|The other side says||My response||
Dr. Ronald Spranglet, chief school medical officer in Nottingham, England, charged that teenage pop music was probably to blame for the
mounting obsession with sex. And Dr. Masterson, head of the adolescent outpatient at Payne-Whitney Psychiatric Clinic says, "The music is,
in a way; a kind of sexual expression. The beat has genuine sexual implications."
Dr. Granby Blaine acknowledged an element of sexuality in the primitive rhythm and Dr. Bernard Saibel, supervisor of the State Community Services in the state of Washington reported a Beafte concert by stating, "The music is loud, primitive, insistent, strongly rhythmic and releases in an undisguised way the all too tenuously controlled, newly acquired physical impulses of the teenager."
And, finally, Frank Zappa of the Mothers of Invention put it very plainly, "Rock music is sex. The big beat matches the body's rhythms."
The same critics assert elsewhere in their documentation that rock music causes immediate loss of body strength (hardly conducive to
sexual activity). Here is an exact quote out of their material:
Yet in the quote on the left, they assert that it energizes the body into sexual frenzy by matching the body's sexual rhythms! Come on guys, you can't have it both ways!
I have a question for the Christian rock critics: since they say that Christian rock sexually stimulates, is it OK for a married couple to listen to it while they engage in intimacy?
This piece of mis-information actually has a limited basis in fact. The actual frequency that can stimulate sexual arousal is around 7 Hz, corresponding to natural pulsations as sperm is released during intercourse. The range of frequencies is pretty narrow capable of producing arousal is pretty narrow. Outside of this narrow range, it has no effect. This frequency is well below the range of human hearing, and not a frequency used in any recorded music or live rock performances. The only musical instrument (electronic or conventional) capable of producing 7 Hz would be a very large pipe organ. The majority of them are in churches. I have never heard an accusation of sexual arousals by pipe organ music.
In the days of turntables, such a frequency on the record would have resonated with the natural resonance of the tone arm, flinging it off the recorded material! No FM or AM broadcast station is allowed to broadcast this frequency by law, because it would result in unlawful interference. Commercially available cassette and other tape recording systems cannot record this frequency, the circuitry is not designed to produce it. While it is theoretically possible to record this frequency on a CD, it is not done because no consumer has equipment that could accurately reproduce it. It is an extraordinary sound system that can produce below 50 Hz, frequencies lower require exponentially more power, exponentially larger speakers, all at exponentially higher cost.
No automotive system made could reproduce 7 Hz. The only home system that I am aware of that might be capable of reproducing 7 Hz is one owned by my cousin, who happened to buy a surplus speaker system that was distributed to movie theaters with the movie "Earthquake". The speaker occupies a big chunk of floor space and takes 2000 watts to operate. I do not recall any accounts of young ladies driven to sexual ecstasy while watching "Earthquake" or more recently when the T-Rex is approaching in "Jurassic Park" movies.
If you absolutely are still convinced that "rock music is sex" or the beat causes sexual stimulation, why am I not affected? When I hear Christian rock music, I enjoy it stylistically, but have no sexual stimulation whatsoever. ZERO! Sexual stimulation by anything or anybody other than my wife is a SIN - one that I flee from. You will find no sexually explicit books or videos in my home. If I accidentally surf to a web site that has an inappropriate graphic, I immediately hit the "close" icon and take the time to purge the image out of my browser's cache. Are any of you critics that thorough? It should be crystal clear to even the harshest critic that I am SERIOUS about sexual purity in my home and my life. IF there were any trace of sexual stimulation in the music, I would publically agree with you. But - there is not.
The implications of this are obvious. If I am not stimulated - then there are probably others who are not stimulated. Given that there is absolutely nothing wrong with my libido when it comes to Godly expression in marriage, it is pretty obvious to me that that there are probably lots of people who are not stimulated by the music. Maybe most people. There are few kooks out there who will be stimulated, but it has nothing to do with the beat. There are probably also kooks out there who are stimulated sexually by the fat lady singing opera, or the deep voiced soloist singing "How Great Thou Art". Watch the eyes of the old ladies - where do their eyes dwell on his anatomy?! You absolutely cannot blame the performers for the lustful attitudes of those hearing the performance - unless they themselves are presenting the material in a manner intended to produce stimulation. When a secular rock perfomer stimulates sexually, it is the sight of flesh - NOT THE BEAT - that is stimulating. GOD FORBID that any Christian performer would dress in a manner that would sexually stimulate, regardless of the style of music.
I remember fondly one of my announcers - a delightful 15 year old girl, who was involved in the sport of cheerleading. She enjoys the beat of the music, because it is good dance music. I have seen her dance enthusiastically to good Christian rock, she is very skillful and artistic. If any teenager were to be susceptible to sexual stimulation, she would have been. But - she was not. When she danced, it was an enjoyable aerobic excercise - more than anything else. Any guy trying to "come on" to her immediately received a rebuff. Potential boyfriends were evaluated on the basis of Godliness - she had many to choose from and could afford to wait for God's best.
When I think of this Godly young woman, I am a bit annoyed at the critics above - who would look at her as "lustful" and "sold out to the devil" - when she is NOT. Something is badly wrong with their logic, especially when they quote secular sources like Frank Zappa. I am sure he has many deep spiritual insights - but I wonder which spirit they come from.