The "Call Me Maybe" song by Carly Rae Jepsen

By now, I think we've all heard the infectuous summertime hit song "Call Me Maybe" by Canadian singer Carly Rae Jepsen. It's inspired a whole bunch of parodies, including, among other things, a lip-synching by the U.S. Olympic swimming team, a lip-syncing by a bunch of British cheerleaders, a cookie-sharing themed parody by Sesame Street called "Share it Maybe," and a raunchy parody by The Key of Awesome (they also parodied Kesha's "Tik Tok," among several other songs).

USA Olympic Swim Team Sing 'Call Me Maybe': Yes, Ryan Lochte And Michael Phelps Too

Quote:

---

Hey, I just met you
And this is crazy
But here's my number
So call me maybe

---

Now, when you look at Carly Rae Jepsen and her music video for "Call Me Maybe," you would probably think that she's about the same age as Justin Bieber, the artist who signed her to his record label, if not slightly older, like his girlfriend Selena Gomez (by the way, she just turned 20 a few days ago), but I was shocked to find out, as were a whole lot of others, that she's actually 26 years old, and will be 27 in November. Yes, Justin Bieber apparently signed someone who's about nine and a half years older than he is to his record label. She is also older than Adele, Taylor Swift, and Colbie Caillat.

In addition, she was also previously a 3rd place finalist on the fifth season of Canadian Idol in 2008, which was their local version of what we Americans know as American Idol. She was 22-23 at the time, and was quite successful in her native Canada since then, but her "Call Me Maybe" song has now launched her popularity into the United States and several other countries as well.

Whenever I hear her song, it reminds me of those late 90s/early 2000s female pop stars like Mandy Moore, Jessica Simpson, and Britney Spears in her Hit Me Baby One More Time era. It's certainly a very catchy song, considering the many parodies that it has inspired since its debut; it's the song that keeps on giving.

I know that a lot of you tend to hate on Justin Bieber, but considering that Carly Rae Jepsen is about nine and a half-years older than him, and previously a 3rd-place finalist on Canadian Idol, do you feel any different about her? Personally, I was shocked, as were a whole lot of other people, to find out that she's actually 26, but I still like her, and I find her to be a whole lot better than Lady GaGa, Kesha, Katy Perry, and even Miley Cyrus in her regular incarnation (Carly Rae Jepsen is more like Miley Cyrus in her Hannah Montana incarnation, minus the blonde wig, but with a much better voice).

Ehh. That entire crowd must go.

I hate everything I just read.

I don't really like that song.

I have never heard it and I refuse to ever listen to it.

The Cookie Monster parody was good. That is the only positive thing that can be said about the song.

She is really, really attractive.

And to think this guy helped make it.

No I have not heard this and I will not.

I hate this song with the fiery passion of several thousand suns. I also hate that it is now stuck in my head thanks to this thread.

I've have that Kelly Clarkson Since You been gone sing stuck in my head from the moment I walked into work today :( Why must store play horrible music!? We have 4 stations to choose from and the managers (who are all late 20's early 30's) always choose the crappy pop station!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

I know that a lot of you tend to hate on Justin Bieber, but considering that Carly Rae Jepsen is about nine and a half-years older than him, and previously a 3rd-place finalist on Canadian Idol, do you feel any different about her?

---

I'm not a music and this is crazy but I'm pretty sure that's not why anyone has a problem with Justin Bieber.

Quote:

---

Personally, I was shocked, as were a whole lot of other people, to find out that she's actually 26, but I still like her, and I find her to be a whole lot better than Lady GaGa, Kesha, Katy Perry, and even Miley Cyrus in her regular incarnation (Carly Rae Jepsen is more like Miley Cyrus in her Hannah Montana incarnation, minus the blonde wig, but with a much better voice).

---

I'm not sure if you're a music either? But yeah I don't think Carly Rae Jepsen can do this. If she can, good for her! We need more talented artists! But Lady Gaga, regardless of whether you like her, is an astoundingly talented individual and for all her love of spectacle and showmanship, she can sit down with nothing but a piano and do more than anyone else you listed (or most other people working today in the music business, for that matter) can with all the autotune, lipsynching, and whatever the hell it is Kesha does.

I want to choke Katy Perry to death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylvie

I hate everything I just read.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faris

And to think this guy helped make it.

---

I don't have any idea who that is.

Not a fan of the song. Signing her up does not make Bieber any better or more respectable than he is at the time (whatever this means to you). Also, mentioning her in comparison to Kesha, Spears, Cyrus isn't really doing her any favors.

The teenage girl inside me really enjoys singing that song at the top of my lungs with all the windows down when it comes on the radio. She's such a bitch.

I have never heard it. As I get older and become a more efficient human being, I have mastered the art of not listening to troutty music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clo

I have never heard it. As I get older and become a more efficient human being, I have mastered the art of not listening to troutty music.

---

Unfortunately some of us work at places where they blare it over the radio on a daily basis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigmafuzz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faris

And to think this guy helped make it.

---

I don't have any idea who that is.

---

Josh Ramsay from Mariana's Trench. Another Canadian :eek:

...Anyone else starting to think that Canadian musicians are trying to take over the world?

Take over the world? No. Corner the market on horrible music that makes me want to lash out and rip the heads off of random people? Yes.

stars
arcade fire
rufus wainright
barenaked ladies
great big sea
matthew good
neil young
sam roberts
the guess who
the tragically hip
shania twain
rush

celine dion
nickelback

That had better be the "good" list with Arcade Fire on it. :colbert:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krissy

stars
arcade fire
rufus wainright
barenaked ladies
great big sea
matthew good
neil young
sam roberts
the guess who
the tragically hip
shania twain
rush

celine dion
nickelback

---

Tragically Hip! *flail* :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

That had better be the "good" list with Arcade Fire on it. :colbert:

---

Nah that's not the "good" list. I can tell because Arcade Fire is on it.

If you want to throw down fisticuffs, fine. I've got Jack Johnson and Tom O'Leary waiting for you right here.

http://i.qkme.me/3q578d.jpg

That meme is painfully unfunny.

Even Bowie can't save it.

You clearly hate fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper

You clearly hate fun.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQkBeOisNM0

Fun are actually very enjoyable, but that's kind of unrelated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uncle Big Hands

That meme is painfully unfunny.

Even Bowie can't save it.

---

I hate that meme but Bowie can save anything.

I have never heard this song.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

That had better be the "good" list with Arcade Fire on it. :colbert:

---

Nah that's not the "good" list. I can tell because Arcade Fire is on it.

---

Yea but so is Rush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uncle Big Hands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper

You clearly hate fun.

---

Fun.: Some Nights [OFFICIAL VIDEO] - YouTube

Fun are actually very enjoyable, but that's kind of unrelated.

---

You know they stole the shouting background from Simon & Garfunkel?

Simon & Garfunkel - Cecilia - YouTube

2:13

I do like the song though. They stole well.

26 is old for pop icons?

It's a Logan's Run situation. They usually get liquidated on their 23rd birthday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uncle Big Hands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper

You clearly hate fun.

---

Fun.: Some Nights [OFFICIAL VIDEO] - YouTube

Fun are actually very enjoyable, but that's kind of unrelated.

---

You know they stole the shouting background from Simon & Garfunkel?

Simon & Garfunkel - Cecilia - YouTube

2:13

I do like the song though. They stole well.

---

MMM, Cecelia, favorite Simon and Garfunkel song. :love:

I have had this song stuck in my head for the past week. I blame this thread. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Personally, I was shocked, as were a whole lot of other people, to find out that she's actually 26, but I still like her, and I find her to be a whole lot better than Lady GaGa, Kesha, Katy Perry, and even Miley Cyrus in her regular incarnation (Carly Rae Jepsen is more like Miley Cyrus in her Hannah Montana incarnation, minus the blonde wig, but with a much better voice).

---

I'm not sure if you're a music either? But yeah I don't think Carly Rae Jepsen can do this. If she can, good for her! We need more talented artists! But Lady Gaga, regardless of whether you like her, is an astoundingly talented individual and for all her love of spectacle and showmanship, she can sit down with nothing but a piano and do more than anyone else you listed (or most other people working today in the music business, for that matter) can with all the autotune, lipsynching, and whatever the hell it is Kesha does.

---

Every time someone says Lady Gaga is talentless, I want to say all these things, but it happens too often. So many people being wrong on the internet, so little time. :(

I just looked this girl up. She looks like Zeldy!

If you hate Call Me Maybe you are trying to be hipster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenboko

If you hate Call Me Maybe you are trying to be hipster.

---

Or you could just not like the song?

I thought the ChatRoulette version was funny enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenboko

If you hate Call Me Maybe you are trying to be hipster.

---

Nope because I love every other terrible song under the sun (just ask #eoff, last night I made all of them puke all over the chatroom because of my musical taste.) So it's just that I hate the song.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenboko

If you hate Call Me Maybe you are trying to be hipster.

---

Nope because I love every other terrible song under the sun (just ask #eoff, last night I made all of them puke all over the chatroom because of my musical taste.) So it's just that I hate the song.

---

Her musical taste is pretty trout. I was there.

I love this song :(

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8...bqbgo1_500.png
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8...bqbgo2_500.png

...my dad... LOVES... THIS... so-ONG... any time I'm in the car with him and this happens to come for the third time, I politely ask for another station and he politely declines and turns up the volume. He also likes that song by Cher Lloyd... or maybe that is the one. I'm so relieved to be away from a radio presently, it doesn't much matter.

You know, it seems to me that a lot of you tend to hate the most catchiest songs, but I don't know why... For me, a song that I would hate would be "I'm Sexy and I Know It" by LMFAO, which is a music group that I really can't stand.

Anyway, going back to Carly Rae Jepsen, she also collaborated with Owl City on their "Good Time" song.

Quote:

---

We don't even have to try
It's always a good time

---

Even if you don't like "Call Me Maybe," I'm hoping that you'll still like this song.

Oh, and Krissy, that Superman/Batman/Nightwing parody image was hilarious! I'm pretty sure that Batman hates the song, but everybody else in the DC Universe likes it, including his own sidekicks and allies. I'd probably think that Wolverine would hate it too, but everybody else in the Marvel Universe would like it. The thing is, though, when it comes to superhero-themed parodies of "Call Me Maybe," I've seen more from DC Comics than I have from Marvel Comics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

You know, it seems to me that a lot of you tend to hate the most catchiest songs, but I don't know why... For me, a song that I would hate would be "I'm Sexy and I Know It" by LMFAO, which is a music group that I really can't stand.

Anyway, going back to Carly Rae Jepsen, she also collaborated with Owl City on their "Good Time" song.

Quote:

---

We don't even have to try
It's always a good time

---

Even if you don't like "Call Me Maybe," I'm hoping that you'll still like this song.

Oh, and Krissy, that Superman/Batman/Nightwing parody image was hilarious! I'm pretty sure that Batman hates the song, but everybody else in the DC Universe likes it, including his own sidekicks and allies. I'd probably think that Wolverine would hate it too, but everybody else in the Marvel Universe would like it. The thing is, though, when it comes to superhero-themed parodies of "Call Me Maybe," I've seen more from DC Comics than I have from Marvel Comics.

