Written by whatsacow on 21.02.2011 at 21:47

They learn it in the playground half the time. And whats the big deal? They won't understand half the lyrics anyway... My dad is a massive rap fan, so I was brought up on Cypress Hill, Eminem, 2pac and stuff like that. I didn't turn out any worse for it. Hell, I didn't even listen to the lyrics half the time, I just thought it was cool lol.

I think the message in "Come rude boy, is you big enough? Give it to me boom boom boom, LOVE me" is pretty obvious. Sex = love. Even if there was no one to hear it, I'd still find it disgustingly immoral. But children (and teenagers and adults) do hear it. And most of them aren't smart enough to argue.

Who is anyone to monopolize sex? It's pretty hypocritical to criticize the one-sided, commercialised view of sex advocated by the media but at the same time mystify true sex with your beloved as some ultimate experience of unity and bliss. If it really is all that, can you begrudge others for wanting to experience the same or even a shadow of it? Who gets to decide which relationships fulfill the criteria and are allowed to have "real sex"? But in reality, it's just two sides of the same coin. In both views, sex is elevated onto a podium. It becomes a central issue and it's given great weight.

Another symptom of our over-sexed society is how you condemn music that talks about sex in a way you disapprove of, yet we're metal fans who listen to bands that romanticize violence, ideological and religious persecution, anarchy and unlawful behaviour, and certainly spread misleading or false information. You may come up with good reasons for this, but it clearly portrays the central role of sex in our society. So in a nutshell: people who condemn loose sexual morals and the glorification of sex in media often are victims of this same glorification interpreted a little different.

That's not to say I think it's good that one or two outlooks on sex have hegemony in media and society. I don't know if it's wrong, but a more diverse and critical understanding of any subject couldn't hurt.

Written by IronAngel on 21.02.2011 at 23:27

Another symptom of our over-sexed society is how you condemn music that talks about sex in a way you disapprove of, yet we're metal fans who listen to bands that romanticize violence, ideological and religious persecution, anarchy and unlawful behaviour, and certainly spread misleading or false information.

Speak for yourself. Some of us don't listen to metal that glorifies immorality.

Written by IronAngel on 21.02.2011 at 23:27

Who is anyone to monopolize sex? It's pretty hypocritical to criticize the one-sided, commercialised view of sex advocated by the media but at the same time mystify true sex with your beloved as some ultimate experience of unity and bliss. If it really is all that, can you begrudge others for wanting to experience the same or even a shadow of it? Who gets to decide which relationships fulfill the criteria and are allowed to have "real sex"? But in reality, it's just two sides of the same coin. In both views, sex is elevated onto a podium. It becomes a central issue and it's given great weight.

Another symptom of our over-sexed society is how you condemn music that talks about sex in a way you disapprove of, yet we're metal fans who listen to bands that romanticize violence, ideological and religious persecution, anarchy and unlawful behaviour, and certainly spread misleading or false information. You may come up with good reasons for this, but it clearly portrays the central role of sex in our society. So in a nutshell: people who condemn loose sexual morals and the glorification of sex in media often are victims of this same glorification interpreted a little different.

That's not to say I think it's good that one or two outlooks on sex have hegemony in media and society. I don't know if it's wrong, but a more diverse and critical understanding of any subject couldn't hurt.

What I'm talking about is that their glorification of sex is glorifying something hypothetical that doesn't really constitute good sex for anyone. I'm not against loose sex (in fact I prefer it if my partners have at least some elementary experience). The media version however sends people chasing a pipe dream that doesn't really exist. Sex is not a central part of my life at all, and I can be good friends with good looking women for years and never have any serious thought about trying to get into their pants, neither in any mystified way nor in a glorified way.

Also, I have nothing against sex being used in the media for some purposes. What I am condemning is the very real phenomenon of a false image of sex being used to make people hand out money for stuff that are often not even sex-related aside from marketing, as well as the effect that such marketing has on a gullible person's views of the actual sex act. Sure, people percieve sex differently, but when you come down to it, the kind of sex glorified by the media for marketing purposes is only an illusion.

I have not said anything about relationships and their connection to the sex act being required. I'm all for sexual liberation and I see it as something progressive in society. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between liberation and exploitation that a lot of younger people don't seem to understand. Exploitation occurs when the liberation is turned against the liberated and becomes more of a prison in itself, when a loose attitude towards sex becomes the norm and everything other than that is seen as deviant (as is often the case here with the pressure put on people through the media outlets), the liberation has turned against the people it was supposed to liberate and turned into a constraint in itself. It is at this point not liberation anymore. Since the people who found a way to exploit the old system are now finding a way to exploit the new one, it becomes exploitation.

If anything, I believe that when sex is used in art, it should portray it as it really is. It is a physical activity that two or more people can engage in for a number of reasons. A nuanced way is the best way of dealing with it, as well as doing so restrictively, rather than just for the sake of it (usually veiled marketing). What I believe would do society good is a more laid back view on sex as a whole. I don't see today's views as laid back. Liberal compared to the past, maybe, but not laid back at all. The pressure is still there, telling people to conform to the set sexual roles of men and women, only this time around it is coming as much from the opposite direction as it is from the old conservative views.

When thongs are marketed to 12 year old girls under false pretenses, you know something is wrong (if you support actual sexual liberation, and not the bastardized version of it we see today).

To sum it up, yes I think both sides suck. Big time.

And about the metal, yes I will generally look down on a lot of bands if I see it as obvious that they are only about marketing.

ForeverDarkWoods: Fair enough. I wasn't really aiming my post at you, but I shouldn't have been lazy and should've instead pointed specific sections to specific people. I was especially answering Viggo and Ernil as well (though I'm not quite sure what his view on sex is). Yours is a really consistent analysis and I can't find much fault in it. I don't quite understand or agree with what you say about sex in marketing, though. Yes, it's illusion and glorification. But isn't exhanging money for illusions what the entertainment business is about? I don't think there's anything wrong with that in general (as long as it doesn't take too central a role in a person's life, which it may often do today), and it's certainly not a phenomenon particular to sex. I may be too optimistic, but I seriously doubt children buy into everything the media feeds them. I would give them more credit than that. We're talking about teenagers anyway, so we should consider it may be a phase related to their age. Despite the bleak colors you paint the world in, I know nobody in my relatively large social circles between ages 20-28 who mimics pop songs and prime time porn in their behaviour. I fully concur with everything you said about sexual liberation, deviants, norms and pressure but I don't think the real situation is anything close to that. While the media portrays a misleading and over-glorified image of sex, the social reality doesn't boil down to the media. In my experience, people are smarter than that.

Ernil: Please, I could name half a dozen bands in your favorites list who write about things much more dubious than a night of glamorous partying and sex without consequence. Maybe you don't consider them that bad and maybe many people would agree, and that's fine. I'm not morality police. But that doesn't change the observation that your opinion is a prime example of the central role of sexuality in modern morality and stems from the same cultural background as the flipside stance.

Written by IronAngel on 22.02.2011 at 00:42

Ernil: Please, I could name half a dozen bands in your favorites list who write about things much more dubious than a night of glamorous partying and sex without consequence.

Go ahead and name them. Second, you've missed the point. I despise the equivocation of sex with love. I don't despise songs about sex or violence. There's a difference between singing about a night of wild sex and singing about how a man is to demonstrate his love for a woman by doing her.

Written by IronAngel on 22.02.2011 at 00:42

ForeverDarkWoods: Fair enough. I wasn't really aiming my post at you, but I shouldn't have been lazy and should've instead pointed specific sections to specific people. I was especially answering Viggo and Ernil as well (though I'm not quite sure what his view on sex is). Yours is a really consistent analysis and I can't find much fault in it. I don't quite understand or agree with what you say about sex in marketing, though. Yes, it's illusion and glorification. But isn't exhanging money for illusions what the entertainment business is about? I don't think there's anything wrong with that in general (as long as it doesn't take too central a role in a person's life, which it may often do today), and it's certainly not a phenomenon particular to sex. I may be too optimistic, but I seriously doubt children buy into everything the media feeds them. I would give them more credit than that. We're talking about teenagers anyway, so we should consider it may be a phase related to their age. Despite the bleak colors you paint the world in, I know nobody in my relatively large social circles between ages 20-28 who mimics pop songs and prime time porn in their behaviour. I fully concur with everything you said about sexual liberation, deviants, norms and pressure but I don't think the real situation is anything close to that. While the media portrays a misleading and over-glorified image of sex, the social reality doesn't boil down to the media. In my experience, people are smarter than that.

In my experience though, the subconscious plays a much larger role in behavioural development than we realize. The real power of the media is not to influence us cosciously, but more on a subconscious level. If we look at the differences in the political spectrum in the US compared to Europe, we will see that the environment, largely consisting of things we see around us (of which the media is a big part for most people) can shape a person more than most conscious thought, and most of us never realize it. The values spread subconsciously constitute the reason why the media works as a weapon to use against your enemies, and why it can shape opinions about almost everything.

"Of course I need to dress and act like this to seem attractive, everyone else does. Oh, and I have to buy this and this and that bla bla skin lotion."

The danger of the media's influence is not what you know you think and the way you know you act, it's the stuff you start thinking and doing automatically under the false pretense that you are acting out of free will alone. Subconscious manipulation can do that to you. The question becomes, who is behind this manipulation that goes through the corporate media? Subconscious influence serves a purpose.

My main problem is not that the majority of pop songs make women out to be simply sex objects, because that's been happening for ages. My problem is that women buy into this and let themselves be used in this regard. Having sex is fine. Having immoral, unemotional sex is fine. Thinking that's all you or other people are worth is not.

Written by whatsacow on 22.02.2011 at 07:27

My main problem is not that the majority of pop songs make women out to be simply sex objects, because that's been happening for ages. My problem is that women buy into this and let themselves be used in this regard. Having sex is fine. Having immoral, unemotional sex is fine. Thinking that's all you or other people are worth is not.

I pretty much agree with this too. I believe Imogen Heap would call it "The dumbing down of love".

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 22.02.2011 at 01:17

The danger of the media's influence is not what you know you think and the way you know you act, it's the stuff you start thinking and doing automatically under the false pretense that you are acting out of free will alone. Subconscious manipulation can do that to you. The question becomes, who is behind this manipulation that goes through the corporate media? Subconscious influence serves a purpose.

yeah i was about to say that, i think kids trying to conform to the American Pie stereotype of "you either have sex every night or you're a loser" is a huge part of why so many teens act promiscuously. now from my experience here it's slightly different than in the West, as the media hasn't been tainted for so much time with this overglorification bordering on obsession for sex(for my generation at least):

-girls lose their virginity at about 15-16, mostly with guys they are completely infatuated with for a short amount of time(most are about the same age, maybe slightly higher)

-guys lose their virginity at 14-15, mostly with hookers, as was my case (though i was almost 18 years old)

so the age at which you begin to have sex in Romania is a bit higher, and imo is about just at the "sweet spot" if you know what i mean. seeing as the American Pie series has died down, i hope this is also the general trend for the ridiculous teenage(teenagers played by 25-year olds) "have sex or die!" movies that we've been flooded with in the past few years.

Written by Guest on 21.02.2011 at 17:44

Quote:

of course, there remains the problem of the glorification of sex in media, and i don't agree with that, but then again what can one man do except turning off the tv?

We can starve artists who promote immoral ideas financially by not buying their albums.

i was saying it figuratively and literally. my first reaction was to also check your favorite bands list but then again as you say it's not the problem of having sex, but of what comes with it. having safe sex is fine and in 99% of cases in my opinion is completely acceptable. suddenly a 14 year old girl thinks she must be in love because she'd been drilled by some insecure guy in his late 20's, or she doesn't realize she could have a baby or an STD if she lets him do it without a condom.

Written by Valentin B on 22.02.2011 at 10:46

seeing as the American Pie series has died down, i hope this is also the general trend for the ridiculous teenage(teenagers played by 25-year olds) "have sex or die!" movies that we've been flooded with in the past few years

But I liked Stifler's mom...

Being serious, however, I think that promoting the idea that being a 13 or 16 or whatever year old virgin is uncool, is dangerous. However, promoting the idea that if you haven't been screwed, you haven't been loved is times worse. Human beings want to be cool, but they need to be loved. When I was 16, I didn't have a clue what love was and neither did anyone else my age that I knew.

Quote:

i was saying it figuratively and literally. my first reaction was to also check your favorite bands list

That's called appeal to hypocrisy and it cannot falsify my proposition, even if I had Bakteria on my favorites list ("bury your baby sister in an elephant's rectum"). Sorry, buddy.

Written by Guest on 22.02.2011 at 11:07

But I liked Stifler's mom...

Dude...

What's the phenomenon of this woman?


If you want a milf, then this is a milf...

Written by Valentin B on 21.02.2011 at 12:29

don't worry, it's a well-developed EU/Schengen Area/Eurozone country he's talking about. most probably his views aren't born from enormous poverty, but from subjective experience with the people around him.

East Onion? I don't know if people really buy the propaganda our government is sending to the foreign states of the "miracle of Estonian economy, the electronic state and whatnot"... Yes, it's in EU/Schengen and now also in Eurozone but even when there's success, the price of it is the poverty of people... This country has the highest prevalence of HIV in Europe, we're on African level compared to other EU countries... having unprotected sex in Estonia is a potential suicide...
Not to speak of other things... a journalist flew from Hong Kong to Estonia to witness the "miracle" of this place and well... I have been to Hong Kong myself... well-developed country? My ass... just take a trip from Helsinki, not to say from Hong Kong and you see the difference... not to speak of Moscow, dear people... and St. Petersburg... now these can be called developed places...

Written by Ernis on 22.02.2011 at 21:58

Written by Valentin B on 21.02.2011 at 12:29

don't worry, it's a well-developed EU/Schengen Area/Eurozone country he's talking about. most probably his views aren't born from enormous poverty, but from subjective experience with the people around him.

East Onion? I don't know if people really buy the propaganda our government is sending to the foreign states of the "miracle of Estonian economy, the electronic state and whatnot"... Yes, it's in EU/Schengen and now also in Eurozone but even when there's success, the price of it is the poverty of people... This country has the highest prevalence of HIV in Europe, we're on African level compared to other EU countries... having unprotected sex in Estonia is a potential suicide...
Not to speak of other things... a journalist flew from Hong Kong to Estonia to witness the "miracle" of this place and well... I have been to Hong Kong myself... well-developed country? My ass... just take a trip from Helsinki, not to say from Hong Kong and you see the difference... not to speak of Moscow, dear people... and St. Petersburg... now these can be called developed places...

Moscow developed compared to Tallinn? aside from the high HIV incidence, how is living in the city with the most expensive rents in the world more pleasant? there's also road safety problems, crime, racism, the Russian oligarchy, etc. all pale in comparison with living there and (much more importantly if you dislike Tallinn) having a Schengen ID/passport. you are pretty much unlimited in your option to move to a more developed country in any possible corner of the EU. Russians aren't.

don't get me wrong, i wouldn't die happy if i didn't visit Russia some day but the only thing i can see you would like about that place is the fact that they are a much more conservative society, but i personally wouldn't like to live there unless i had a guaranteed job or scholarship. it's not worth it to sacrifice your comfort just because the media is a bit more restrained in showing boobs on newspapers.

Written by Guest on 22.02.2011 at 01:03

Written by IronAngel on 22.02.2011 at 00:42

Ernil: Please, I could name half a dozen bands in your favorites list who write about things much more dubious than a night of glamorous partying and sex without consequence.

Go ahead and name them. Second, you've missed the point. I despise the equivocation of sex with love. I don't despise songs about sex or violence. There's a difference between singing about a night of wild sex and singing about how a man is to demonstrate his love for a woman by doing her.

I'm really listing off the top of my head, because I'm not making a very strong point. Black Sabbath's Sweet Leaf directly encourages the listener to "Come on now, try it out." So it's encouraging illegal behaviour. Type O Negative sings about all sorts of stuff, such as killing your ex and her new man out of jealousy:
"Staring down at your sweaty embraces
Put my tool right through your faces
Well buddyboy I hope you enjoyed her
'Cause I'm an equal opportunity destroyer."

That's hardly a lawful, ethical thing to do. Let's not even go into the naivetes of Children Of Bodom.

And because you disapprove of spreading false and harmful information especially, shouldn't you be concerned about how Therion presents history and mythology untruthfully or how Ensiferum, Rhapsody or Iced Earth romanticize violence and war? How many young American metalheads have been corrupted into riding to war with the religious propaganda of their leaders and the lyrics of Ensiferum's Into Battle in their ears? And to be even more far-fetched, don't you think it's dubious how lightly and irresponsibly The Gathering play with the space-time continuum in Strange Machines?

