Journalists were climbing all over each other this summer, eager to report on a study by the RAND Corp., published in the journal Pediatrics, that suggests teenagers who listen to sexually degrading music lyrics are nearly twice as likely to have sex within two years as teenagers who listen to other types of music. This is different from the usual fare鈥攖he 鈥渞ainbow parties鈥� and sex-bracelets stories of last year and the year before. It鈥檚 not just middle school gossip. It鈥檚 a report of a carefully designed study of a large group of young people surveyed over time, from age 12 to age 17. This means the authors can say with some certainty that listening to these lyrics predicts having sex at an early age.
There is also a high level of real-life validity to the current study. Sure, sex has been in song for ages, but teasingly so. 鈥淏irds do it, bees do it,鈥� wrote Cole Porter. Roger Daltrey sang about Momma鈥檚 鈥渟queezebox鈥� keeping Daddy up all night. And there really were mysteriously dirty lyrics to the 鈥�60s hit 鈥淟ouie, Louie,鈥� weren鈥檛 there? But today鈥檚 lyrics are way over the top. There are far too many girls who want to 鈥済et dirty,鈥� 鈥渄o鈥� people, shake their 鈥渕ilkshakes,鈥� and 鈥渇eel on鈥� someone鈥檚 鈥淛ohnson,鈥� and far too many guys who want lap dances, to 鈥渟natch鈥� a girl 鈥渦p dirty,鈥� or to give a girl money to strip鈥攖o have hard, rough sex. It鈥檚 outrageous to think that teenagers were dancing to the rap artist Ludacris when he intoned: 鈥淢ake it hurt鈥攊n the garden, all in the dirt.鈥� What鈥檚 the message to boys and girls when Usher sings that men want 鈥渁 lady in the street but a freak in the bed?鈥�
Just as it was with those earlier 鈥渢eens are having sex鈥� stories, though, coverage of this new report has had a level of prime-time spectacle to it that gives one pause. Maybe it鈥檚 the number of famous media newswomen who hold chats and televised slumber parties where they talk to girls 鈥渃onfidentially鈥� about their sexual secrets that makes us a tad suspicious. Maybe it鈥檚 the background visuals to their stories and segments, those video clips of raunchy dancing to dirty lyrics. It鈥檚 definitely the superficiality of the reporting. Are they reporting a scientific study or are they boosting ratings?
What would it mean to really talk with kids about the hard sell of sex in the media and the crass commercialization of childhood and gender?
The truth is that lots of kids, even at very young ages, are getting a sex education course in song, and, as MTV reminds us, in video as well. Kidz Bop, that series of CDs advertised incessantly on Saturday mornings, in which preteens sing 鈥渒id-friendly versions of today鈥檚 hits鈥� like Britney Spears鈥� 鈥淭oxic鈥� (鈥淚 can鈥檛 wait/Baby give me it鈥�), ensures a constant pipeline to raunchy songs. But that鈥檚 just the half of it. Kids are getting a similar education from movies, on the Internet, in magazines, and in store windows in malls across the country. We鈥檝e done our research. As educators and the authors of the book Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters From Marketers鈥� Schemes, we can tell you that girls and boys are experiencing a steady avalanche of such messages.
No matter when kids are 鈥渄oing it,鈥� someone somewhere has to talk to them about the media鈥檚 representations of sex. Forget the journalists. They鈥檙e living in a world of media hype and spectacle, facing immense pressure to sell the next big story. It pays to shock and amuse, so they鈥檒l continue to chase the 鈥渟top teen sex鈥� angle, coyly contradicting themselves by suggesting, 鈥淚sn鈥檛 teen sex fascinating?鈥� We can鈥檛 count on parents either. For all their good intentions and for all kinds of legitimate reasons鈥攖ime, limited media savvy, and good old anxiety鈥攑arents are inconsistent at best when it comes to talking with their children about the racy world coming at them full force.
We need to honestly acknowledge how limited sexuality education has become, and how rarely sex ed. curricula address issues that have true meaning to the relational and sexual development of our youths.
The education system in this country is the one institution far-reaching and powerful enough to confront the media and address the issues before us. We need to re-examine the country鈥檚 sex education practices. We need to honestly acknowledge how limited sexuality education has become, and how rarely sex ed. curricula address issues that have true meaning to the relational and sexual development of our youths.
What would it mean to help teenagers confront and critically examine those degrading and dehumanizing sex lyrics? What would it mean to really talk with kids about the hard sell of sex in the media and the crass commercialization of childhood and gender? Let鈥檚 ask ourselves, as educators, what kind of knowledge about sex we want children to have and when. Let鈥檚 give some serious thought to this issue. What kind of intimate relationships would we hope for them someday, when they do engage in sexual relationships? And let鈥檚 acknowledge that if we鈥檙e not in this with them鈥攖alking, analyzing, educating鈥攖hen probably no one is. Abstinence programs may tell kids when and when not to have sex, but no one is telling them how to treat one another with respect and care when they do have it.
Educators have a responsibility to step it up. Kids need safe spaces to talk about media depictions of sex that are degrading, cruel, and dehumanizing. They need help in learning to recognize when journalists and marketers are using them to titillate readers or consumers, and how music artists use them to make big bucks. If educators don鈥檛 take on the really important issues for teenagers in this era of abstinence-only education, we risk leaving sex ed. to pop stars and lyricists, to define for our kids what sex is 鈥渞eally like鈥濃�攕hakin鈥� it, jiggling it, having her, nailing her, doing her. And all of this will describe to them what we used to euphemistically call 鈥渕aking love.鈥�
