While driving to work this morning Darrell Ankarlo, one of my favorite radio talk show hosts, was talking about a study* that found that teens who listen to sexually suggestive music were twice as likely to have sex in the next two years as teens who didn't. When I heard this a great idea immediately popped into my mind: sue the "artists" who record this stuff.
That's right; sue 'em! Every teen parent, AIDS patient, rape victim, and STD sufferer should sue the folks who make explicit music and any other kind of explicit entertainment. Great idea, huh? No? Come on!
Liberals are devoted to the belief that individuals aren't really responsible for the illegal, immoral, and/or irresponsible things they do (or the subsequent consequences); society is. That's the driving force behind all their lawsuits against tobacco companies and their calls for similar lawsuits against gun manufacturers. I'm just taking their own belief to the next level.
Think about it. Using liberals' logic, isn't a struggling unwed--or even wed--teen parent owed something from the "artists" who glorify out-of-wedlock sex in every song they sing? After all, the study showed that teens who listen to that type of music are more likely to have sex than teens who don't, and with sex comes consequences. Liberals claim that tobacco companies and gun manufacturers, not individual smokers and gun owners, are responsible for smoking-related diseases and gun violence, respectively, simply by virtue of supplying the product that caused the illness or mayhem. So, then, aren't "artists" who saturate the airwaves with sexually explicit music (and movies, tv shows, etc.) just as responsible for the negative results of their product?
"This is nonsense!" liberals will scream. "Individuals are in control of their own bodies; music can't make people do anything they don't want to do. And even if music could influence people like that, it's up to parents to supervise their kids so they don't get into trouble. Besides, the right to free speech allows these performers to make any kind of music they choose. This is just another instance of conservative censorship!" Yep, libs will say something a lot like this against my idea, but in so doing they'll only expose their own hypocrisy and inconsistency.
There's a lot of physical and emotional suffering, and financial hardship, directly caused by smoking and gun violence, but that's not why liberals wage war on tobacco companies and gun manufacturers; if it were, they'd be suing explicit music "artists" as I write because there's a lot of suffering and financial hardship directly caused by "free" sex, too. No, liberals go after tobacco companies and gun makers simply because they don't like smoking or gun ownership,
and they're trying to establish a new code of secular morality. They do like "free" sex, though. And they want it promoted as far and wide as possible, despite the grief it's caused, because it's their most potent weapon against traditional, Judeo-Christian values.
So liberals won't care for my idea of suing the likes of Emenim, The Pussycat Dolls, or Madonna, but sane folks, many of whom are helping to raise their illegitimate grandkids, will. If Big Tobacco and the gun makers have to pony up for the dirt left behind by their products, music "artists" should, too. Let's keep it consistent, libs.
*I didn't catch the name of the study or who did it because I caught only part of Darrell Ankarlo's show, but if you Google "Darrell Ankarlo" that should put you on the right path to finding all the info on the study you want.