Ok, who voted against this? Im sorry, I had to vote for.

+1

There are kids who aren't exposed to lyrics depicting degrading sex?

I bet they were also twice as likely to have been raised watching educational programming instead of cartoons, too.

In other terms, Amish kids are the only ones who stand a chance against the herp?

/ agrees

I hate to be the buzzkiller here, but since the journal article hasn't even come out yet, I just have to wonder whether they might have controlled for, oh, I don't know...maybe parental effect?

Like, parents who let their kids listen to smut miiiight be less concerned regarding their kids' location/morals/safety/behaviors/attitudes? And THAT could directly affect BOTH access to dirty music and access/interest in sex.

Or (and yes, I'm opening up this can o' worms), kids who are more likely to listen to sexually degrading lyrics are more likely to grow up in subcultures which reinforce early sexual activity and generally disinhibit adolescents from potentially dangerous activities. And before someone pulls out the "that's racist" kid, this argument works equally well with guidos.

skeet skeet skeet

Cool!

dahmers love zombie: guidos

That was actually my first thought. Well, no, you're right my first thought was "Someone's going to pull the 'that's racist' kid card on him", but after that, Guidos.

Correlation != Causation

That is all.

"degrading" is in the eye of the beholder who isn't getting laid.

For the record, the article isn't claiming there is a link between the two. Just that they are correlated.

Add in some other factors and you will find the following:

As income decreases, preference for violent/sexually-explicit music increases (that is already established)

As income decreases, parental involvement decreases (already established)

As parental involvement decreases, sexual activity increases (already established)

So this is just an article highlighting what could have been predicted using a syllogism.

This has a ring of truth to it. Back when I was younger I listened to a lot of Dio. I was constantly killing dragons and riding tigers, just like in Dio's songs.

Can this be a big butts thread?

Well, there's that 'detachable penis' song whose video I cannot find on Youtube.

So who's Anaconda wants what exactly? The article doesn't make that clear.

dahmers love zombie: I hate to be the buzzkiller here, but since the journal article hasn't even come out yet, I just have to wonder whether they might have controlled for, oh, I don't know...maybe parental effect?

Like, parents who let their kids listen to smut miiiight be less concerned regarding their kids' location/morals/safety/behaviors/attitudes? And THAT could directly affect BOTH access to dirty music and access/interest in sex.

Or (and yes, I'm opening up this can o' worms), kids who are more likely to listen to sexually degrading lyrics are more likely to grow up in subcultures which reinforce early sexual activity and generally disinhibit adolescents from potentially dangerous activities. And before someone pulls out the "that's racist" kid, this argument works equally well with guidos.

I listen to extremely violent music, but I have yet to kill anyone. (Yet.) I agree with Mr. Zombie up there ^^^ - parental involvement has a lot to do with it.

Oh, I'm also going to need a defintion of "degrading sex". Isn't it only degrading if one party is upset or offended by the act in question? I don't think there's any real standard for that kind of thing.

Mr. Robo-Pants
So who's Anaconda wants what exactly? The article doesn't make that clear.

An anaconda is a thick and fat snake. Sir Mix-a-lot compares his penis with the girth and size of an anaconda. An anaconda is a large, non-venomous snake found in tropical South America.

ninjakirby: There are kids who aren't exposed to lyrics depicting degrading sex?

They are home schooled. Or maybe death.

bubbaprog: For the record, the article isn't claiming there is a link between the two. Just that they are correlated.

Add in some other factors and you will find the following:

As income decreases, preference for violent/sexually-explicit music increases (that is already established)

As income decreases, parental involvement decreases (already established)

As parental involvement decreases, sexual activity increases (already established)

So this is just an article highlighting what could have been predicted using a syllogism.

Really? I'd say that there are more middle class suburban wanna be gangsters who listen to this shiat than anything else around here.

So in other words, when the media makes money by pushing kids toward premature sexual activity, they engage in premature sexual activity.

Is anyone actually surprised by this?

Whatthefark: This has a ring of truth to it. Back when I was younger I listened to a lot of Dio. I was constantly killing dragons and riding tigers, just like in Dio's songs.

It's easier to find a skanky ho to ride than a dragon or tiger.

The article says that kids who prefer songs with explicit lyrics tend to be more sexually active.

There is a difference between "prefer" and "exposed to." Kind of a big one.

Mr. Robo-Pants: So who's Anaconda wants what exactly? The article doesn't make that clear.

Noone's anaconda wants none unless you... er.. I mean, anyone with an anaconda will find it doesn't want any... ehm...

if(!bunsHon){anacondaWants = "none";}

Mr. Robo-Pants: So who's Anaconda wants what exactly? The article doesn't make that clear.

I'm pretty sure that "my" anaconda wants "some" if you refer directly to the source material.

/well, not mine
//i'm a she!

So your girlfriend rolls a Honda, playin' workout tapes by Fonda
But Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda
My anaconda don't want none
Unless you've got buns, hun
You can do side bends or sit-ups,
But please don't lose that butt

ciberido: So your girlfriend rolls a Honda, playin' workout tapes by Fonda
But Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda
My anaconda don't want none
Unless you've got buns, hun
You can do side bends or sit-ups,
But please don't lose that butt

Damn! I can't even remember frickin' Sir Mix-a-lot lyrics. I fail at teh Intarwebz.

bubbaprog: For the record, the article isn't claiming there is a link between the two. Just that they are correlated.

