Cameron-backed report to protect children from commercialisation | Politics | The Guardian

Quote:

Cameron-backed report to protect children from commercialisationProposals include ban on sale of 'adult' pre-teen clothes, and requiring 'lads mags' to sell in brown covers David Cameron is to back a plan to stop retailers selling inappropriate clothes for pre-teens and shield children from sexualised imagery across all media, including selling "lads magazines" in brown covers and making the watchdog Ofcom more answerable to the views of parents. Retailers would be required to sign up to a new code preventing the sale of items for pre-teens with suggestive slogans, which the prime minister has repeatedly criticised. The proposals come in a long-awaited report, leaked to the Guardian, on the commercialisation of childhood. It was commissioned by Cameron and is due to be published on Monday with strong support from Downing Street. Recommendations in the review, entitled Let children be children, include: • The Advertising Standards Authority to discourage placement of billboards with sexualised imagery near schools and nurseries or other areas where children are likely to view it. • A clampdown on sexualised and violent images shown before TV's 9pm watershed and curbs and cinema-style age rating for music videos. • A single website to be created, to act as "an interface between parents and the variety of regulators across the media, communications and retail industries". • Making it easier for parents to block age restricted material on the internet. • Lads magazines to be moved to the top shelf in shops or sold in covers. The report, which was prepared by Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Christian charity Mothers' Union, finds "sexualised and gender stereotyped clothing, products and services for children are the biggest concerns for parents and many non-commercial organisations". In response to his recommendations on clothing, it is expected that the British Retail Consortium, following consultation with Mumsnet, the web-based parents' forum, will announce a new code next week. It is expected to advise retailers against suggestive or gender-specific slogans on clothes, black or enhanced bras, and will propose modest swimwear for pre-teens. Carrie Longton, the co-founder of Mumsnet, which has campaigned against suggestive children's clothes, welcomed the principle of the code. "We launched our 'Let Girls be Girls' campaign to ask retailers to commit not to sell products which play upon, emphasise or exploit their children's sexuality. Now it's great that the industry as a whole, through the British Retail Consortium, has recognised their responsibility and drafted their own guidelines to encourage more responsibility up and down the high street." The Bailey report says the internet industry must also be ordered to "act decisively to develop and produce effective parental controls" with "a robust means of age verification" for any content that is age restricted. It says the government should legislate for parental controls over children's use of the internet "within a reasonable timescale" if voluntary action from the industry is not forthcoming Some Labour politicians have, however, called for regulation to be put in place faster, and in evidence to the review the Advertising Association federation pointed out: "There is no existing mechanism to verify the age of a child ... which means children can lie about their age and register as a user". Overall, the report gives the impression that the advertising, retail, music and internet industries have been too complacent and need to show greater willingness to engage with deep parental anxiety at what they are collectively producing for young consumers, both intentionally or inadvertently. The report finds that "some parts of the business world and sections of the media seem to have lost their connection to parents. We are living in an increasingly sexual and sexualised culture although it is far from clear how we arrived at this point. Many parents feel this culture is often inappropriate for their children and they want more power to say no". It condemns what it describes as the "sexualised images used in public places and on television, the internet, music videos, magazines, newspapers", and calls for public space to become more family friendly, so changing "the wallpaper of children's lives". On the TV watershed, the report recommends that Ofcom revise its guidelines to give greater weight to the views and attitudes of parents, rather than viewers in general, as to what is shown on TV before the watershed. It also directs Ofcom to seek out the views of parents and report back annually on their attitudes. Ofcom has dismissed previous complaints at the way in which programmes like X Factor, watched by millions of children, feature huge stars such as Christina Aguilera and Rihanna wearing few clothes and posing suggestively. Ofcom ruled that Rihanna's routine "featured some gentle thrusting", but it was "suitably limited". Ofcom currently has no figures on the number of complaints made about pre-watershed material by parents. It insisted that "we take the views of parents very seriously", but said it will co-operate with any proposals. The Bailey report also calls for a website to act as "an interface between parents and the variety of regulators across the media, communications and retail industries". It would be a means of launching complaints and gauging parental reaction to products. "Results of regulators' decisions and their reactions to any informal feedback should be published regularly on the site", the report says. Mumsnet offered to host the site. Key measures • Retailers to ensure magazines with sexualised images have modesty sleeves. • The Advertising Standards Authority to discourage placement of billboards near schools and nurseries. • Music videos to be sold with age ratings. • Procedures to make it easier for parents to block adult and age restricted material on internet. • Code of practice to be issued on child retailing. • Define a child as 16 in all types of advertising regulation. • Advertising Standards Authority to do more to gauge parent's views on advertising. • Create a single website for parents to complain to regulators. • Change rules on nine o'clock television watershed to give priority to views of parents. • Government to regulate after 18 months if progress insufficient.

