Sexualising
our Children
12 October 2006
Earlier this week the Australia
Institute issued a report
claiming that the corporate
world is increasingly targetting
and sexualising our children.
Young girls especially are
in the sights of many major
retailers. Bras and lingerie
for 6-year-olds, for example,
are becoming common in our
mainstream retail outlets.
Fashion and gossip magazines
aimed at very young girls
are also becoming the norm.
The
Institute report, authored
by Dr Emma Rush, claimed that
in the interests of making
big bucks, the coporate world
is stealing away our children’s
innocence. And the danger
of these advertising and marketing
campaigns is that children
will succumb to eating dosorders,
miss out on their childhood,
and fall victim to pedophiles.
Indeed, the report is titled,
“Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation
of children in Australia”.
Of
course such charges have been
made elsewhere, especially
in the US, for some years
now. For example, one important
American television documentary
on this whole situation was
released in 2001, entitled The Merchants of Cool.
My summary and analysis of
that very helpful film can
be found in the sexuality
section of this website (“The
Betrayal of a Generation”).
But
it is good to see an Australian
study on this worrying trend.
And the report has generated
a lot of controversy. Many
retailers are up in arms,
and the civil libertarians
are of course getting all
shook up.
One
take on this story appears
in today’s Australian.
Angela Conway writes (“Young
ones won't be young for long”
– October 12, 2006) that the
report is indeed accurate
and necessary. She too decries
the marketing of padded bras
to 8-year-olds: “Little girls
like pretty things but do
they need bras with padding?
And should they learn so early
that their bodies are for
flaunting? More than just
another nail in the coffin
of childhood, these underwear
trends contribute to the premature
sexualising of children with
cynical disregard for the
consequences. “
She
analyses a number of the labels
in question, including Target,
Barbie, Saddle Club, Disney
and Bratz. Indeed, the Bratz
line of products is especially
troublesome: “The ambiguities
of the Bratz products' images
are creepily reminiscent of
the kinds of fantasies and
warped perceptions of women
and girls so central to pornography.
Defenders of raunch culture
say turning pornographic imagery
into a weapon of "girl
power" liberates girls
and women. But just how powerful
will little girls be when,
with pelvises thrust forward,
they have learned the scripted
moves and obsessions of the
Bratz dolls, underwear, website
and DVDs? They will take on
a sexualised language they
cannot possibly understand.
And it will be done at their
peril.”
The
possible connection with child
porn and pedophilia is a major
concern: “The Bratz doll range
echoes the fantasies and common
beliefs of pedophiles researched
by Kurt Eichenwald of The
New York Times. He found that
a core belief running through
pedophile conversations on
the internet revolved around
children's purported sexual
autonomy, desire for sexual
relations with adults and
their rights to freedom of
sexual expression.”
She
continues, “Eichenwald reported
on common preferences among
pedophiles for images of children
about five years old dressed
in diapers or in sexually
provocative, revealing clothing
and lingerie, similar to many
of the Bratz dolls. The animations
on the Bratz website show
Bratz Babyz being bathed while
looking fetchingly grown-up
and knowing. The similarities
to Eichenwald's description
of images of nine-year-old
‘Sparkles’ in the bath posted
on pedophile blogs seem striking.
Eichenwald shows that much
of the pedophile activity
on the web has switched to
porn sites masquerading as
children's modelling sites.”
Concludes
Conway, “The links between
search terms such as ‘little
girls' lingerie’ to pedophilia
become apparent with a web
search. Revealed are sales
pitches such as ‘lingerie
for petite little girls; watch
our little models showing
off sexy lingerie’. In the
cold light of proliferating
internet pedophile networks
and child porn sites, the
purveyors of raunch culture
for little girls may just
seem plain foolish. At the
very least, they are stealing
childhood for cold commercial
gain. At worst, they may be
contributing mightily to a
grooming process that the
pedophiles of this world will
thank them for.”
Quite
right. Child porn and the
sexualisation of our young
are ever-increasing problems
in our sex-soaked society.
We certainly do not need major
retailers contributing to
the problem, even indirectly.
Civil libertarians will undoubtedly
beg to differ. Indeed, the
editorial in today’s Australian pours cold water on the Australia
Institute report, speaking
of “moral panic” and sexuality
being in the eye of the beholder.
Yet most parents know these
are legitimate fears, and
that our children deserve
protection from such greedy
marketeers.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20564738-7583,00.html
[772 words] |