Some of those examples are pretty obvious, others are more like ridicilous. And the point isn't that they're necessarily wrong. My only point was that it is telling of our society and worth noticing in yourself that you automatically give such great weight to issues of sexuality while you're happy overlooking other questionable themes that might give equal cause for concern.

Admittedly, the full irony of the situation doesn't apply to you, because you've said very little about sex itself. The sharpest point was aimed at Viggo, who mystified true sex between two lovers as one of the most beautiful things on earth (as opposed to the "shallow" and "incomplete" ways).

I'm not sure why you are so worried about equating sex with love, though. If that was really the message these artists want to send and if people really accepted that view (consciously or subconsciously), wouldn't that in fact make sex more of a big deal and an intimate thing? Don't most people think a symbiosis of love and sex is the ideal situation, and advocating either loveless sex or sexless love seems incomplete? So there's something wrong with your analysis. Equating sex with love is not the problem, or if it is, it's not a new problem. The two have been connected for a long time. And moreover, we don't see teenagers acting as if they thought love was a necessary and sufficent premiss for sex or otherwise they would not engage in sex so lightly (just as they don't say they love just any passing acquaintance).

Written by Guest on 22.02.2011 at 11:07

Quote:

i was saying it figuratively and literally. my first reaction was to also check your favorite bands list

That's called appeal to hypocrisy and it cannot falsify my proposition, even if I had Bakteria on my favorites list ("bury your baby sister in an elephant's rectum"). Sorry, buddy.

but that would mean you have double standards. you don't care for violence and gore, something Iced Earth and Children of Bodom have tons of songs about, but you do care really a lot about how people equate sex with love, which is confusing (though i do have a theory that most metalheads like violence in their music because they have this seething anger within them, this rage hidden deep inside and don't know how to express). if you stop to think about it, this (quote from CoB's Touch Like Angel of Death):

In the dusk of evening I tuck you up with feathers
Forever I'll stand by your side
In the twilight of night I'm laughing
While cutting you hundred and thirteen times

is far worse (though at the same level of intelligence) as this:

Come on rude boy,
can you get it up,
is it big enough!
Give it to me baby like boom boom boom!

you can have your own opinion, but i see the scales weighing heavier in CoB's direction as far as immorality goes.

then again, the way i see it the problem is it's not what you say/look like/do, but how many people hear/see you, how much need do they have to belong to a social group and "be cool" and how willing are they to follow you. there are many NS punk bands in the world, but they mostly have gigs in tiny obscure clubs with 40 people. if suddenly one such band rose to complete international fame by some magic, there would be much more fans, and then, seeing as they have a bigger society to back them up, more people would do crazy shit like attacking jews and whatever. imo it's mostly about how many "players" are there in the game.

then again, it should also be something that's socially acceptable. seeing as our society already glorifies sex and "love", singing about that stuff makes gullible kids in their early teens lose their minds because at that age you simply believe everything that you see on tv, same as wearing short skirts and whatnot.

but compare this to for example WASP: they were one of the sleaziest bands in the scene, yet you hardly see anyone dress, act, whatever like Blackie Lawless simply because there aren't that many people listening to him. WASP's music is not a creator of some kind of mass psychosis played 24/7 on any tv station or radio channel. yet a third of their songs are about fucking, and equating it with "love", even the notorious "Animal (Fuck Like a Beast)." and you don't see anyone having sex because Blackie told them to(unlike some artists i'll talk about a few lines down). same with the band Anvil, who has some quite explicit songs about fucking, as well as some more subtle, and the list goes on and on and on.

on the other hand bands like Ac/Dc, Def Leppard and Motley Crue had a truly enormous following in the 80s and thus contributed to the whole sleazy, drug-infused image of that time, seeing as most of DL's hits and almost ALL Ac/Dc songs are metaphors for sex. they created the whole groupie industry and you can see how many people tried to copy their style in the glam rock wave, and how many groupies they nailed(simply because they appealed to everyone and were so goddamned awesome).

in conclusion, i don't find it dangerous as long as it's not a general "trend", and 99% of metal bands can't have any such influence on the general public no matter what they do.

then again, i realize it's weird that i'm applying this only for bands who aren't at superstar trendsetting level, and i still would never buy a NS metal cd or something. though i don't really care for the issue(there are far more important things in the world happening which we need to focus on) i think there ought to be more moderation as bands/artists/whatever get progressively more popular, but this isn't a perfect world.