---

Part of it is a song being Catchy isn't really anything to be proud of, I'm stealing this quote (I don't remember where from) but any corprate entity can write a catchy tune. Catchy isn't bad, but at this point it's pretty superfluous.

The problem is her vocals, while not bad, aren't that good, and the lyrics are so shallow and stupid.

And I will agree with you on LMFAO. They are awful.

What is wrong with liking something that is just catchy? Maybe corporations can produce them, but it doesn't change the fact it's catchy. Just sounds like elitism to me.

There's nothing wrong with liking something that's catchy and good. The problem is that being catchy alone does not make a song good. It is perfectly possible for a song to be catchy and bad.

I have never heard this song and don't plan to, but there have been a number of relatively amusing memes that have sprouted from it, so at least there's that.

Carly rae jephson - call me maybe (krzyzis mix) by krzyzis on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

hey this is my call me maybe remix bigsmile

just for you guys xoxo

What that guy said.

Edit: I was referring to The Man.

Here's an example of a song that's both catchy and wonderful.

Chumbawamba - Tubthumping - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs

Here's an example of a song that's both catchy and wonderful.

Chumbawamba - Tubthumping - YouTube

---

Quote:

---

The uploader has not made this video available in your country.

---

That awkward moment when a song by a British band of anarchists is banned from being listened to in Britain

Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but your fly is undone, so zip it maybe. :redface:

If you think that song is annoyingly catchy, you haven't yet heard this.

How is that even remotely a catchy a song?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

You know, it seems to me that a lot of you tend to hate the most catchiest songs, but I don't know why... For me, a song that I would hate would be "I'm Sexy and I Know It" by LMFAO.

Anyway, going back to Carly Rae Jepsen, she also collaborated with Owl City on their "Good Time" song.

---

Many times, I tend to hate a song because it is catchy. For example, I also dislike "Want You Back" by Cher Lloyd.

I hate LMFAO. My happens like "Sexy and you know it" as well as "Sorry For Party Rocking." We own Now 42 which has that song and I always hit the skip button before my mom knows it's about to begin. She starts to figure it out when we go through the disc twice without hearing it.

Just because she co-oped with Owl City, doesn't make "Call Me Maybe" a decent song.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mercen-X

Just because she co-oped with Owl City, doesn't make "Call Me Maybe" a decent song.

---

Why should Owl City make anything decent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mercen-X

Just because she co-oped with Owl City, doesn't make "Call Me Maybe" a decent song.

---

Why should Owl City make anything decent?

---

Owl City?
I don't give a hoot about them....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lockharted

If you think that song is annoyingly catchy, you haven't yet heard this.

---

I've watched that video a couple times, and I can't help but see a cameo from one of our own members...

(SPOILER)
http://i.imgur.com/R8J7x.png

Steve, is that you!?

It's been a little while... I wanted to post here earlier, but I was busy with other things. Anyway, earlier, I pointed out that a song which I think of as horrible would be "I'm Sexy and I Know It" by LMFAO. Now, if you want to know another song that I think of as horrible, it would have to be "I Want You Back" by Cher Lloyd, which Mercen-X mentioned earlier; I didn't hear the song until recently, but now that I have heard it, I will agree with you on that song being annoying, in my opinion.

I have a minor celebrity-crush on Carly Rae Jepsen. Yeah, she's physically attractive and all as are many celebrities, but I have a thing for nice voices, and I like her voice in that song she did with Owl City. The song itself isn't amazing by any means, but I love that soft voice she uses. o_x

Monda - I'm glad I'm not the only one! I actually told her that, too. :p Amy, that is. Not Carly.

I sort of liked Cher Lloyd when I watched her on The X Factor, but I have no real interest in her current music. As for Sexy And I Know It, I watched the X Factor's current season for the first time last weekend and some guy called James did a remake of the song. It was probably one of only two good songs on the show the entire night. It wasn't amazing, but what was great is how he took an absolutely rubbish song and turned it into something that I could actually listen to. The lyrics didn't suit the guy or the style or anything, but it did go to show that if you don't actually listen to the lyrics, you can generally make a decent song out of almost anything. :p

Hey, I just thought: In addition to LMFAO and Cher Lloyd, I also hate anything by Nicki Minaj, as I can't stand her. From "Super Bass" to "Starships" and everything else that she has ever made and released, I hate all of her songs.

Cher Lloyd and Carly Rae Jepsen both win points from me for being attractive but that doesn't affect whether their music is technically good or bad. Whether it is technically good or bad doesn't play much into my enjoyment factor either. I'm not elitist to say I won't listen to a song because it's bad even if it's catchy. Personal taste exists and I'm not going to stifle it.

Nicki Minaj's songs are terrible, have terrible lyrics, and as the icing on the terrible cake, she looks terrible on top of that. Utterly terrible.

Even more terrible is that my current crush was actually listening to her in the car when we were going somewhere. :| At least it was only one song.

i like nicki minaj's character
and also here is my destroying of starships

Nicky minaj - starships (krzyzis mix) by krzyzis on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

Dammit, why was this thread bumped? Now I've got Call Me Maybe back in my head again.

Also Starships is super fun to dance to. Got a nice energy to it. S'all I care about, tbh, since the only place I hear such songs are at clubs in which I am supposed to dance. :3

Call Me Maybe Final - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polnareff

Nicki Minaj's songs are terrible, have terrible lyrics, and as the icing on the terrible cake, she looks terrible on top of that. Utterly terrible.

Even more terrible is that my current crush was actually listening to her in the car when we were going somewhere. :| At least it was only one song.

---

Wow, so terrible that you said terrible 6 times. Aside from that, I agree with you. She's also quite the diva, I heard.

Has anyone heard "Brokenhearted" by Karmin? I thought that was Kesha, but then I saw her on the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (Carly Rae Jepsen also participated in the perfomances of the parade), and I later heard Kesha's new song "Die Young" (which kids will do if they do what she and other artists sing about in songs such as that). Karmin had previously covered several other songs of similar styles before releasing this original composition. I don't really like it, though... Other songs that I find annoying are "Moves Like Jagger" and "Payphone" by Maroon 5.

Other times, though, I tend to hate a song because of the subject matter discussed in the song, including "Set the World On Fire" by Fun, because it glorifies getting drunk and wasted. I don't get what's so fun about getting drunk and wasted, and when you're drunk in a bar, and you either pass out or start a fight, the police will carry you to jail.

While some of you may hate Justin Bieber, I hate Justin Timberlake. The "Sexy Back" song, which at one point I wanted to make a parody of (pertaining to Aqua's bare back in Birth by Sleep), is quite disgusting and perverted, and while his first solo album, Justified, was okay, his second solo album, Future Sex/Love Sounds (which "Sexy Back" comes from), was horrible. Both albums were somewhat perverted, but his second album was much worse. I liked him much better back when he was still with N*Sync, but now that he's gone solo, especially with his hip hop collaborations, I think he sucks. As for Justin Bieber, I would have to guess that some of you hate him because he's not "manly" enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

Other times, though, I tend to hate a song because of the subject matter discussed in the song, including "Set the World On Fire" by Fun, because it glorifies getting drunk and wasted. I don't get what's so fun about getting drunk and wasted, and when you're drunk in a bar, and you either pass out or start a fight, the police will carry you to jail.

---

... have you ever gotten drunk in a bar?

The song is also about a lot more than that, but to each their own if you don't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoeberto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

Other times, though, I tend to hate a song because of the subject matter discussed in the song, including "Set the World On Fire" by Fun, because it glorifies getting drunk and wasted. I don't get what's so fun about getting drunk and wasted, and when you're drunk in a bar, and you either pass out or start a fight, the police will carry you to jail.

---

... have you ever gotten drunk in a bar?

---

You haven't had any of these things happen to you whilst at your local pub? You've been missing out man!

Here we are, SuperMillionaire, having cohabitated on this forum for several years, and frankly I still can't decide if you really live such a sheltered existence that has permanently marked you with an anachronistic sense of decency and an often worrying taste for media targeted at a preteen female demographic or if you are simply the most successful and consistent troll I have ever encountered. Either way, I'm impressed.

Everyone has said just about everything that need be said about "Call Me Maybe" (guilty pleasure at best), but I wanted to weigh in on LMFAO. I tend to enjoy a couple of LMFAO's bigger hits, if only because I appreciate the joint celebration and parody thing they have going on about the South Beach lifestyle. Having gone to the U and spending plenty of time around people really immersed in the South Beach club lifestyle, the bombastic ridiculousness with which LMFAO conduct themselves is enjoyable on an entirely new level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

Here we are, SuperMillionaire, having cohabitated on this forum for several years, and frankly I still can't decide if you really live such a sheltered existence that has permanently marked you with an anachronistic sense of decency and an often worrying taste for media targeted at a preteen female demographic or if you are simply the most successful and consistent troll I have ever encountered. Either way, I'm impressed.

Everyone has said just about everything that need be said about "Call Me Maybe" (guilty pleasure at best), but I wanted to weigh in on LMFAO. I tend to enjoy a couple of LMFAO's bigger hits, if only because I appreciate the joint celebration and parody thing they have going on about the South Beach lifestyle. Having gone to the U and spending plenty of time around people really immersed in the South Beach club lifestyle, the bombastic ridiculousness with which LMFAO conduct themselves is enjoyable on an entirely new level.

---

Well, I happen to notice that many of you (as well as various people on other forums on the internet) tend to troll on how you hate Justin Bieber (and/or Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus), and if there's a reason as to why, I would guess that it's because he isn't "manly" enough. I notice that a lot of gamers in the western world are into manliness, and that people who like manly games and music tend to hate on things that are cuter and not as manly, but I don't exactly know why. And when it comes to Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus, while I liked the former half's music, the latter half, I think, has gone very bad in recent years, and I don't like her sleazy new image. I might also guess that a lot of you don't realize exactly what you're listening to.

Now, let me make something clear right now: I am not saying that these artists should be banned, but I think they should be labeled "MAX" and be more strictly restricted. I came up with that idea after I found out that Marvel Comics uses its MAX imprint to use for explicit content, but have confined it only to that one niche. I've done a lot of research, and I've found out that music started shedding its innocence back in the 1960s, but steadily increased over time until the turn of the 21st century, when indecency really took off. But before the controversies of video games, there was the controversies of comic books, which led to the establishment of the (now defunct) Comics Code Authority in 1955. Another thing that I want to make clear is that I do not strive to be as conservative as China or the Middle East, as I think their censorship standards are way too high. Our problem in America, however, is that our censorship standards are too low. I happen to like some forms of "fan service," so long as it is not overly risque or explicit.