Gee, I'm glad we got rid of Labour. Otherwise we'd have been stuck with an intrusive, moralist nanny government. Which would have been terrible.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Quote:

The report, which was prepared by Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Christian charity Mothers' Union, finds "sexualised and gender stereotyped clothing, products and services for children are the biggest concerns for parents and many non-commercial organisations".

Way to get a balanced viewpoint, there.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Powerless to protect our kids? Oh, do grow up | Barbara Ellen | Comment is free | The Observer

Quote:

It would be odd if, right in the middle of the current "sexualisation of children" debate, someone yelled: "I believe that seven-year-old girls should wear padded bikini tops and Little Miss Naughty knickers. It's desperately important for all children to be exposed to soft porn imagery from an early age." It ain't gonna happen. Indeed, few are likely to feel opposed per se to the proposals of the report on childhood, instigated by David Cameron and compiled by Reg Bailey, head of the Mothers' Union. It's a long list, ranging from codes of practice on retailing and age ratings on music videos to automatic blocks on computers and no sex before the watershed, another opportunity for the Daily Mail to feature its favourite stills from last year's X Factor final, featuring the ungentle writhing of Christina Aguilera and Rihanna. Working on the premise that no one in their right minds wishes children to be sexualised, it all makes sense. But then should we be concerned that too much hysteria about sexualisation could lead to a blanket ban of anything relating to sex? More importantly, isn't it plain bonkers to try to police an entire culture? This issue has been around since the 1990s with the appearance of the tweenies (eight- to 12-year-old girls with spending power and a love of Claire's accessories, Sugar magazine and sparkly nail varnish). Then, as now, a distinction must be made between children's natural and innocent inclination to mimic their elders (dolling themselves up, wearing fashion clothes) and creepy children's pants with "Porn Star" emblazoned on them. There shouldn't be incidences such as Nadine Dorries's waffling tirade on the Today programme, trying to blame a newly sexualised culture for everything bad happening to children in our society. Plenty of bad things happen to children, with or without Rihanna in a corset. One would also hope that Bailey doesn't end up looming over the pre-watershed TV schedules like some witchfinder general of the overtly sexual. Should Friends' Chandler's comic riffs on his dating inadequacies be bleeped? Should Homer Simpson's attempts to "snuggle" with Marge be edited out? On every soap from Hollyoaks to Emmerdale, should characters be banned from fancying each other? Ominously, age ratings for music videos echo the US in the 80s, when the Parents Music Resource Centre, led by Tipper Gore, attacked artists from Mötley Crüe to Cyndi Lauper. When Gore slapped "Tipper stickers" on records deemed "profane", they ended up becoming badges of honour (musical Asbos) for the artists involved. Do we need such farcical activity here? Then there is parental responsibility. This idea that we are powerless against a cultural tsunami – come on! Once late teenage hits, many parents learn the hard way about powerlessness, but not in the age range under discussion here. As the mother of an eight-year-old, I'm finding it easy to keep her away from padded bikinis, Nuts, internet porn, violent video games and sexy music videos. I did think The X Factor routines were too much for "little eyes", but it wasn't difficult to flick the channel over for a few minutes. It wasn't as if I was trapped, Dr Who-style, in a child-sexualised force field, unable to reach the TV remote. Indeed, as much as David Cameron seems to be enjoying waltzing around, looking all gung ho and "concerned father-ish", he must know that, without hands-on parental involvement, there is only so much the coalition can achieve. Popular culture does not exist to babysit our children. As always, parents have to step in where appropriate, too. So let's stop the sub-McCarthyist hysteria about child sexualisation and get some perspective – no one is going to steal your child's childhood, unless you let them. "Porn star" knickers for children are creepy, but they can't jump into underwear drawers all by themselves.

Two points:

1. What is sexualisation? The last government report (by that eminent academic Dr Linda) didn't even bother to define it. Give me a proper definition, then we'll talk (largely about how crap the definition is, but still...).

2. Of course, no one wants to say it out loud but the people who buy this stuff for their kids come from the... ahem... less advantaged socio-economic groups. Same for smoking, drinking (except for Waitrose Merlot, which is perfectly fine) and eating junk food.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Bring back the F-word if you want to do more than worry about girls

There's no hope of an honest discussion about the sexualisation of young girls without a feminist perspective


Let's call her Annie. She's 11. In her bedroom she has a big poster of Christina Aguilera, and in her cupboard a shelf of padded bras. Her major new campaign is for a belly piercing. At school her friends all talk about who's "done it". Online she's found pictures of every sex act you could imagine, and a few her mother's never heard of. The "sexy" TV shows that get adults het up seem to Annie pretty tame.

Annie, I hasten to add, is not my daughter, or yours. She's just a composite sketch of the girl whose wellbeing is at the centre of the report being published by the government on Monday on the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. According to leaks, the report – by Reg Bailey of the Mothers' Union (a Christian charity) – suggests a tougher new 9pm TV watershed, the banning of some sexually suggestive clothes for children, and a stronger internet filter.

Everyone's worried about Annie, it seems. David Cameron, who commissioned the report, has spoken of a "toxic waste" of sexualised imagery being dumped on children, which "can warp their minds and their bodies". Labour's Harriet Harman, while pointing out all the areas where the government is failing women, agrees the new proposals may be worth supporting. Elsewhere, the Campaign for Body Confidence launched by two Liberal Democrat MPs, Jo Swinson and Lynne Featherstone, is gaining ground.

As a problem, Annie is real. The demands on girls to conform to an increasingly sexualised culture are obvious. Almost every mother of daughters has come across them: the ruder, lewder language even young girls pick up; the pole-grinding pop heroines; the peer pressure to show you're not "frigid" even before you've got to puberty; the thongs and piercings; the playground talk about shaving down below.

Those who'd say, yes but none of this has real consequences, must reflect on Britain's shocking rates of teenage pregnancy and the very high rates of sexually transmitted diseases among young people. Annie doesn't just get brutally simplistic and bullying messages about her body at a very young age; they do real harm as she grows into a woman. About that, left and right agree.

It isn't the problem that's in doubt, it's the way it has been framed and answered. There is a danger this has become one of those classic "media storm leads to headline-grabbing, quick-fix solution" stories. You know the kind: childhood obesity conquered by banning chocolate oranges from till display; dangerous dogs rounded up and killed; army heroes win "covenant", so they're all OK, then.

It's a British political disease, this, the suspiciously neat, aggressively spun response to a passing media hurricane. New Labour were past masters at it; and Cameron's Tories are worryingly diligent students. Much later on, when the headlines have faded, it often turns out the legislation wasn't properly followed through, or only dealt with a fraction of the problem, or hasn't changed anything.

David Buckingham of London University's Institute of Education, whose review on childhood and commercialisation was published in 2009, makes some pungent points. He has done extensive research for the Scottish parliament and the previous education secretary, Ed Balls, and found that the problem of sexualised clothing for children was much less prevalent than feared.

For the government to wade into debates about new advertising restrictions could prove a nightmare – can you imagine civil servants sitting in judgment on an M&S knicker ad, or debating whether such-and-such an image of David Beckham was acceptable in Zoo magazine but not in Heat? Importantly, Buckingham spoke to children and teenagers rather than just parents' groups such as the Mothers' Union and Mumsnet. He concluded: "Children are not, in any sense, simply the dupes of marketers."

So let's hope the government is clear about what it is trying to achieve. To make a difference, you need to choose your target carefully and hit it hard, preferably with some wit. A childhood campaign group, Pinkstinks, hammered the Early Learning Centre over the way it sold dressing-up outfits to girls (fairy princesses, the odd nurse) and boys (everything else). Their criticisms stung and the store has changed its thinking.

Here's another problem with the sexualisation of childhood. Children and adults live in a media continuum. Children can't avoid seeing ads aimed at people in their 30s. The TV talent shows want to get young adults to watch, and children too; and no amount of legislation is going to divide that market up again. The same newspapers that rage against sexualising childhood contain page after page of pictures and sex stories that are quickly fed to websites and gossip columns, straight to the kiddies.

From what I can see so far, there are good things in the Bailey report, including ideas on internet filters and the TV watershed; and Labour shouldn't get itself into the position of opposing the good in the cause of the perfect. But the big thing missing from a debate dominated by the centre-right is the F-word.

Without a feminist perspective you have no hope of an honest discussion about the sexualisation of young girls. They are being groomed – not by pervy old men hanging over computer keyboards, but by today's ideology-free, value-free consumer culture, which tells them they're sexually hot or they're nothing.

Somewhere along the line, the old feminist hope that women, like men, would be valued for their skills, brains, hard work, entrepreneurial chutzpah, experience and humour – well, it just got dropped. Feminists hoped if girls were given options that went beyond wife and motherhood, they would find a wider range of ways of living opening out before them. Of course, many have done. The gains are real. But today the main option opening out seems to be to look hot and thin – which is all very well in its place, but hardly a career. With "gentlemen's clubs" (hah) fashionable again, and the word "feminism" barely mentioned in polite society without the qualifier "sour-faced", the clock has been turned back with a vengeance.

Feminists can make cause with traditionalists in wanting to limit some of the more extreme effects of an exploitative culture. In the absence of religious or ideological checks, the default mechanism of western consumerism seems worryingly and depressingly narrow. But let's be clear. We can only help Annie and her friends if we have a good alternative to offer: the role models, the interesting jobs and the alternative ways of enjoying life that make a padded bra and a bit of rude dancing on the telly not shocking – just rather dull.

