Socket protectors, foam-padded playgrounds and toys with rounded edges show the extent of society's obsession with protecting children. In my younger days, I was jumping off tall metal playgrounds onto gravel and concrete, and playing with toys infants could easily choke on. Now, one of the top priorities in our society is protecting children from harm.
In the 1990s, protecting American youth came to include shielding their darling young minds from the corrupting nature of explicit lyrics in songs and from outspoken media personalities. Pressure and blame was, and still is, put on artists for ruining the minds and morals of their impressionable young audiences, but to what extent should artists be conscious of the demographics of their listeners? Even though the issue is a longstanding one, these are the thoughts, among others, that entered my mind as I listened to a song in which the lead singer whines about wanting to have sex but not being able to get an erection.
I find the song, titled "Get it Up," from Mindless Self Indulgence's new album "If" (2008) absolutely hilarious. Any song that tries to blame erectile dysfunction on the physical appearance of the sexual partner earns points for humor (although, I guess it's probably not as funny for those who have actually experienced such an obstacle). Many other tracks on the album are equally profane, wonderfully full of amusing references to sex, drugs and violence -- just the things I like to hear from rockers.
I'm mature and old enough to understand that the lyrics are meant to be funny. The lack of politically correct terms or the absence of overt sensitivity to gender issues does not mean the band is trying to single out any group (besides tools and douche bags) or demean women. After all, half of the members of the band are female.
However, Mindless Self Indulgence has a large fan base, and many of the adoring fans eating up those lyrics are young teens. Young teens, who by definition are obviously of inferior mental capacity, may misconstrue the intentions of the song and then put those misconstrued intentions into practice.
Parents misconstrue the artists' intentions in much the same way as their teenage offspring. Knowing that their children are at an impressionable state and themselves being set in certain attitudes and beliefs, these parents speak out and demand that such songs be censored and artists be more responsible.
But in making that argument, parents are transferring the responsibility of raising their kids onto the artist. I know there's that proverb that says it takes a village to raise a child, but I for one never consented to having that child. In fact, no one even informed me that said child was going to be born -- no phone call, no short Blitz -- so I think it's perfectly justified for me to absolve myself of any responsibility in raising it, and the same goes for musicians.
It's not the artists' job to raise kids that aren't theirs. There are some great songs out there that are completely inappropriate for younger kids, in which case the parents should prevent their kids from hearing them. But just because some kids are too young to listen doesn't necessitate censorship of the song or the artist. It's a disservice to the entire population when people my age or older are able to appreciate the song.
So if parents think their kids shouldn't be listening to a certain band, then it is the parents' job to make sure they don't. Considering that kids are completely dependent on their parents for transportation and money, is it really that hard? If adults think Howard Stern's show is unsuitable for their offspring, then they should have just changed the radio station instead of protesting it.
There's no substitute for good parenting -- except, of course, television.
Divya is a staff writer for The Mirror. She would respect Raffi more as an artist if he sang about coke and threesomes.