What's more, over the years, I've began to notice things about society and media, and have tried to analyze them and come up with rational theories as to why and how things are the way they are, but I need to ask questions, because I want to know more about these things, which I why I ask these questions. I just want to know why and how people came to like certain things and hate other things. I don't say these things just to be a troll (which you accuse me of, even though I see a whole bunch of others like you trolling about how you hate Justin Bieber and other non-manly musicians), but I want to make points, and I have made a number of valid points in my time here. I certainly don't want to get into trouble and end up banned from this forum, but I just want to know why people who like manly things tend to trash-talk things that are not quite as manly, and I also want to know why people associate things like excessive gruesome violence, trash talk, and explosions with that kind of masculinity in the first place.

Even further, I also want to know: how exactly do you define "crappy music?" For me, I define crappy music as either having annoyingly strange and repetitive beats (such as those in Anglo-American hip hop music, as well as reggaeton, it's Latin American equivalent), or being creepy and overly dark and edgy (such as in heavy metal), or discussing sleazy things like sex, drugs, alcohol abuse, and criminal activities in a way that glorifies it (such as in many pop singers these days, with few exceptions). I also hate it when people driving on the street blast their hip hop music very loud, subjecting me to that kind of music, as in that case, they ARE making me listen to it, and I don't want to listen to it.

With all of that said, once again, let me just state that I do not intend on getting into heated confrontations with you. I just want to know why people act the way they do, so that I can analyze and rationalize it. I am interested in studying psychology and sociology in college, so I consider this a part of why I'm here, which is to observe, ask questions, and analyze things, and then I can make philosophical points and educate people on the nature of how society acts in relation to popular culture and media. You may or may not agree with me, but I'm sure we'll have at least a few things in common, and I'm here to gather insight on it so that I can analyze and rationalize it. I don't want anyone to hate me on this forum, and I apologize for this and any other heated arguments that we may have in the future, because I don't like having heated arguments with you. Please, just understand that I do what I do for the reasons of research, analysis, and rationalization, as well as to educate and make philosophical points.

Of course, all of that should be discussed in another topic, so please respond to this here and then let's get back to the original topic.

I accuse you of trolling because the alternative is believing that a 23-year-old male (so states your profile) who is still planning on going to college at some point in the future who is openly and actively interested in preteen celebrities as you are tends to send up some really creepy red flags. I have to hope you're lying (probably about your age) or trolling about something, otherwise it's just kind of... sad.

Also, I think the general consensus in this thread is that nobody really hates Justin Bieber for anything other than the fact that his music is bad. For reference, I'm a fan of quite a few musicians who could not in your wildest dreams be described as "manly" in the way you describe such as David Bowie (try looking up his bi-glamorous stint for most of his recording career). Granted, he probably qualifies as too sexually explicit for your tastes. In which case I urge you to grow a thicker skin, because if you can't learn to handle some of this stuff better without resorting to cries for it to be censored, you're going to have a hard time fitting into the adult world at large.

Also the idea that music started shedding its innocence in the 1960s is patently absurd. People regarded Elvis Presley as "obscene" in the 1950's because he swung his hips while he danced. Perhaps you should consider the argument that your concept of what is decent is a few decades behind everyone else. Frankly, you sound like my grandmother whenever you discuss any of the media, but even she wouldn't be caught dead listening to Justin Bieber on her iPod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

Other times, though, I tend to hate a song because of the subject matter discussed in the song, including "Set the World On Fire" by Fun, because it glorifies getting drunk and wasted. I don't get what's so fun about getting drunk and wasted, and when you're drunk in a bar, and you either pass out or start a fight, the police will carry you to jail.

---

I dont get how giving your phone number to a stranger is such a great idea, you either get stalked and murdered or have sex with them and get an STI.

Also the song is called "We are Young"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

I accuse you of trolling because the alternative is believing that a 23-year-old male (so states your profile) who is still planning on going to college at some point in the future who is openly and actively interested in preteen celebrities as you are tends to send up some really creepy red flags. I have to hope you're lying (probably about your age) or trolling about something, otherwise it's just kind of... sad.

Also, I think the general consensus in this thread is that nobody really hates Justin Bieber for anything other than the fact that his music is bad. For reference, I'm a fan of quite a few musicians who could not in your wildest dreams be described as "manly" in the way you describe such as David Bowie (try looking up his bi-glamorous stint for most of his recording career). Granted, he probably qualifies as too sexually explicit for your tastes. In which case I urge you to grow a thicker skin, because if you can't learn to handle some of this stuff better without resorting to cries for it to be censored, you're going to have a hard time fitting into the adult world at large.

Also the idea that music started shedding its innocence in the 1960s is patently absurd. People regarded Elvis Presley as "obscene" in the 1950's because he swung his hips while he danced. Perhaps you should consider the argument that your concept of what is decent is a few decades behind everyone else. Frankly, you sound like my grandmother whenever you discuss any of the media, but even she wouldn't be caught dead listening to Justin Bieber on her iPod.

---

First off, rather than the celebrities themselves, I'm into the psychology and sociology about them, and what makes them develop into erotic adults. I'm in college now, and I'm not exactly into their actual works of entertainment. I've been reading a lot of TV Tropes lately, and a lot of these shows are guilty of what is referred on in-site as getting crap past the radar, or sneaking in apparently "adult" content, assuming that many of these shows even have radars (censors) to begin with.

Second of all, when you say that Justin Bieber's music is bad, what exactly makes it bad? For me, I think rappers, including both Anglo American rappers (such as LMFAO, Drake, and Lil Wayne) and various Latino reggaeton rappers, are ten times worse, and let me tell you the exact reasons why, in my opinion, they are bad:
Sleazy lyrics (perverts and inner-city criminals)
Explicit lyrics
Annoyingly strange repetitive beats
Strange noises in background
Promoting and reinforcing negative stereotypes of black and Hispanic people

Remember, while hip hop is still mainly for black (African and Afro-Caribbean American) people, an increasing number of Latino people (mostly Puerto Rican, but also people from other Latin American countries) like it too. There are also white rappers (such and Eminem and Yelawolf) and white fans of hip hop, and though there is a large percentage of white hip hop fans, the majority of rappers and hip hop fans are still either black or Latino.

I also hate some heavy metal bands, as well as rock bands such as Green Day, for the following reasons:
Overt nastiness (including sleazy lyrics, trash talk, and monster-like screaming)
Explicit lyrics
Scary horror themes
Anarchist themes

And when it comes to pop artists like Kesha, Katy Perry, Nicki Ninaj, and Cher Lloyd, I hate them for these reasons:
Glorifying getting drunk and wasted
Sleazy lyrics
Explicit lyrics
Overall eroticism, including strange outfits that bare too much skin

Lady GaGa, I will admit, is a bit more talented than the others above, but despite the name of one of her songs, she wasn't born that way, she morphed into that. In addition, Weird Al Yankovic released a parody called "Perform This Way," which basically mocks her for her fashion choices (because apparently, every day is Halloween for her), including wearing a meat dress. I just want to know: why do these artists do these outrageous things? Is there any justifiable reason for it?

As you can see, I made the reasons specific as to why I hate the artists that I mentioned above. And I'm not exactly a Justin Bieber fan, either. I think he's okay, but I'm not a major fan. Nor am I a major fan of Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus. Hannah Montana was okay, but Miley Cyrus is awful. The only reason why I had knowledge of Disney Channel stars in the first place was because my younger cousins watched those shows, and it happened to catch my attention. Hilary Duff, however, I think was better, though again, I had never actually watched Lizzie McGuire, and I only liked her music.

Third off, I'm aware that I have developed a rather cynical mindset, which is influenced by several of my teachers and life experiences over the years, though I wasn't exactly sheltered, as I too was exposed to these things. The difference is, I developed a consciousness about what themes are present in the media.

Fourth off, you're right, Elvis was considered obscene because of the way he danced, but keep in mind, that was only during his performances on television concerts, as the music video did not exist yet. However, most of his lyrics, while slightly sensual, didn't seem overly erotic. It was during the 1960s that the lyrics themselves began to shed their innocence; it wasn't an overnight transition, though, as it did so gradually, increasing steadily over time... at least until the turn of the new millennium, when it really took off.

And finally, the reason why many of us are so tolerant of what was originally shock and sleaze (which has now apparently become the norm) was because they kept raising the bar on how risky their performances can be, overpowering the censors. I think that this is a bar that needs to be lowered. Now, again, I am not saying that we should go back to 1950s censorship standards, nor am I saying that we should be as strict with censorship as China and the Middle East, but still, we should at least put restrictions on them. I wouldn't want to ban them, because I acknowledge that there are fans out there who like these artists, but I would still confine them to a niche by labeling them as MAX artists, restricting them to listener 18 and older (listener discretion is strongly recommended). I also believe in content rating for music, not to ban them, (which Australia has also done on a few occasions), but to regulate which artists are appropriate for which audiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

Other times, though, I tend to hate a song because of the subject matter discussed in the song, including "Set the World On Fire" by Fun, because it glorifies getting drunk and wasted. I don't get what's so fun about getting drunk and wasted, and when you're drunk in a bar, and you either pass out or start a fight, the police will carry you to jail.

---

I dont get how giving your phone number to a stranger is such a great idea, you either get stalked and murdered or have sex with them and get an STI.

Also the song is called "We are Young"

---

You're right, or perhaps maybe she was stalking him. Then again, he may have been a next door neighbor for years, and it was only now that she finally got a chance to know him (though in the music video itself, the boy she liked turned out to be gay). And it's abbreviated as STD (sexually transmitted disease).

The thing is, we need to be more conscious of what these lyrics actually mean. I think that in music classes in school, music teachers need to educate their students on what these lyrics actually mean, and songwriters also need to be more conscious of what they're writing. But it's not just music; they also need to be educated about the themes that they see on television as well.

Please acknowledge that I am only trying to make valid points, though you have also made valid points as well.

SuperMillionaire nobody is going to acknowledge your points to be valid because it's ridiculous to be claiming to use an analytical approach and "rational theories" yet base your entire argument on your own taste, what you simply consider to be "crappy music". You claims to have developed a consciousness about supposedly hegemonic media messages yet your solution for hegemony is censorship? It doesn't make any sense. Might wanna pay more attention in sociology class next time.

Quote:

---

You're right, or perhaps maybe she was stalking him. Then again, he may have been a next door neighbor for years, and it was only now that she finally got a chance to know him (though in the music video itself, the boy she liked turned out to be gay).

---

Or perhaps "We are Young" is just about people going out and having a good time with thier friends enjoying their time whilst theyre still young, which is the best time to enjoy one's youth and the best time to make mistakes.

Perhaps "Im sexy and I know it" is about having a positive self body image. (In the music video itself he is not at all sexy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

And it's abbreviated as STD (sexually transmitted disease).

---

They use to be called STD's but theyre not classified as diseases anymore so theyre now officially if not commonly called STI's for sexually transmitted infection.