Written by IronAngel on 23.02.2011 at 00:19

I'm really listing off the top of my head, because I'm not making a very strong point. Black Sabbath's Sweet Leaf directly encourages the listener to "Come on now, try it out." So it's encouraging illegal behaviour. Type O Negative sings about all sorts of stuff, such as killing your ex and her new man out of jealousy:
"Staring down at your sweaty embraces
Put my tool right through your faces
Well buddyboy I hope you enjoyed her
'Cause I'm an equal opportunity destroyer."

Misses the point completely. Which is probably my fault for not explaining myself clearly enough. But that's nothing that cannot be fixed.

Quote:

And because you disapprove of spreading false and harmful information especially, shouldn't you be concerned about how Therion presents history and mythology untruthfully or how Ensiferum, Rhapsody or Iced Earth romanticize violence and war? How many young American metalheads have been corrupted into riding to war with the religious propaganda of their leaders and the lyrics of Ensiferum's Into Battle in their ears?

I am not concerned about that. No one, who doesn't want to kill people - that's everyone except psychopaths - is going to kill anyone because he's favorite band romanticizes battle. This isn't what I had a problem with in Rihanna's songs. I'll come back to this.

Quote:

Some of those examples are pretty obvious, others are more like ridicilous. And the point isn't that they're necessarily wrong. My only point was that it is telling of our society and worth noticing in yourself that you automatically give such great weight to issues of sexuality while you're happy overlooking other questionable themes that might give equal cause for concern.

The disgusting immorality of Rihanna's lyrics wasn't just about sex or sexuality, it was about equating sex with love. That's not the same as glorifying war, because no human has the natural need to kill people. But we do all have the natural desire to be loved and claiming that getting fucked by a guy with a big enough dick is it, is immoral. That's the difference between Ensiferum and Rihanna. Now there's a sentence I never would have thought I'd say...

Quote:

I'm not sure why you are so worried about equating sex with love, though.

Because the desire to be loved is a natural need that all humans share and the song claims that by getting fucked, the need is being fulfilled. That's evil.

Quote:

If that was really the message these artists want to send and if people really accepted that view (consciously or subconsciously), wouldn't that in fact make sex more of a big deal and an intimate thing? Don't most people think a symbiosis of love and sex is the ideal situation, and advocating either loveless sex or sexless love seems incomplete?

That's not what the song's about or she wouldn't be concerned with the size of his meaty monster. The song translates out to: if he fucks me and he is well equipped, he loves me.

Quote:

So there's something wrong with your analysis. Equating sex with love is not the problem, or if it is, it's not a new problem. The two have been connected for a long time.

Claiming that two things are connected isn't the same as equating them.

Quote:

And moreover, we don't see teenagers acting as if they thought love was a necessary and sufficent premiss for sex or otherwise they would not engage in sex so lightly (just as they don't say they love just any passing acquaintance).

I don't see what this has to do with my point. Anyways, I hope I've cleared up my position a bit, if I haven't then it's probably because I have a fever and my head is reeling.

Written by Valentin B on 23.02.2011 at 01:33

but that would mean you have double standards.

I could be the world's worst hypocrite and still be right. Appealing to hypocrisy has no bearing on whether or not Rihanna's songs are immoral.

Quote:

you don't care for violence and gore, something Iced Earth and Children of Bodom have tons of songs about, but you do care really a lot about how people equate sex with love, which is confusing (though i do have a theory that most metalheads like violence in their music because they have this seething anger within them, this rage hidden deep inside and don't know how to express). if you stop to think about it, this (quote from CoB's Touch Like Angel of Death):

In the dusk of evening I tuck you up with feathers
Forever I'll stand by your side
In the twilight of night I'm laughing
While cutting you hundred and thirteen times

is far worse (though at the same level of intelligence) as this:

Come on rude boy,
can you get it up,
is it big enough!
Give it to me baby like boom boom boom!

you can have your own opinion, but i see the scales weighing heavier in CoB's direction as far as immorality goes.

I said everything about this in my response to IronAngel, if you wish, you can read it.