Add in some other factors and you will find the following:

As income decreases, preference for violent/sexually-explicit music increases (that is already established)

As income decreases, parental involvement decreases (already established)

As parental involvement decreases, sexual activity increases (already established)

So this is just an article highlighting what could have been predicted using a syllogism.



What does income level have to do with parental involvement?

Where are these facts of yours "established"? I know a lot of wealthy parents who have no idea what their kids are up to. I know many parents with less money who are very involved with their kids. Money doesn't buy good parenting skills.

Maybe those with more money have more time to spend with their kids, but then again, they might have more things to distract them from parenting. Although, poverty brings plenty of "distractions" of its own.

I just don't believe that it has been established anywhere that parental involvement is proportional to income level.

"Black kids listen to rap."

bubbaprog: As income decreases, preference for violent/sexually-explicit music increases (that is already established)

As income decreases, parental involvement decreases (already established)


I have a hard time with these two. A lot of it depends on the parents, not how much they earn. You don't have to have a high income to provide mentorship and to be a good parent for a child.

dahmers love zombie: Like, parents who let their kids listen to smut miiiight be less concerned regarding their kids' location/morals/safety/behaviors/attitudes? And THAT could directly affect BOTH access to dirty music and access/interest in sex.

Well FTA:

Surveys were completed by 711 ninth-grade students at three large U.S. urban high schools.

I think poverty and a lack of parental guidance most likely would lead to kids having sex. Everytime I take the bus that goes through the city, I overhear girls bragging about how many kids they have. Most of the girls look under 18.

dahmers love zombie I hate to be the buzzkiller here, but since the journal article hasn't even come out yet, I just have to wonder whether they might have controlled for, oh, I don't know...maybe parental effect?

Like, parents who let their kids listen to smut miiiight be less concerned regarding their kids' location/morals/safety/behaviors/attitudes? And THAT could directly affect BOTH access to dirty music and access/interest in sex.

Or (and yes, I'm opening up this can o' worms), kids who are more likely to listen to sexually degrading lyrics are more likely to grow up in subcultures which reinforce early sexual activity and generally disinhibit adolescents from potentially dangerous activities. And before someone pulls out the "that's racist" kid, this argument works equally well with guidos.

I assume (or hope, rather) that the researchers are aware of these problems. The question is though, can the same be said about the journalists? It seems to me like it would be a good idea to force journalists to take a few research method and/or statistics courses, just to get stuff like this straight. Especially if they plan to report research findings.

/oh and is it just me or is media obsessed with cross-sectional studies?

SOOOO can we dispense with all this intellectual discussion crap and make with the degrading sex pics/links please?

Thanks in advance,
Me

Whatthefark: I wouldn't consider riding the tiger to be risky behavior., even for an adolescent You can see his stripes, so you know he's clean.

Mugato: "Black kids listen to rap."

Yeah but In my experiance whitegirls let you do dirtier things to them. ATM FTW

littlett's: I have a hard time with these two. A lot of it depends on the parents, not how much they earn. You don't have to have a high income to provide mentorship and to be a good parent for a child.

I don't think that one is 100% correlated with the other, only that the two tend to occur together. One of the things that drives me crazy about sociological research is that a R=0.6 correlation is considered earth shattering.

Smack 'er with yer dick, smack her with yer dick...

ciberido: So your girlfriend rolls a Honda, playin' workout tapes by Fonda
But Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda
My anaconda don't want none
Unless you've got buns, hun
You can do side bends or sit-ups,
But please don't lose that butt

Some other brothers play that hard role,
and tell you that the butt ain't gold,
so they toss it
and leave it
and I pull up quick and retrieve it!

ChubbyTiger: One of the things that drives me crazy about sociological research is that a R=0.6 correlation is considered earth shattering.


When dealing with people, and R value that high is pretty good. Much higher than that and it would look like they doctored their data.

... when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
and a round thing in your face, you get SPRUNG!

/yes it's in my profile.

littlett's: When dealing with people, and R value that high is pretty good. Much higher than that and it would look like they doctored their data.

Suggests to me that there are so many confounding, and uncontrolled, variables that the research is mostly poo-poo. Of course, I'm a physical scientist, so that helps.

Jonathan Coulton's version (new window) of Baby Got Back is my favorite

BizarreMan: Whatthefark: This has a ring of truth to it. Back when I was younger I listened to a lot of Dio. I was constantly killing dragons and riding tigers, just like in Dio's songs.

It's easier to find a skanky ho to ride than a dragon or tiger.

And I think we can all agree that is at the center of our problems with kids today.

Dialectic: Well, there's that 'detachable penis' song whose video I cannot find on Youtube.

I found it here.

tortilla burger: Smack 'er with yer dick, smack her with yer dick...

"He ain't talkin' about me!"

/hot like that posterior.

Part of this article has been bothering me:

The participants were exposed to more than 14 hours each week of lyrics describing degrading sex. About one-third said they had previously been sexually active.

So does this mean they made the kids sit there for 14 hours a week and listen to sexually explicit music? Then they came back and said, "Ok, before you even listened to this music, how many of you have had sex?"

What the hell does that prove?

ChubbyTiger: Suggests to me that there are so many confounding, and uncontrolled, variables that the research is mostly poo-poo. Of course, I'm a physical scientist, so that helps.

There are just too many factors to try to regress into an equations. Even with that there is no way to know everything that becomes a factor.

Unfortunately, that gives some social scientists enough room to draw any conclusion that supports their particular theory.

Dialectic:Well, there's that 'detachable penis' song whose video I cannot find on Youtube.

Detatchabe Penis by Cake?

Robopants wins with the Dio line.
/loled