If you want to claim an analytic approach, I would recommend citing research and studies with figures representing your claims, especially if you're going to start making racially-charged (intended or not) claims about demographics involving certain types of music. That you insist that rap and hip-hop are still something of a niche group to African Americans (and now Latino) fans, I would counter that if this were the case, there would be no reason that recording artists like Jay-Z, Kanye West, Lil' Wayne, and others consistently score very highly on the charts. Take, for example, Kanye West. Since 2004 he has released five albums. In that time, all five have gone platinum (min. 2,000,000 album sales). Two of them have gone double platinum (min. 4,000,000 album sales). One of them has gone triple platinum (min. 6,000,000 album sales). These are not insignificant benchmarks, and I believe they're indicative of the pervasiveness of a genre that you're so readily dismissing.

On another note: Anglo-American. You keep using this word. I do not think that it means what you think it means. Stop using it.

You have provided a number of subjective reasons why various genres of music are bad. Your most common complaint (and I at least give you credit for acknowledging that this is personal preference), is the inclusion of explicit lyrics which you find offense. You suggest content labeling and (presumably) restriction of sales based on certain criteria. In case you didn't know this already exists. There are already "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content" labels for albums containing excessively suggestive of profane lyrics as monitored by the RIAA. Most retailers in the United States already restrict sales of these explicit albums to those under the age of 17 (i.e. a parent or guardian must be present to purchase it). And you know what? That's already more intrusive than I care for.

I do not need you, the government, or anyone else trying to serve as my moral watchdog. Moral judgments are inherently subjective (especially in something like the extent of decency in various artistic forms), and individuals shouldn't have some self-proclaimed moral authority dictating what is and is not appropriate content. In the place of children, it's up to (or at least should be) parents to decide what content is appropriate for their own children without dictating the same for every other kid on the planet. I know how I plan to raise my kids, and while it may differ from the way you think that children should be raised, that's none of your smurfing business. You raise your kids how you see fit, and I'll do the same.

Here's my beef with you, SuperMillionaire. It's not that you find this type of content offensive (I think that's silly, but absolutely respect your right to that opinion), it's that you're on such a high horse about it. Your attitude can be summarized in a single sentence from your post: "The difference is, I developed a consciousness about what themes are present in the media." Which, I might add, you bolded and underlined for emphasis. The implication that those who are not properly horrified by naughty words means we lack consciousness about themes prevalent in the media is patently absurd. We're aware of these themes, we just aren't so easily offended.

Also, you completely missed the point of why I brought up Elvis. Do you find his dancing obscene now? Do you cringe every time someone gyrates their hips a bit when they dance? Most people don't. Most people probably think such a reaction is ridiculously prudish. That's how I feel about most of your opinions expressed in this thread. By modern standards, for a college-aged student, you are absurdly prudish. That's totally your prerogative, but at least acknowledge it. You seem blissfully ignorant to how out of touch you are with popular opinion. While I appreciate that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy in most cases, I think it's particularly relevant in this case. What is considered appropriate is culturally defined, and you're fighting against the trends of the culture of which you are a part. Such as how the style of dancing introduced sixty-five years ago by Elvis is no longer considered obscene, what is currently considered inappropriate by many now will not be in probably a decade. The differences in the limits of decency between our generation and the one before it already makes this apparent.

I can appreciate that you might consider this a bad thing, but I disagree. I look forward to a time when profanity isn't something that you have to cover your ears whenever you hear. Words are words, and they all have their use in the right time and place. I look forward to a time when discussing sex frankly and openly doesn't make everyone uncomfortable. Sex is completely natural, and I don't like the puritan attitude our culture still has toward something that everyone does. I look forward to a time when people aren't scandalized because a woman bared her shoulder or thigh. It's a human body, and if people weren't so ingrained in believing that it's such a taboo in the first place, it would unlikely be notable enough to elicit a strong response anyway.

Long story short, if you want to be a serious about psychology and sociology (especially sociology), you're going to need to grow a thicker skin and learn to accept that other people have differing (and valid!) opinions that do not require regulation according to your personal moral code. Both disciplines require a suspension of judgment, which is something you're not doing a whole lot of right now.

Edit" blackmage_nuke is correct; prominent officials in the medical field have pushed toward the more widespread use of the term Sexually Transmitted Infection instead of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, although particularly for the reason provided. They determined that the term disease was misleading because it implied symptoms where often as is the case with STIs, while a person may be infected with a given disease and capable of infecting others with it, they may not personally display any symptoms of the disease.

Quote:

---

I've done a lot of research, and I've found out that music started shedding its innocence back in the 1960s

---

Here is a song by Mozart. The words, I believe, are "Lick me in the ass, lick me in the ass nice and clean".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

I just want to know: why do these artists do these outrageous things? Is there any justifiable reason for it?

---

Here is perhaps the crux of everything you're saying. Your attitude is to demand a reason to do something. Most of the rest of us demand a reason to not do something, especially in the anarchic modern media world where there are ever-fewer barriers to the creation and propagation of media. Why does Lady GaGa wear a dress made of meat or bubbles or Kermits? Why the smurf not? Prudishness that was outdated before the Beatles came onto the scene really doesn't suffice to justify the sort of control you're advocating.

Put simply hunches and your own personal investigation doesn't suffice. You need to give evidence that things like violent media and obscene lyrics cause bad trout. Then you need to convincingly argue that that bad trout is worse than the bad trout which would result from censorship. Do both of those and we'll have something to debate but until then you're just making a lot of transparently ill-informed noise and bluster for no apparent reason.

Overly Attached Girlfriend. Relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

And finally, the reason why many of us are so tolerant of what was originally shock and sleaze (which has now apparently become the norm) was because they kept raising the bar on how risky their performances can be, overpowering the censors. I think that this is a bar that needs to be lowered. Now, again, I am not saying that we should go back to 1950s censorship standards, nor am I saying that we should be as strict with censorship as China and the Middle East, but still, we should at least put restrictions on them. I wouldn't want to ban them, because I acknowledge that there are fans out there who like these artists, but I would still confine them to a niche by labeling them as MAX artists, restricting them to listener 18 and older (listener discretion is strongly recommended). I also believe in content rating for music, not to ban them, (which Australia has also done on a few occasions), but to regulate which artists are appropriate for which audiences.

---

The US congress had hearings on this in the early 1990s to try and prevent children from consuming obscene music - the result of this was the Parental Advisory notice that we currently know. At the time, many well-respected artists came out of the woodwork, including greats like John Denver, to protest the concept as censorship. The problem is putting a blanket label on things as being "dirty" or "obscene" based entirely on some standard designed by individuals who may not understand the intent behind the music.

For every Kesha album you're putting the label on, you're also putting the same label on Pink Floyd. The Wall was an album rife with references to drug and alcohol abuse, as well as an entire song dedicated to hooking up with random women, and by your definition shouldn't be allowed to be heard by children. But at 13, it changed my life. I felt an immediate relationship to the album's story and characters and realizing it's okay to feel conflicted and confused about the world. This is obviously an anecdote, but I'm sure many people have had experiences with "adult" or "explicit" albums at a young age that resonated in such a way as to have a long-term, positive effect.

Ultimately what you propose to do is to have an institution replace the job of the parent. Parents should be concerned with what media their children are consuming and talk with them about the subjects and implications. No amount of advisory stickers or bans on sales will ever replace a parent's involvement in their child's life, and it only serves to restrict the availability of art to a wide audience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

SuperMillionaire nobody is going to acknowledge your points to be valid because it's ridiculous to be claiming to use an analytical approach and "rational theories" yet base your entire argument on your own taste, what you simply consider to be "crappy music". You claims to have developed a consciousness about supposedly hegemonic media messages yet your solution for hegemony is censorship? It doesn't make any sense. Might wanna pay more attention in sociology class next time.

---

Wow, and if I remember correctly, you used to have Justin Bieber as your avatar... anyway, I'm just making an example of how whenever someone dislikes a particular artist or genre of music, they should be specific as to why. For anyone else on this board who hates Justin Bieber or any other artist, you should specify why, in your opinion, his music is bad. In addition, you should also specify how exactly you define "crappy music."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

Quote:

---

You're right, or perhaps maybe she was stalking him. Then again, he may have been a next door neighbor for years, and it was only now that she finally got a chance to know him (though in the music video itself, the boy she liked turned out to be gay).

---

Or perhaps "We are Young" is just about people going out and having a good time with thier friends enjoying their time whilst theyre still young, which is the best time to enjoy one's youth and the best time to make mistakes.

Perhaps "Im sexy and I know it" is about having a positive self body image. (In the music video itself he is not at all sexy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

And it's abbreviated as STD (sexually transmitted disease).

---

They use to be called STD's but theyre not classified as diseases anymore so theyre now officially if not commonly called STI's for sexually transmitted infection.

---

True, when you're young, it's the time to have fun, but still, try not to be so foolish about it if you don't want to end up in jail. It might be possible that they are portraying going to jail as a good thing, which it is not, unless you need to be scared straight, but still, why go through that in the first place if you don't have to? If you just weren't foolish to begin with, you wouldn't have to be sanctioned and scared straight, now, would you?

And "I'm Sexy and I Know It" sounds quite narcissistic to me, as does "I'm Too Sexy," and even other songs not about sex, such as "We Will Rock You" and "We Are The Champions" by Queen; in my opinion, a number of their songs come across as narcissistic to me. Though the real reason why I hated "I'm Sexy and I Know It" was actually because of the annoying beats and strange sound effects in the background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoeberto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

And finally, the reason why many of us are so tolerant of what was originally shock and sleaze (which has now apparently become the norm) was because they kept raising the bar on how risky their performances can be, overpowering the censors. I think that this is a bar that needs to be lowered. Now, again, I am not saying that we should go back to 1950s censorship standards, nor am I saying that we should be as strict with censorship as China and the Middle East, but still, we should at least put restrictions on them. I wouldn't want to ban them, because I acknowledge that there are fans out there who like these artists, but I would still confine them to a niche by labeling them as MAX artists, restricting them to listener 18 and older (listener discretion is strongly recommended). I also believe in content rating for music, not to ban them, (which Australia has also done on a few occasions), but to regulate which artists are appropriate for which audiences.

---

The US congress had hearings on this in the early 1990s to try and prevent children from consuming obscene music - the result of this was the Parental Advisory notice that we currently know. At the time, many well-respected artists came out of the woodwork, including greats like John Denver, to protest the concept as censorship. The problem is putting a blanket label on things as being "dirty" or "obscene" based entirely on some standard designed by individuals who may not understand the intent behind the music.

For every Kesha album you're putting the label on, you're also putting the same label on Pink Floyd. The Wall was an album rife with references to drug and alcohol abuse, as well as an entire song dedicated to hooking up with random women, and by your definition shouldn't be allowed to be heard by children. But at 13, it changed my life. I felt an immediate relationship to the album's story and characters and realizing it's okay to feel conflicted and confused about the world. This is obviously an anecdote, but I'm sure many people have had experiences with "adult" or "explicit" albums at a young age that resonated in such a way as to have a long-term, positive effect.