Written by Guest on 23.02.2011 at 11:26

Written by IronAngel on 23.02.2011 at 00:19

I'm really listing off the top of my head, because I'm not making a very strong point. Black Sabbath's Sweet Leaf directly encourages the listener to "Come on now, try it out." So it's encouraging illegal behaviour. Type O Negative sings about all sorts of stuff, such as killing your ex and her new man out of jealousy:
"Staring down at your sweaty embraces
Put my tool right through your faces
Well buddyboy I hope you enjoyed her
'Cause I'm an equal opportunity destroyer."

Misses the point completely. Which is probably my fault for not explaining myself clearly enough. But that's nothing that cannot be fixed.

Quote:

And because you disapprove of spreading false and harmful information especially, shouldn't you be concerned about how Therion presents history and mythology untruthfully or how Ensiferum, Rhapsody or Iced Earth romanticize violence and war? How many young American metalheads have been corrupted into riding to war with the religious propaganda of their leaders and the lyrics of Ensiferum's Into Battle in their ears?

I am not concerned about that. No one, who doesn't want to kill people - that's everyone except psychopaths - is going to kill anyone because he's favorite band romanticizes battle. This isn't what I had a problem with in Rihanna's songs. I'll come back to this.

Quote:

Some of those examples are pretty obvious, others are more like ridicilous. And the point isn't that they're necessarily wrong. My only point was that it is telling of our society and worth noticing in yourself that you automatically give such great weight to issues of sexuality while you're happy overlooking other questionable themes that might give equal cause for concern.

The disgusting immorality of Rihanna's lyrics wasn't just about sex or sexuality, it was about equating sex with love. That's not the same as glorifying war, because no human has the natural need to kill people. But we do all have the natural desire to be loved and claiming that getting fucked by a guy with a big enough dick is it, is immoral. That's the difference between Ensiferum and Rihanna. Now there's a sentence I never would have thought I'd say...

Quote:

I'm not sure why you are so worried about equating sex with love, though.

Because the desire to be loved is a natural need that all humans share and the song claims that by getting fucked, the need is being fulfilled. That's evil.

Quote:

If that was really the message these artists want to send and if people really accepted that view (consciously or subconsciously), wouldn't that in fact make sex more of a big deal and an intimate thing? Don't most people think a symbiosis of love and sex is the ideal situation, and advocating either loveless sex or sexless love seems incomplete?

That's not what the song's about or she wouldn't be concerned with the size of his meaty monster. The song translates out to: if he fucks me and he is well equipped, he loves me.

Quote:

So there's something wrong with your analysis. Equating sex with love is not the problem, or if it is, it's not a new problem. The two have been connected for a long time.

That view is still a bit over the top. It isn't as harmful as other lyrics, for example eminem telling people they should take cocaine, rape their mother, murder their wife, and openly bash the gay society. While he isn't as relevant today (although I think he recently did a song with rhianna) I was buying his album's when I was 8. I don't think any of what he said was true, or that I should do it. I just thought it was funny (and I thought he was from south park, but that's a different story altogether.)

The main thing is that people aren't as dumb as you say there are. I mean sure, there are certain impressional people in society that shouldn't listen to things, but that should be the parents who choose. Would you give a Burzum cd to someone who is suicidal? Would you give a game of Grand Theft Auto to someone with autism, who can't distinguish reality from the game? No. So while I agree with you to a point that kids shouldn't listen to certain things, it should be the parents who decide. These are artists making hits for late teens and young adults, who have probably been there and experienced all that, and the young girls who think that will realise how wrong they were. While we have moved forward quite a lot in society, it is still a man's view of sex that is dominant. So no matter what happens, these girls are going to be told by their jackass boyfriends when they are 15, 16, that if they don't have sex with them that they don't love them. So even without your Rhinna's and Gaga's, people would still be acting exactly the same. The teenage years people are naturally promiscious anyway, so you cannot blame it all on the music.

Written by whatsacow on 23.02.2011 at 21:46

That view is still a bit over the top. It isn't as harmful as other lyrics, for example eminem telling people they should take cocaine, rape their mother, murder their wife, and openly bash the gay society.

Sigh...did I still not explain myself clearly enough?

Quote:

The main thing is that people aren't as dumb as you say there are. I mean sure, there are certain impressional people in society that shouldn't listen to things, but that should be the parents who choose. Would you give a Burzum cd to someone who is suicidal? Would you give a game of Grand Theft Auto to someone with autism, who can't distinguish reality from the game?

