that popular culture corrupts children. But for over-educated hard cases, I'm glad it's there. (I tease.)
In my view, this misses the point entirely. The ubiquity of our morally corrupt media of course necessitates a heightened, time consuming, energy-depleting, innocence-robbing "media literacy" to navigate the mine field. I'm all for teaching children nowadays how to do this. But to expect that young children already have these skills in sufficient degree or numbers is completely unrealistic. Parents need to pro-actively censor the media. CENSOR! It's long past time for parents to rehabilitate the word "censorship": dialogue, discussion, literacy, etc. is not enough.
I focused on the hard data, not the opinions of the journal's editors.
Of course abstinence education - which takes up, what, all of fifteen minutes? - if implemented without regard to changing or limiting the toxic cultural influences on children, and replacing them with positive influences, is obviously going to be "ineffective" in changing sexual behavior all by itself. But it's still the right thing to do.
I have a lot more to say about it, but I agree that we should leave that for another topic.
On what basis can you possibly say this? Multiple, repeated correlations with the appropriate controlled variables is very strong evidence for a causal relationship, even if not strictly "proof" of one. You can convict a criminal on less evidence than this. At most, you might say that a causal relationship remains scientifically unproven despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, but you can't say it doesn't exist.
What you seem to be missing is the fact that popular culture is culture. No one is claiming that exposure to one song, on one occasion, is enough to inspire one child from an otherwise wholesome background to imitate the misbehavior in the song. Popular culture is culture. It is what millions of American children breathe all day every day, even in their sleep, from the cradle to their 18th birthday. That's what influences behavior - and it influences specific behavior in direct proportion to the degree of exposure to specific content. To the extent that a child's parents, school, and friends are also immersed in that culture, so much the worse for the child.
Speaking of music and culture, this proud papa is off to watch a couple of his kids perform in a local symphony ... complimentary tickets for the family. Have a splendid evening.
Have a great time at the symphony! Good for your kids!
As I suspected, part of our talking past each other has to do with the scientific method and what conclusions one can legitimately draw from empirical studies. As I am sure you have realized by now, I value science and I value speaking about the fruits of scientific inquiry in terms of what they can demonstrate, as well as their limitations. That specificity is important. The details of the study methodology are important. What is measured, let alone controlled for, is important. The language you use when discussing the results is important.
My next post will address why the hard data don't say what you are claiming they say or perhaps that the conclusions you are drawing are not able to be legitimately drawn from the data available (sorry, long day, can't do it right now). Can conclusions be drawn from the data? Yes. Are your conclusions supported by the data? Not so much, but I still have to prove that. After we establish that your conclusions are quite a few logical leaps away from what the data demonstrate, we can argue about morality some more.
PS "correlation is not causation" is not a protest (despite how it may be bandied about in P&OC) - it is a fact.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 10-21-2012 at 09:10 PM..
Because you are sexualizing children. What could possibly be the motive for teaching a young child to "bump and grind"? What? It's only entertaining to the extent that it mimics adult sexual misbehavior.
I disagree completely that it is sexualizing children. To see it that way, I believe you either have to be a pedophile or someone who is just looking for something to complain about.
No offense, but I'm definitely not going to stop calling out parents for what really amounts to child abuse, or at least neglect, by allowing their children to wallow in the filth of popular culture.
I could just as easily say that not preparing your children for the real world amounts to child abuse, or at least neglect.
Would it help you to know in general I hold a dialectical orientation towards most things in life? In oversimplified summary, that two opposite truths can exist at the same moment in dialectical opposition, be resolved into a synthesis, which in turn creates a new thesis and antithesis that exist in dialectical opposition to each other. Might clear up some confusion with my use of language?
Somehow I missed this remark. You're a Hegelian. Yes, knowing this helps tremendously, and explains why we are unlikely to make much progress.
I believe in the law of non-contradiction: a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time. This principle is, quite simply, the foundation of rational thought. It's not uniquely Catholic but hearkens back to Aristotle. Two people who don't at least agree on this much can never reach agreement on other issues with any confidence. Looking back at this thread, there were times when you seemed to agree with me, that moral truth is objective and absolute, and there were times when you seemed to agree with NJGoat, that all morality is relative. His position is clear, and so is mine - but they cannot both be true. Morality is either relative or it isn't: there is no middle ground here, no "synthesis" is possible.
So here's the problem. Suppose that after another ten pages of conversation we finally reach a consensus - a statement of truth that satisfies both of us. I will be satisfied because it is true, which means to me that anything which contradicts that statement is false. You, on the other hand, will hold that the statement is true and that other contradictory statements might be true as well. That, to me, is nonsense and means that our "consensus" was phony.
How then is it possible to truly "agree" about anything at all?
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 10-22-2012 at 02:17 AM..
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.