Ultimately what you propose to do is to have an institution replace the job of the parent. Parents should be concerned with what media their children are consuming and talk with them about the subjects and implications. No amount of advisory stickers or bans on sales will ever replace a parent's involvement in their child's life, and it only serves to restrict the availability of art to a wide audience.

---

The thing is, the Parental Advisory sticker is a very vague warning, and doesn't seem to be as strictly restricted as R-rated movies and M-rated video games. Also, an album only receives this sticker if it has the F word in it; otherwise, it doesn't, even if it has the S word in the lyrics (incidentally, I've also noticed that the F and S words are the only two censored words on this forum, and are replaced with the words "smurf" and "trout," respectively.) And even if it doesn't have those higher-level expletives (though some may still use "damn" and "hell," which I have stated that I don't mind them all that much; in fact, I can also tolerate the word "bastard"), the album still may not be appropriate for family listening. Plus, consider the fact that some of these artists, especially Latin American artists, may curse in Spanish, and those expletives, since they are not in English, may not be caught by the censors (thus, "getting crap past the radar"). This is the reason why I think that we need content ratings for music that are similar to movies and video games. Again, let me make it clear that I do not intend on banning these artists, but still, I would want them to be more specifically regulated, as many of these artists, for some odd reason, are popular with children. The problem is, there is no regulation that designates which artists are appropriate for which artists. If you like those artists, fine, go ahead and listen to them, as long as you don't blast it loud. But for me, I would just want them more regulated, so that I can filter them out.

My approach to these things is to see my point of view, and then to see other people's points of view, and then come up with a reason why these things should change. I try my best to take other people's beliefs into consideration, and I have, when I said that I only want more specific regulation, and not banning, as I have acknowledge that you may like some of these artists (and to be honest, I might happen to like a few of these artists myself). I also want to know why things are the way they are and how they got to be that way. I am also aware that I have a somewhat cynical mindset.

Quote:

---

On another note: Anglo-American. You keep using this word. I do not think that it means what you think it means. Stop using it.

---

The reason why I use the term "Anglo-American" in this situation is to distinguish it from "Latin American." I know that the term "Anglo-American" refers to North America (particularly the United States and Canada collectively), Greenland, and the Caribbean islands that speak English or any other language besides Spanish; thus, the reason why those counties in Central and South America are often refered to as "Latin America," though some of them might speak other languages, with the most notable case being Brazil, which speaks Portuguese (the sister language of Spanish).

Reggaeton, or regueton, the Latin American style of hip hop, originated in Puerto Rico, but has spread all across Latin America, as well as into Anglo America (the United States and Canada) and other places such as Europe and even Australia. One of the primary artists responsible for pioneering reggaeton is Daddy Yankee, whose most famous single "Gasolina" (which obviously means gasoline in Spanish), achieved high positions on music charts across the world, and was also certified platinum in not only the United States, but also Australia, of all places, as it reached a peak of 12th position on the Australian charts, which made it one of the few Spanish-language songs to achieve such a feat on the Australian charts (since there are not as many Spanish speakers there as there are in the United States and Canada). The majority of Latino rappers tend to come from either Puerto Rico, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic (all of which are located in the Caribbean islands), though there are an increasing number of rappers in other Latin American countries. In addition to Daddy Yankee, other notable reggaeton artists include Don Omar and Wisin y Yandel. Notably, like English-language hip hop in the United States and Canada, reggaeton has caused some controversy in Latin America, mainly due to the exploitation of women (since, as with Anglo-American hip hop, the vast majority of these rappers are men), and to a lesser extent, explicit lyrics and/or gangster violence. Another controversy is perreo (derived from "perro" which is the Spanish word for "dog," thus probably denoting "doggy style"), a kind of dance style that is typically associated with both reggaeton and Anglo-American hip hop music (also known as "booty dancing" or "grinding" in the United States and Canada), which I also think is disgusting, since it involves a woman rubbing her glutes on a man's pelvis, appearing as though they're having "doggy-style" sex in public (they call it "doggy style" because in biology, that's how dogs - and various other canine animals such as wolves - have sex).

In contrast to the majority of rappers and hip hop fans being either black or Hispanic, the majority of rock bands and heavy metal bands, as well as fans of those bands, are white. However, it doesn't seem to stigmatize stereotypes of white people in the same way that hip hop does for blacks and Hispanics.

While rock music, for the most part, is considered today to be accepted into decency standards (with some exceptions), heavy metal is more controversial because it discusses things like demonic themes. Extreme heavy metal, including thrash metal (with the "big four bands" being Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax) is mostly a scream fest today, with extremely loud guitars and overly-repetitive senseless beats. Regular heavy metal, on the other hand, isn't quite as edgy as extreme heavy metal, but they still discuss much angst, anger, and even anarchist themes, such as Rage Against the Machine. I myself happen to like a few of these milder heavy metal bands, such as Three Days Grace and Flyleaf, but I still wouldn't let my children listen to them.

Also, true shock rock acts, such as Alice Cooper, began in the 80s, and basically combined music with elements of shock value. It seems as though today, shock is the norm, with various artists implementing shock value in their performances, and sometimes, I just feel like, "enough, already!" The difference between him and Elvis Presley was that I don't believe that Elvis was trying to intentionally shock people, whereas Alice Cooper did purposely intend to shock people.

When it comes to pop music, while I dislike Katy Perry, Kesha, and Christina Aguilera, I actually happen to like Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. While Britney Spears has never officially collaborated with Linkin Park, MTV produced a mashup of "Toxic" with "Faint," which received widespread popularity (I myself happen to be a fan of this mashup). I personally hope that one day, Spears will actually officially collaborate with Linkin Park. The thing is, I actually like some of these artists myself, but I still would want them more properly regulated.

Incidentally, one apparent notable critic of pop stars such as Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera is Amy Lynn-Hartzler, better known as Amy Lee, the lead singer of the gothic rock/metal band Evanescence (which I also happen to like). On their debut album Fallen, the third track on the album is "Everybody's Fool," which was an aimed criticism of Spears and Aguilera, which was written out of Amy's disliking of her younger sister Carrie liking such artists. I would also theorize that the Spears song "If U Seek Amy" (which caused controversy for sounding like she was spelling out the F word, and was subsequently censored into "If U See Amy") might be an answer to "Everybody's Fool," since the "Amy" in the song's title might possibly refer to Amy Lee. Evanescence had been out of the spotlight for several years between albums, as after they released The Open Door in 2006-2007, they seem to have disappeared until 2011, when they returned with their third, self-titled, album. Meanwhile, other former members of Evanescence created an off-shoot band named We Are the Fallen, featuring American Idol alumni Carly Smithson as the lead singer of this new band.

Another notable trend that I noticed is that on YouTube, in the comments section for music videos by hard rock and heavy metal bands such as Linkin Park, users there tend to rampantly pick on artists such as Justin Bieber and the Jonas Brothers. If anything, I would think that the reason why they tend to pick on him so much is that he's not "manly," as many of these metal bands are quite manly. As I had stated earlier, I myself am not a major Justin Bieber fan, but I don't hate him, either. Nor am I a major fan of Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus. I do, however, like Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez, Taylor Swift, and One Direction.

When it comes to music in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, while lyrics started getting sensual and even slightly erotic, they didn't seem to use that many actual expletives like they do now. I can recall hearing many songs from those earlier times that had sexual themes, but none of them seemed to have any profanities in them other than "damn" or "hell," and even then, not very often. In contrast, many of today's songs have more expletives in them. Also, while many of those artists did drugs, the majority of them didn't seem to sing about their drug use. The term "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" probably came from many of these bands singing about sex, and their drug habits, but they didn't seem to sing about drugs (for the most part).

And to be honest, I do not find Elvis' dancing offensive at all. In fact, I must add that I happen to be a fan of Shakira, a Colombian pop star of partial Lebanese descent, and she tends to utilize belly dancing moves in her performances, which I happen to like. Tying in with this, I also especially like the song "Hips Don't Lie," which apparently, some of you might hate. And let's not forget about the fitness craze known as Zumba, which was invented by a man named Beto Perez, who is also from Colombia. Now, I don't do Zumba myself, but I've seen a number of presentations on QVC that showcase and demonstrate the moves, and a lot of them are quite sensual, involving shaking of the hips. (It's one thing to be sensual, and another thing to be erotic.)

I also recall seeing commercials for a series of DVDs called Flirty Girl Fitness, which teaches flirtatious pole dancing moves in a manner that is meant to be healthy. One of the DVDs also requires a dance pole, for pole dancing moves. To be honest, I actually like it when I see girls pole dance, depending on exactly how they dance, and there are multiple ways to pole dance. Some pole dancers, specifically those in shows such as stage, cabaret, and circus performers, dance in a way that is more athletic (in terms of gymnastics) and artistic. On the other hand, other pole dancers, specifically those in strip clubs, place more emphasis on the erotic aspect of it. To be honest, I do like some of the sensual moves, but if the sensuality is overly erotic, then I don't like it anymore, as there's a certain point at which the "personal aesthetic fan service" is overboard and overdone, and while I do like it when they utilize go-go dancing moves, I do not approve of stripteasing. And if that's not enough, consider that it also has connections to an Indian sport named mallakhamb, and performers of mallakhamb were predominately men, whereas modern pole dancing is more commonly associated with women. The name is derived from the Hindi words malla, meaning "a man or gymnast of strength" and khamb, which means "pole;" thus, it can be literally translated into English as "pole gymnastics." For these reasons, many pole dancers want it to be more seriously regarded as a sport, a form of dance, and a form of exercise, rather than just a mere act of erotic arousal.

All of this has taken me a long time to post, and with all of that said, please understand that I do not, by any means, wish for you to stop listening to whatever you're listening to, but I just want more regulation of what we listen to. I also want to know the origins of these things, and why and how these things are the way they are now. I am also trying to make valid points, and while I do acknowledge that you have made valid points, please acknowledge that I have made valid points as well, because I feel misunderstood by the majority of you, and I want to clarify things as best as I possibly can. And lastly, please, do not hate me for the things I do on this forum. I only do what I do because I just want to know why and how, and that I also want change for a greater good, which is why I ask these questions and post my opinions on this board; many of you accuse me of imposing my beliefs onto you, which I have no intention of doing, though ironically enough, many others have tried imposing their beliefs on me in the past.

Thanks, and I'm sorry. Please don't ban me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

The thing is, the Parental Advisory sticker is a very vague warning, and doesn't seem to be as strictly restricted as R-rated movies and M-rated video games. Also, an album only receives this sticker if it has the F word in it; otherwise, it doesn't, even if it has the S word in the lyrics (incidentally, I've also noticed that the F and S words are the only two censored words on this forum, and are replaced with the words "smurf" and "trout," respectively.) And even if it doesn't have those higher-level expletives (though some may still use "damn" and "hell," which I have stated that I don't mind them all that much; in fact, I can also tolerate the word "bastard"), the album still may not be appropriate for family listening. Plus, consider the fact that some of these artists, especially Latin American artists, may curse in Spanish, and those expletives, since they are not in English, may not be caught by the censors (thus, "getting crap past the radar"). This is the reason why I think that we need content ratings for music that are similar to movies and video games. Again, let me make it clear that I do not intend on banning these artists, but still, I would want them to be more specifically regulated, as many of these artists, for some odd reason, are popular with children. The problem is, there is no regulation that designates which artists are appropriate for which artists. If you like those artists, fine, go ahead and listen to them, as long as you don't blast it loud. But for me, I would just want them more regulated, so that I can filter them out.