No, I wouldn't. But this has nothing to do with my point.

Quote:

So while I agree with you to a point that kids shouldn't listen to certain things, it should be the parents who decide. These are artists making hits for late teens and young adults, who have probably been there and experienced all that, and the young girls who think that will realise how wrong they were. While we have moved forward quite a lot in society, it is still a man's view of sex that is dominant. So no matter what happens, these girls are going to be told by their jackass boyfriends when they are 15, 16, that if they don't have sex with them that they don't love them. So even without your Rhinna's and Gaga's, people would still be acting exactly the same. The teenage years people are naturally promiscious anyway, so you cannot blame it all on the music.

But I didn't...

Written by Guest on 23.02.2011 at 22:16

Written by whatsacow on 23.02.2011 at 21:46

That view is still a bit over the top. It isn't as harmful as other lyrics, for example eminem telling people they should take cocaine, rape their mother, murder their wife, and openly bash the gay society.

Sigh...did I still not explain myself clearly enough?

Quote:

The main thing is that people aren't as dumb as you say there are. I mean sure, there are certain impressional people in society that shouldn't listen to things, but that should be the parents who choose. Would you give a Burzum cd to someone who is suicidal? Would you give a game of Grand Theft Auto to someone with autism, who can't distinguish reality from the game?

No, I wouldn't. But this has nothing to do with my point.

Quote:

So while I agree with you to a point that kids shouldn't listen to certain things, it should be the parents who decide. These are artists making hits for late teens and young adults, who have probably been there and experienced all that, and the young girls who think that will realise how wrong they were. While we have moved forward quite a lot in society, it is still a man's view of sex that is dominant. So no matter what happens, these girls are going to be told by their jackass boyfriends when they are 15, 16, that if they don't have sex with them that they don't love them. So even without your Rhinna's and Gaga's, people would still be acting exactly the same. The teenage years people are naturally promiscious anyway, so you cannot blame it all on the music.

But I didn't...

I quoted your comment, but I was pointing that at everyone who had the sex in songs is evil approach. That's a very dumbed down version of the arguement, so don't think everything I was saying was aimed at you. Also, Keep in mind I wrote that at 6 am, so if it doesn't make a great deal of sense, that's why lol.

Written by whatsacow on 24.02.2011 at 07:45

I quoted your comment, but I was pointing that at everyone who had the sex in songs is evil approach. That's a very dumbed down version of the arguement, so don't think everything I was saying was aimed at you. Also, Keep in mind I wrote that at 6 am, so if it doesn't make a great deal of sense, that's why lol.

OK then. It is amazing how the later the hour, the smarter people - myself included - feel when posting.

Written by Guest on 24.02.2011 at 18:24

Written by whatsacow on 24.02.2011 at 07:45

I quoted your comment, but I was pointing that at everyone who had the sex in songs is evil approach. That's a very dumbed down version of the arguement, so don't think everything I was saying was aimed at you. Also, Keep in mind I wrote that at 6 am, so if it doesn't make a great deal of sense, that's why lol.

OK then. It is amazing how the later the hour, the smarter people - myself included - feel when posting.

Yes, welay there half asleep on the keyboard thinking: Omg, everyone is an idiot except me!

Why do we tend to make life so difficult?
I mean, if we would just eat, sleep, have sex and have fun, isn't that all you need?

Written by lisarowe on 14.10.2011 at 21:58
I mean, if we would just eat, sleep, have sex and have fun, isn't that all you need?

And make a little money. Then I'm with you.

Here's my short lil' post on this topic, a quote from the amazing atheist, "Mother fuckers account for 50% of the population"... I think the nature of it is kind of like lets keep the human race goin' really.

Sex is awesome but the details of what I do aren't up for discussion. That's a very private matter imo. I'll tell my friends "yeah we had sex" to gross them out hahaha but I'll leave it at that. If there's a funny story relating to a sexual encounter I had I may share that too but that's it.

As for eating, when you eat you're not showing your private parts when you eat (well, maybe some perverts do but you know what I'm saying ) so I'm not sure how these 2 things can be compared. Also, some people do consider eating private...they refuse to eat in front of other people. As for me, I devour anything anywhere! I fucking love food! (or should that say I love fucking food?)