ShareThis Page
Saturday essay: Sexed-up study |

Saturday essay: Sexed-up study

| Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:00 a.m

Since the new Rand Corp. study — “Exposure to Degrading Versus Non-Degrading Music Lyrics and Sexual Behavior Among Youth” — is not in the Carnivora order of the Mammalia class, it simply cannot be in the Mustelidae family regardless the number of weasel words.

The analysis by the nonprofit research organization that claims to provide objective analysis and effective solutions has more qualifiers (“strong theoretical justification,” “there is good reason to believe that,” “worrisome implication,” “suggests,” “could,” “possible,” “more likely” and, of course, “may”) than drivers at the Daytona 500.

But there is one absolute.

The study all but says that exposure to sexually degrading music like songs about men as “sex-driven studs” and women as sex objects triggers teens to make inappropriate decisions. “All but says” because it cannot say that even one will, according to a Rand spokeswoman.

It all but says weasel words are a must.

There is good reason to believe the study has worrisome implications that suggest the media are more likely to ignore the facts when the story is about sex.

A Google news search this week for “lyrics” and “sex” produced hundreds of results. Headlines overflowed with “prompts,” “leads,” “catalyst,” “linked,” “steers,” “tied” and “raunchy songs, early sex go together.”

As do “objective” and “analysis.”

— Dimitri Vassilaros

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.