That would be almost everything in blues music, which is where rock music gets its themes from. Clapton, the Stones, the Beatles, etc all started out in blues, and periodically return. Leadbelly, Big Mama Thornton? That song "My Ding-a-Ling" is NOT about a child's toy, and "Sixty Minute Man", "I Want a Bowlegged Woman", "Meat for Sale" etc were seen as explicit for their day. Prince's "Darling Nikki" caused a COW in 1988. Every generation will push the envelope a bit further than the previous, but shocking, dirty, misogynist songs have always been with us.

As for materialism, that's rampant. The gangstas name drop in a very obvious way, but they didn't think of that themselves. It's always been there.

I actually don't see Big as massively creative; Lauren Hill, Erykah Badu, etc and a number of others are better. "Tennesse" is a lyrically great song. Some Beatles songs are crappy. Can we say "Yesterday"? Formula is formula. In every generation, some trashy songs must fall. While "Compton" is an important song to me, there are others. I don't mistake "Gin and Juice" or "Snoop Doggy Dog" for anything more than it is supposed to be: headbob music. It's not to make you think.

There's a lot more to rap than Tupac, Big, Snoop, etc. I love Black Star.

As for lyrics, most lyrics these days are terrible, and that's because of formulas. I saw the winner of one magazine contest (the one judged by Alicia Keys) this Sunday, and the song was trash. I also suspect some of the lyrics were plagarized, but I'm too lazy to look up the song I think it comes from. Then again, compare the Rolling Stone's "Brown Sugar" to "The Message" or Salt-n-Pepa's "Let's Talk about Sex". PJ Harvey writes good lyrics, and her cover of the Stone's "Satisfaction" is superb. Very few people buy her lyrics. Most songs of any generation will have trash lyrics.

Rap is pop today, and just like pop, some is trash. SOmething will come along to make it seem neutral, the way screaming about "Darling Nikki" seems quaint today. Let's not throw away a whole genre based on a few knuckleheaded marketers. That's what they tried to do to rock, and jazz, etc.

And Lord Knows, rock/jazz/funk musicians have always argued that they have to be jerks to be creative. Miles Davis, Mick Jagger, Artie Shaw, Ray Charles, Steven Tyler, Rick James, all of Metallica, etc- all have been abusive, drug/drunk driven, jackasses extraordinarie. A sane musician is an oxymoron.

In fact, most of the 12 people interviewed for this article cited the "American Pie" movies and the wildly successful "Girls Gone Wild" DVD

I put this in the "Charlotte Simmons" category of conflating the behavior of a few with the behvaior of many. There's no evidence this is a big trend outside of panting, hysterical articles out there. No survey data, anything else.

This article can be used to pressure girls to do this, because it argues it is a trend.

My students think this is not common, and the mtrend data I've seen supports that.

I think Jeffrey expects too much of rap in this commercial environment. Underground rap has the energy of the 90s stuff the referenced. The rap lyrics he wants to see, poetry with strong observations about life and intelligent points, are not going to be marketed by today's record companies. It's there, but the execs won't extend the contracts, and the radio stations won't play it. My students find stuff on the niche web boards, web radio for up and comers, and I listen to cable radio, streaming radio, and dig around. If you listen to contemporary radio, you'll rarely hear anything good in any genre. It's like with movies- the payola means that fewer songs can afford to pay off the radio for rotations. Beancounter music is the opposite of sanitized, but it's the same thing. Look outside of the commercial radio.

The tight commercial format is killing all of free radio. It's sad. Maybe when they lose enough money, ClearChannel and Co will allow DJs to spin what they want. Or maybe lowpower and college radio will become more important.

Everyone must have health insurance, no one is starving, etc. It must be. If it isn't, then why are so many seemingly intelligent people losing their minds over something so trivial? Why is whether you like giving bjs or not important or even anyone's business? How will giving them change the world? Is this related to some big Lysistrata plot? Or is this simply post-feminist navel gazing, from people who read Manifesta a few too many times?

Feminism is not supposed to be derailed by this kind of intellectual claptrap. There are women in this world who are using feminism to try to save lives, to save 9 aand 12 year olds from rape and forced marriage, to educate girls, bring health care. They are fighting the Taliban's war on girls, and trying to get women and children in places like Darfur, Mogadishu, the Congo,etc food, drugs, etc. They are fighting the corruption in Nigeria, and AIDs in South Africa and multiple LatinAmerican states. They bring birth control to Brazil, Mexico, etc, sometimes at great personal costs.

Given that, how the hell can Western 'feminists" justify spending so much time and ink discussing BLOW JOBS? Are ya'll INSANE?

Stop navel gazing and start working for things that help. Or most women will conclude that feminism is about navel gazing and not about survival. Most of us out there who are female have no time for this priviledged, narcissistic over-ananlysis and application of the private.

College students want a feminism that changes the world, not that argues over "angels dancing on the head of a pin" . We need jobs, balance, oh so much. We don't need stupid debates about silliness.