My approach to these things is to see my point of view, and then to see other people's points of view, and then come up with a reason why these things should change. I try my best to take other people's beliefs into consideration, and I have, when I said that I only want more specific regulation, and not banning, as I have acknowledge that you may like some of these artists (and to be honest, I might happen to like a few of these artists myself). I also want to know why things are the way they are and how they got to be that way. I am also aware that I have a somewhat cynical mindset.

---

I don't think you got my point. I wasn't condoning the Parental Advisory label. Filtering should be the responsibility of the individual, or in the case of children, done by parents. Having it institutionalized limits availability of artists that get lumped in with others who are crass due to arbitrary restrictions. It's a slippery slope that can't effectively do anything but push one individual's (or a group's) personal agenda which completely flies in the face of what art is.

If you don't like it, filter it yourself. If you don't want your kids listening to it, don't let them. It's as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

Quote:

---

You're right, or perhaps maybe she was stalking him. Then again, he may have been a next door neighbor for years, and it was only now that she finally got a chance to know him (though in the music video itself, the boy she liked turned out to be gay).

---

Or perhaps "We are Young" is just about people going out and having a good time with thier friends enjoying their time whilst theyre still young, which is the best time to enjoy one's youth and the best time to make mistakes.

Perhaps "Im sexy and I know it" is about having a positive self body image. (In the music video itself he is not at all sexy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

And it's abbreviated as STD (sexually transmitted disease).

---

They use to be called STD's but theyre not classified as diseases anymore so theyre now officially if not commonly called STI's for sexually transmitted infection.

---

True, when you're young, it's the time to have fun, but still, try not to be so foolish about it if you don't want to end up in jail. It might be possible that they are portraying going to jail as a good thing, which it is not, unless you need to be scared straight, but still, why go through that in the first place if you don't have to? If you just weren't foolish to begin with, you wouldn't have to be sanctioned and scared straight, now, would you?

And "I'm Sexy and I Know It" sounds quite narcissistic to me, as does "I'm Too Sexy," and even other songs not about sex, such as "We Will Rock You" and "We Are The Champions" by Queen; in my opinion, a number of their songs come across as narcissistic to me. Though the real reason why I hated "I'm Sexy and I Know It" was actually because of the annoying beats and strange sound effects in the background.

---

The point I was trying to make was if you're going to hate or 'regulate' a song based on what the lyrics "might" mean or might imply then every song in existence has a bad angle and every song when read from a different perspective has a positive message.

High Hopes by Frank Sinatra glorifies deforestation and Dam Terrorism.

SuperMillionaire, it is not up to you to determine what is the greater good. Your definition of a positive change toward such a "greater good" is based on you subjective worldview, and imposing censors based on that worldview is asserting your values on others. I reject your worldview and substitute my own. If you think that something is obscene, nobody is forcing you to listen to it. You have no right to impede the ability of others to listen to certain music based on your subjective moral values. Stay the smurf out of other peoples' lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

The point I was trying to make was if you're going to hate or 'regulate' a song based on what the lyrics "might" mean or might imply then every song in existence has a bad angle and every song when read from a different perspective has a positive message.

High Hopes by Frank Sinatra glorifies deforestation and Dam Terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Lehrer

All books can be indecent books through recent books are bolder
For filth, I'm glad to say, is in the mind of the beholder
When correctly viewed
Everything is lewd
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz - there's a dirty old man!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoeberto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

The thing is, the Parental Advisory sticker is a very vague warning, and doesn't seem to be as strictly restricted as R-rated movies and M-rated video games. Also, an album only receives this sticker if it has the F word in it; otherwise, it doesn't, even if it has the S word in the lyrics (incidentally, I've also noticed that the F and S words are the only two censored words on this forum, and are replaced with the words "smurf" and "trout," respectively.) And even if it doesn't have those higher-level expletives (though some may still use "damn" and "hell," which I have stated that I don't mind them all that much; in fact, I can also tolerate the word "bastard"), the album still may not be appropriate for family listening. Plus, consider the fact that some of these artists, especially Latin American artists, may curse in Spanish, and those expletives, since they are not in English, may not be caught by the censors (thus, "getting crap past the radar"). This is the reason why I think that we need content ratings for music that are similar to movies and video games. Again, let me make it clear that I do not intend on banning these artists, but still, I would want them to be more specifically regulated, as many of these artists, for some odd reason, are popular with children. The problem is, there is no regulation that designates which artists are appropriate for which artists. If you like those artists, fine, go ahead and listen to them, as long as you don't blast it loud. But for me, I would just want them more regulated, so that I can filter them out.

My approach to these things is to see my point of view, and then to see other people's points of view, and then come up with a reason why these things should change. I try my best to take other people's beliefs into consideration, and I have, when I said that I only want more specific regulation, and not banning, as I have acknowledge that you may like some of these artists (and to be honest, I might happen to like a few of these artists myself). I also want to know why things are the way they are and how they got to be that way. I am also aware that I have a somewhat cynical mindset.

---

I don't think you got my point. I wasn't condoning the Parental Advisory label. Filtering should be the responsibility of the individual, or in the case of children, done by parents. Having it institutionalized limits availability of artists that get lumped in with others who are crass due to arbitrary restrictions. It's a slippery slope that can't effectively do anything but push one individual's (or a group's) personal agenda which completely flies in the face of what art is.

If you don't like it, filter it yourself. If you don't want your kids listening to it, don't let them. It's as simple as that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

Quote:

---

You're right, or perhaps maybe she was stalking him. Then again, he may have been a next door neighbor for years, and it was only now that she finally got a chance to know him (though in the music video itself, the boy she liked turned out to be gay).

---

Or perhaps "We are Young" is just about people going out and having a good time with thier friends enjoying their time whilst theyre still young, which is the best time to enjoy one's youth and the best time to make mistakes.

Perhaps "Im sexy and I know it" is about having a positive self body image. (In the music video itself he is not at all sexy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

And it's abbreviated as STD (sexually transmitted disease).

---

They use to be called STD's but theyre not classified as diseases anymore so theyre now officially if not commonly called STI's for sexually transmitted infection.

---

True, when you're young, it's the time to have fun, but still, try not to be so foolish about it if you don't want to end up in jail. It might be possible that they are portraying going to jail as a good thing, which it is not, unless you need to be scared straight, but still, why go through that in the first place if you don't have to? If you just weren't foolish to begin with, you wouldn't have to be sanctioned and scared straight, now, would you?

And "I'm Sexy and I Know It" sounds quite narcissistic to me, as does "I'm Too Sexy," and even other songs not about sex, such as "We Will Rock You" and "We Are The Champions" by Queen; in my opinion, a number of their songs come across as narcissistic to me. Though the real reason why I hated "I'm Sexy and I Know It" was actually because of the annoying beats and strange sound effects in the background.

---

The point I was trying to make was if you're going to hate or 'regulate' a song based on what the lyrics "might" mean or might imply then every song in existence has a bad angle and every song when read from a different perspective has a positive message.

High Hopes by Frank Sinatra glorifies deforestation and Dam Terrorism.

---

It's called "guidelines." Movies and video games have ratings that act as guidelines, but music does not, and that should change. If you still want your kids to listen to shock music, fine, but the ratings would act as more accurate and precise advisory guidelines, instead of the vague "Parental Advisory" sticker. And let's also factor in those who sing and rap in Spanish, as they may curse in Spanish, and the people who don't speak Spanish may not catch the expletives. Even if you like a song, you should still know what you're listening to. Personally, as I stated above, I happen to like some of those artists myself, but still, I'm more vigilant about these things. I also want to know about the very nature of controversy itself.

I've met people from older generations who dislike this stuff, and even some younger people who dislike this stuff too. Even better, I have a professor this semester with a very similar cynical mindset to my own.

And I'm not exactly invading your life. Ironically enough, many people I've known over the years have invaded my life, and have told me condescendingly that I should be more like them. Well, I don't want to be like them, because I think they're wrong about me, and yet now you're telling me to stay out of your lives. HOW IRONIC. I'm not exactly telling you to change the way you live and what you listen to or watch, but just to be more vigilant about these things, and know exactly what you're listening to or watching. And whenever you dislike something, specify exactly why.

I'm trying my best to understand you, but you're not understanding me at all. I acknowledge the fact that you like some of those things, and I'm not exactly stopping you from continuing to like them. Nor do I exactly plan on stopping anyone from accessing these things, which many of you seem to think I'm doing. I'm trying to find a middleground between your standards and my standards in order to be acceptable to as many people as possible, because there is a time and place for everything, and there's a certain line that has to be drawn, and I don't think that line has been drawn yet.

The thing is, as a cynic, I find myself today to be very misunderstood by a lot of people at large. I don't want to hate you, and I don't want you to hate me, either.

"Debating" with you is like banging my head against the wall.

You fundamentally underestimate to what degree your goals regarding music are an impingement on the freedom of others to express themselves.

Nobody here is invading your life; we're simply insisting that your desired changes are an invasion of ours, whether you think so or not. You have no right to demand that we "be more vigilant about these things, and know exactly what [we're] listening to or watching." We are aware of the content of the media we consume; unlike you, we just aren't bothered by it.

To be honest, I happen to like some of those artists myself, even though I personally think that at times (but not ALL the time), they are abusing their freedoms of speech and expression. There's a time and place for everything, and certain things are not appropriate for certain times and places. In addition, there's also a "sliding scale" of "inappropriate" content, some being worse than others.

The thing is, I wasn't aware of these things until I started reading the TV Tropes wiki, where I learned about getting crap past the radar, which "disguises" things that would be considered "adult" content, so that the radar (censor system) doesn't catch it, and refuge in audacity which blatantly makes adult content very obvious, but still somehow manage to get away with it. I've now seen that pretty much every cartoon and live action television show supposedly aimed at all ages has a significant amount of personal aesthetic fan service (shirtless men and scantily-clad women), sexual innuendo, gross-out humor (bathroom humor, bodily function humor, and gross habits such as burping and nose-picking), curses cut short, curses in foreign languages, minced oaths, unusual euphemisms, and drug and alcohol references in them, some more than others, and I'm not exactly bothered by ALL of it, as I like some of those things myself (if it is done subtlely, and not blatantly), but still, label it properly. I actually do like some sensuality, but only if it is done in a subtle manner, and not blatantly, and I also find humor in bad odors. Apparently, the radars seem to miss these things, but anyway, I'm okay with some of them, but not all of them.

And I never said "stop listening or watching whatever you're watching," but I'd still like to know why you aren't offended by it. The reason why I'm offended by some (but not all) of these things is that it's just pure shock and sleaze, and there's no real justification for it; is it really necessary? I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't watch it at all, but I just want to know why you aren't offended by these things. Now that I am aware of these things, while I'm still interested in them, I want to know why they do these things, as well as what kind of standards they have, since apparently, many people don't seem have standards today (though there are some that do).

Also, I've known many people who have told me that I should be listening to and watching the same things they listen to and watch, but I refused, stating that I'd rather not get into that kind of trash. They typically say things that "if we can handle it, so can you," but why would they be into those things in the first place? They say it's "mature," but to be honest, I don't think that being into those things makes you mature; if anything, I would think that those things are either "anti-mature" or "mis-mature," since those things certainly aren't childish (which are often referred to as "immaturity"), but they're not "truly mature" either. Nor do I think that not being into these things means that one is immature. Thus, many people tend to condescend on me, yet object to me when I condescend back on them. HOW IRONIC. In fact, there's an Alanis Morrisette song titled "Ironic," which I think of as one of my life's theme songs, since I've found a lot of ironies and paradoxes in my life. Her lyrics tend to be quite snarky (sarcastic) and cynical, which is something that I can connect with, because I am also quite snarky and cynical. (Accoring to the TV Tropes wiki, a "deadpan snarker" is defined as "a character given to wry, sarcastic, or excessively dry humor, usually in the form of snide commentary or an occasional aside.")

One other thing that you should know about me is that I am also quite the philosophical thinker. I've taken a few philosophy classes in college already, and I've realized that I am a very philosophical thinker, as I tend to think about "why" and "how" a lot. In fact, that's part of the concept of philosophy known as existentialism: asking "why?" and "how?" a lot.

With all of that said, despite you "hurting" me a lot (which is why I think you are rightly named, and you know who I'm talking about), I don't hate you, and I don't want you to hate me, either. Let's acknowledge both our similarities and our differences and respect each other. And again, I'm sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

To be honest, I happen to like some of those artists myself, even though I personally think that at times (but not ALL the time), they are abusing their freedoms of speech and expression.

---

You can't abuse freedom of speech and expression. That's why it's called freedom of speech. Otherwise you end up in a state of censorship.

If you want to discuss irony, I might suggest researching the consequences of existentialism for morality and your insistence on thrusting your individual morality over others.

True, but as I said, many others have tried to impose their moralities on me. And again, I wasn't aware of these things until I started reading the TV Tropes wiki, and while I'm okay with a large percentage of these things for myself, it's only a select few that I'm worried about. For instance, I happen to be a fan of watching girls pole dance, as long as it is not overly erotic.

What's pretty ironic is how you keep mentioning TV Tropes. You realize that wiki is all about structurally analyzing media content while you seem to be completely unable to look past the content itself? So far we have seen absolutely no answer as to why (italic for emphasis) you consider "overly erotic" pole dancing etc. to be bad. You're about as good at this philosophy thing as you are at sociological thinking.

Also I'm consistently tickled that you're pointing to the TV Tropes Wiki as if it carries any sort of weight as a source in an argument.

SO
CALL
ME



MAYBE:love:

Quote:

---

Overt nastiness (including sleazy lyrics, trash talk, and monster-like screaming)
Explicit lyrics
Scary horror themes
Anarchist themes
Glorifying getting drunk and wasted
Sleazy lyrics
Explicit lyrics
Overall eroticism, including strange outfits that bare too much skin

---

>implying any of these are bad things

also:

http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...20363114_n.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

What's pretty ironic is how you keep mentioning TV Tropes. You realize that wiki is all about structurally analyzing media content while you seem to be completely unable to look past the content itself? So far we have seen absolutely no answer as to why (italic for emphasis) you consider "overly erotic" pole dancing etc. to be bad. You're about as good at this philosophy thing as you are at sociological thinking.

---

It depends on what pole dancing is combined with. I can accept go-go dancing. Stripteases, however, I do not accept. And obviously there's no issue with pole dancing when it is done more athletically and artistically, as it is done in acrobatic shows and/or fitness competitions. In fact, I'll even let my kids watch some of these pole dancing performances, if I find it suitable enough for them.

When it comes to music, in all fairness, they have the right to express themselves. However, I still don't get why they have to use expletives, erotic innuendo (some of which I am okay with), and drug and alcohol themes to do so. Why do they do it? And I also don't get why or how we, as a society, became so tolerant of these things, though it didn't happen overnight; it increased steadily over time.

And check this out:

Pa. 8th Graders' Field Trip Includes Hooters Lunch

I just came across this article, which was published last year, about a group of Pennsylvania 8th graders eating at Hooters, of all places, for lunch during a middle school's field trip to the National Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland. There were about 100 students in total, plus teachers and other chaperones, and since the group was too large for a single restaurant, they were split up, and about 15-20 of the students, along with a few of their teachers and chaperones, ended up at Hooters. Now, Hooters is the original "breastaurant," which is a term that refers to restaurants, as well as coffee shops and cafes, that feature sexual undertones in the form of busty, scantily clad young women as waitresses. So, these 8th graders and their teachers and other chaperones randomly ended up at Hooters, and were exposed to scantily-clad young women.

Now, I've searched for more webpages on this, and the comments on these pages tend to be divided, with some thinking that it is no big deal for these 13-14-year-old boys (and girls) to be exposed to busty, well-endowed, fit scantily-clad young women (considering that the media overexposes children to things that are far worse), and others wondering "what were they thinking?" out of exposing children to the objectification of women (society tends to objectify the female body more so than the male body). The superintendent stated that he wished the chaperones chose another restaurant, but that none of the parents of these kids complained to him about it. The Hooters spokesperson also stated that they hold special events for all ages, including young school children, and that the Hooters waitresses like to see children and are nice with them. In all fairness, while these young women were wearing considerably skimpy outfits, they weren't too scantily-clad, as they were dressed just well enough to cover their private parts while still showing off a lot of skin, and they also did not strip, either. Many breastaurants describe themselves as "sexy-classy" and "sexy-cute," but not "sexy-trashy," and for the most part, I agree with them on that. Indeed, sex sells, but I don't think it should have to be sleazy, which is why I say that in many forms of media today, it is not so much sex in itself that sells anymore so much as shock and sleaze, and I don't think that shock and sleaze should be the norm. I'm okay with "personal aesthetic fan service," so long as it is not overly-erotic, and I'd even take my kids to some of these breastaurants.

Second, these students were 8th graders that are about 13-14 years old, and I would deduce that Hooters, as well as all other breastaurants, are about the equivalent of a PG-13-rated movie. But what if these students were in the 4th grade (about 9-10 years old) or even younger? 4th graders, I could probably tolerate, but I'm not sure if I'd want kindergarten/pre-K children eating there. Then again, we tend to see young women at beaches and swimming pools wearing bikinis that are even more revealing (some more than others) than the standard Hooters uniform (which is a tank top and short shorts), and we take our children there all the time.

How would you feel if your children were taken to Hooters (or any other breastaurant, for that matter), for lunch during a school field trip?

I can't take you seriously when you use terms like breastaurants and then also feel the need to define that term for us. You do realize that you're a parody of yourself, right? I mean, this has to be intentional. You can't honestly be unaware of how ridiculous you sound. If I was confident that you were a troll, it might be funny, but since I'm not it's really kind of sad.

I wish I could re-do the Ciddies and have this win best thread. :( I don't think I've ever had so much enjoyment from a thread about a crappy song.

SuperMillionaire: He likes things because they're good, or they're good because he likes them?

I was understanding his postion until he said "pole dancing is okay because it's art." Well, yeah, it certainly can be. Anyone who's seen the Cirque de Soleil stuff would agree; those are not at all sexual, but another mode of dance, definitely. But SM has skewed morals.

Morals are morals. You either follow your moral compass or you don't. You can't make up your own grey areas, and have them be right just because you say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

I can't take you seriously when you use terms like breastaurants and then also feel the need to define that term for us. You do realize that you're a parody of yourself, right? I mean, this has to be intentional. You can't honestly be unaware of how ridiculous you sound. If I was confident that you were a troll, it might be funny, but since I'm not it's really kind of sad.

---

What exactly do you mean by that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs

SuperMillionaire: He likes things because they're good, or they're good because he likes them?

I was understanding his postion until he said "pole dancing is okay because it's art." Well, yeah, it certainly can be. Anyone who's seen the Cirque de Soleil stuff would agree; those are not at all sexual, but another mode of dance, definitely. But SM has skewed morals.

Morals are morals. You either follow your moral compass or you don't. You can't make up your own grey areas, and have them be right just because you say so.

---

Of course not. You have every right to your opinion; I just want to know exactly why you have that opinion. Be specific as to why you have the opinion that you have.

I like things that I think are good, and they're not good just because I like them. I'm sure I like some things that you also like, but we differ on some things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

Of course not. You have every right to your opinion; I just want to know exactly why you have that opinion. Be specific as to why you have they opinion that you have.

---

Flight of the Concords wrote something on this that I feel reinforces your point, and I think everyone in the thread can benefit:

Quote:

---

Other rappers diss me,
Say my rhymes are sissy,
What?
Why?
What? What? Why?
Why?
Be more constructive with your feedback.

---

Terms like breastaurant are not used in normal discourse. That's something that you do a lot: use words that you seem to perceive as widely-used in a given context (see: breastaurant, Anglo-American) when, in fact, most people are probably not using those words often or in that manner. But then you also take it a step further and feel the need to define many of the terms you're using, which would normally come off as condescending if it weren't so damned funny. Reading through your posts is a constant struggle between laughing and trying my damnedest to give you the benefit of the doubt and take you seriously. But then you do things like say you've learned so much by reading TV Tropes, and it becomes infinitely harder to do the latter.

How exactly am I to explain why I like certain music? It's entirely subjective, and clearly we have differences of opinion in this regard. Sounds you describe as strange or weird I might find interesting or inventive. You said it yourself: "we differ on some things." And we differ on something pretty fundamental to our worldview: our threshold for offense. It takes a lot less to offend you than it takes for me to reach the same reaction. What you view as a deal-breaker hardly phases me.

I'm not here to tell you that your moral viewpoint is wrong. I might at times think that it's black and white in a juvenile way, but you're perfectly entitled to it (just as I am entitled to my judgment of it and vice versa). However, I respect your right to have such opinions. I'm not going to force you to listen to Lil' Wayne giggling and dropping f-bombs. That said, despite your assertions to the contrary, your insistence on a stricter labeling system amounts to censorship that affects my ability to listen to certain types of music. I know you say that the idea behind your labeling is meant to be aimed at children, but you're not considering the consequences of aggressive censorship.

If you need an example, look no further than video games. The ratings system effectively functions as censorship as to what can and can not appear in a video game. Games are rated from E to AO. But wait, you might say, video games only go up to M ratings. And that's effectively true. Despite the existence of an AO rating, no company will develop a title with such a rating for mass markets because it is effectively financial suicide. No major retailer will carry AO games.

What's more, the content that would land a game an AO-rating is frequently featured in R-rated movies. Graphic displays of sex occur fairly regularly in R-rated movies. It's not even always tastefully done; take a look at The Hangover 2 for examples of more full frontal male, female, and transexual nudity in sexually lewd (and humorous if you're into potty humor) contexts. If Bioware rendered so much as a nipple in a sex scene in Mass Effect, the rating would have gone right to AO, and nobody would have sold the game. As it stands, when the game came out with two exceptionally brief sex scenes, neither of which showed any more nudity than you see at a community pool, the media exploded at how inappropriate this was and there was a lot of misguided backlash against the game for it.

Your type of ratings system for music could potentially cause the same thing. If you restrict music so widely on certain points, and restrict the sales of such music so aggressively, you'll start having retailers refuse to sell those albums which receive said warnings labels altogether. Oh wait, this already happens. Walmart doesn't sell anything but the censored "clean" versions of the albums. When retailers stop carrying albums because of warning labels, producers stop producing albums with content that "necessitates" such moral flagging because they're not financially viable. Very quickly, such content disappears because of decisions made by the few and not the many. It is a financial blockade to free speech in art, and that is wrong.

That was the whole point that I was trying to make all along. I have no problem with letting anyone watch or listen to these things, because some of these things I also like myself. The problem is the suitability for children. I have no intention of banning any recording artists; I just want stricter regulation for designating which recording artists are appropriate for which audiences, and content ratings act as guidelines, similar to movie and video game ratings.

I also have to wonder: if nudity is featured in an R-rated movie, then why can't it be featured in an M-rated game? (Not that I'd ever play such games, but still.) Furthermore, why does the NC-17 movie rating still exist when it's never seen in theaters? I'd say that they should start showing NC-17-rated films in theaters and allowing AO-rated games to be sold in stores; consumers will require an I.D. in order to gain access to these movies and video games.

In Australia, the highest rating that a video game can get is MA15+, as there is no R18+ rating for video games there like there is for movies, and any video game that exceeds MA15+ level is refused classification and effectively banned; games that exceed MA15+ level are allowed the option of being edited in order to gain the lesser MA15+ rating. They also rate music and novels for their content, and while it is somewhat more specific than just seeing a "Parental Advisory" sticker in the United States, it is still somewhat vague, since the ratings are not quite as specific and clear as ratings for movies, video games, and television.

In the case of music, Australia only rates explicit music, which has three levels: 1-moderate impact, 2-strong impact, and 3-high impact. If an album exceeds Level 3 impact, it is not to be sold to the public.

In the case of literature, the ratings that Australia uses are Unrestricted, Unrestricted Mature, Restricted Category 1, and Restricted Category 2; if a novel exceeds Restricted Category 2, it is refused classification and effectively banned.

Australia has been shown on occasion to ban a small number of video games, movies, novels, and music albums over the years for exceeding the maximum content ratings, though they are nowhere near as strict as they are in China and Saudi Arabia, since their censorship standards are outrageous, and have banned many more movies, video games, and music albums (as well as music videos) than Australia has, and I have no intention of adopting standards that are as outrageous as those of China and Saudi Arabia.

If you look at the content ratings for movies and video games in the United States, you'll notice that on the back of the box, you'll see content descriptors, which basically describe the content in a short answer form. These content descriptors are short, but specific. The more detailed description is shown at the websites of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, respectively.

I also think that movies rated PG-13 and games rated Teen tend to have widely varying levels of intensity, ranging from slightly higher than PG/E10+ to slightly lower than R/M. In order to eliminate the ambiguity, I would suggest implementing a "PG-16" movie rating and a "Teenagers 16+" video game rating, which would imply that the film is very intense, and not recommended for children, but is still not severe enough to be legally restricted. In addition, the "TV-14" television content rating should be replaced with "TV-12" and "TV-16" ratings.

With all of that said, I think that movie theaters should start showing NC-17-rated movies (not that I'd ever watch them, but still), and stores should start selling AO-rated games (not that I'd ever play them, but still). No movie, video game, novel, or music album should ever be banned, but I still think that we need stricter regulation to designate appropriate audiences for these things.

Congratulations, you completely missed my point and somehow reached the conclusion that we agree. I assure you that we do not.

this is literally the worst thread about anything I have ever seen on the internet. i'm trying, really, really hard to think of the worst forums I can bring to mind in order to try and find something worse than this, but I'm pretty sure that even if stormfront and the worst twilight slashfic forum on the internet somehow gained the ability to reproduce, got pregnant and miscarried, the resulting lifeless bloody foetus thread that would flop out of it would still be a more palatable read than this thread. good god.

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/a...b572b7f000.gif

But I'm having fun. :/

Granted, less fun with the name change.

Ahahaha at Ouch's new name.

Super: a couple of quick points.

1. You've entirely missed the point that "regulating" music content to kids will have on the musicians' and producers' ability to publish such music. As Ouch! (or Mrs. SM; you two make a cute couple) pointed out, the labeling system on games makes a de facto ban on certain "adult" content in games. It effectively limits what even adults can buy. The same thing would happen to music all because you don't want kids hearing some naughty words.

2. I have no idea what you mean by "regulation." If you're referring to a voluntary sale-restriction like some stores have for M-rated games and some movie theaters have for R-rated movies, that's one thing. If you're talking about the government prohibiting the sale of certain content to minors (as Australia, that you referred to, does in some contexts), then that is illegal in the US (see Brown v. EMA, ruling that a CA law banning the sale of violent video games to children was unconstitutional).

3. Considering that parents already have the authority to consent to sale of explicit content to minors, as well as to restrict what they're exposed to if it's legal, such regulation only places Puritanical values as a substitute for parental authority. It places moral judgment on how parents should raise their kids and to what content they should allow their kids to be exposed to, and makes them take extra steps if they disapprove -- with no opt out option. It's not yours or anyone else's business. You have no basis to demand that everyone follow your own personal moral judgments about appropriate content.

EDIT: Also, SM, have you ever even been into a Hooters? It's a family sports' bar. If you could get over yourself for half a minute, you'd realize that the kids didn't see anything they wouldn't see walking outside in the warmer months, and just had a pretty typical sports' bar/restaurant experience.

Quote:

---

The problem is the suitability for children.

---

Some of the media you've been referencing is so juvenile and without substance that it can only be suitable for children.

Wow, I certainly didn't see that coming... anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Ahahaha at Ouch's new name.

Super: a couple of quick points.

1. You've entirely missed the point that "regulating" music content to kids will have on the musicians' and producers' ability to publish such music. As Ouch! (or Mrs. SM; you two make a cute couple) pointed out, the labeling system on games makes a de facto ban on certain "adult" content in games. It effectively limits what even adults can buy. The same thing would happen to music all because you don't want kids hearing some naughty words.

2. I have no idea what you mean by "regulation." If you're referring to a voluntary sale-restriction like some stores have for M-rated games and some movie theaters have for R-rated movies, that's one thing. If you're talking about the government prohibiting the sale of certain content to minors (as Australia, that you referred to, does in some contexts), then that is illegal in the US (see Brown v. EMA, ruling that a CA law banning the sale of violent video games to children was unconstitutional).

3. Considering that parents already have the authority to consent to sale of explicit content to minors, as well as to restrict what they're exposed to if it's legal, such regulation only places Puritanical values as a substitute for parental authority. It places moral judgment on how parents should raise their kids and to what content they should allow their kids to be exposed to, and makes them take extra steps if they disapprove -- with no opt out option. It's not yours or anyone else's business. You have no basis to demand that everyone follow your own personal moral judgments about appropriate content.

EDIT: Also, SM, have you ever even been into a Hooters? It's a family sports' bar. If you could get over yourself for half a minute, you'd realize that the kids didn't see anything they wouldn't see walking outside in the warmer months, and just had a pretty typical sports' bar/restaurant experience.

---

I never said that we should follow Australia's example. In fact, I think that theaters should start showing NC-17-rated movies, and stores should start selling AO-rated games, but proper I.D. is required for access.

In all fairness, when it comes to exposing children to things that contain explicit content, I think that sometimes, it is necessary, but in moderation. I'm not stopping you from exposing your children to these things, but do so in moderation. There's a time and a place for everything. Also be careful how much you expose them to at a time, because I'm sure that you wouldn't want your little child dropping F-bombs, would you? Of course, however, if you do, well... that's fine, I guess, but I don't get why you would allow that in the first place.

Many people in the past have tried imposing their ideas on me, stating that, "if they can handle it, then I can handle it too." True, but keep these two things in mind: first, it's not about me at all (in fact, one motto I have is, "the world does not revolve around me, but it does not revolve around you, either"), and second, just because one likes those things does not make one mature. (If anything, I would think of them as either "anti-mature" or "mis-mature" for liking things such as what we see on MTV nowadays, since those things certainly arent childish, but they're not truly and properly mature, either.)

As for Hooters, you're right, and I even stated that myself, in case you missed it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

Second, these students were 8th graders that are about 13-14 years old, and I would deduce that Hooters, as well as all other breastaurants, are about the equivalent of a PG-13-rated movie. But what if these students were in the 4th grade (about 9-10 years old) or even younger? 4th graders, I could probably tolerate, but I'm not sure if I'd want kindergarten/pre-K children eating there. Then again, we tend to see young women at beaches and swimming pools wearing bikinis that are even more revealing (some more than others) than the standard Hooters uniform (which is a tank top and short shorts), and we take our children there all the time.

---

The superintendent wished the chaperones would have chosen another restaurant, but stated that he did not receive any complaints from parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Quote:

---

The problem is the suitability for children.

---

Some of the media you've been referencing is so juvenile and without substance that it can only be suitable for children.

---

Maybe some of these things are, but certainly not all of them. Certainly not in music.

What do you think of your new wife, SM?

She's female? Really?

But if we had a feud, why did she name herself after me? I certainly didn't see that one coming.

Damn it, Paul. You win this round.

And here I was looking forward to you owe me a beer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DK

this is literally the worst thread about anything I have ever seen on the internet. i'm trying, really, really hard to think of the worst forums I can bring to mind in order to try and find something worse than this, but I'm pretty sure that even if stormfront and the worst twilight slashfic forum on the internet somehow gained the ability to reproduce, got pregnant and miscarried, the resulting lifeless bloody foetus thread that would flop out of it would still be a more palatable read than this thread. good god.

---

In other words:

Okay, what's going on here?

>Opened thread to last page

>Saw breastaurants

>Left thread

Jesus Christ, Dan.

When I die, I request and require that you and Paul recite this entire thread to my grave in silly voices.

I can't take you seriously when you use terms like breastaurants and then also feel the need to define that term for us.

Why so serious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Pint of Quinness

Jesus Christ, Dan.

When I die, I request and require that you and Paul recite this entire thread to my grave in silly voices.

---

listen I quoted Sans in an attempt to warn you, not sure how much more I could have done

I miss Zachie Chan

10 years down the line, Call Me Maybe ended up being like the 5th song played at my wedding reception.

Ain't mad about it.