Bring back the F-word if you want to do more than worry about girls | Jackie Ashley | Comment is free | The Guardian

Sexualisation and the Bailey review | Holly Dustin and Jane Fae | Comment is free | The Guardian

Quote:

There is something wrong with this debate. Debate? Sorry. Not even that: it's verdict first, evidence nowhere, as a bizarre coalition of prudes, dudes and guilt-tripping parents pile in behind David Cameron on the latest moral panic. The narrative is simple. Our "yoof", by which they mean girls, is being "sexualised" – whatever that means – by the dark forces of irresponsible commercialism. Something must be done: the answer, broadly, is "more modesty". For boys? Er, no. Our six-year-old regularly covets T-shirts extolling the virtues of some super-violent hero, or bearing slogans such as: "If I don't get my way, there will be trouble". What an admirable Asbo-inducing sentiment! Yet the media and Bailey are mostly silent on such things. This is all about girls, what girls wear, and how girls may be perceived: that this report should appear in the same week as Slutwalk goes live around the UK is an irony I hope will not be lost on Guardian readers. It is yet again about men blaming and shaming femaleness for the fact that some just can't keep their libido in check. Being able to counter this view is next to impossible. As Dr Clarissa Smith said, addressing a conference of the Onscenity network (academics who have focused on understanding sexual imagery and its effects on our culture): "The moment anyone categorises an image or an action as 'sexual' there's an end to rational discussion. You can't put the contrary view without being derided as having an agenda – as though those who find sexualisation in all they see haven't! – and condemned for it." So here's the problem. The Bailey review is not research. It's conducted by someone who is a big cheese in the (Christian) Mothers' Union, and was chief exec of the Danish Bacon Company – not obvious qualifications for this study. And it's predicated on questionnaires that appear laden with leading questions. Everyone "knows" what sexualisation is: so why bother with any real attempt to pin it down to something that could be studied seriously, academically, meaningfully? But it fits with a zeitgeist, a narrative that sees the exceptional as commonplace: views childish experimentation through adult eyes (and so inflicts the very sexualisation it claims to be against); and subtly places responsibility for bad things happening in the victim, not in the perpetrator. The real problem with Bailey is not just that it's the wrong answer. It's the wrong question. What society needs to be doing is understanding better what young people need. What pressures they are prey to; what solutions they require. Not an adult's interpretation of the same.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Annie, I hasten to add, is not my daughter, or yours. She's just a composite sketch of the girl whose wellbeing is at the centre of the report being published by the government on Monday on the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.

i.e. it's a make-believe issue. As Zichao's article pointed out, none of that is possible without the parents' agreement and, on top, there is a time and place for children trying out adult stuff.

I leave the remark about the chav culture, lest I be accused again of being an horrible bourgeois...

Quote:

Labour's Harriet Harman, while pointing out all the areas where the government is failing women, agrees the new proposals may be worth supporting.

Female Adolph is for more intrusion and sexual repression? Why am I not surprised? Frankly, if I had no opinion on the subject, knowing that Harman is for it would be enough to get me totally against.

Quote:

As a problem, Annie is real. The demands on girls to conform to an increasingly sexualised culture are obvious. Almost every mother of daughters has come across them: the ruder, lewder language even young girls pick up; the pole-grinding pop heroines; the peer pressure to show you're not "frigid" even before you've got to puberty; the thongs and piercings; the playground talk about shaving down below.

Really? That's pretty bad. Then again, it's not been my experience...

Quote:

Those who'd say, yes but none of this has real consequences, must reflect on Britain's shocking rates of teenage pregnancy and the very high rates of sexually transmitted diseases among young people.

Funny how that's only in the UK while the rest of Europe has just the same pop culture and a fraction of the problems. 'Must be something in the rain...

Quote:

It's a British political disease, this, the suspiciously neat, aggressively spun response to a passing media hurricane. New Labour were past masters at it; and Cameron's Tories are worryingly diligent students. Much later on, when the headlines have faded, it often turns out the legislation wasn't properly followed through, or only dealt with a fraction of the problem, or hasn't changed anything.

Darling, I think that's modern politics across the western world...

Quote:

The same newspapers that rage against sexualising childhood contain page after page of pictures and sex stories that are quickly fed to websites and gossip columns, straight to the kiddies.

Good point, if obvious. Newspapers want to sell. If they could get away with it, they'd try to be both Conservative-aligned and Liberal-aligned at the same time as well...

Quote:

They are being groomed – not by pervy old men hanging over computer keyboards, but by today's ideology-free, value-free consumer culture, which tells them they're sexually hot or they're nothing.

If it's value-free, how can it have a ideology? It just pushes what sells. It seems women believe that they're either hot or nothing.

Quote:

Somewhere along the line, the old feminist hope that women, like men, would be valued for their skills, brains, hard work, entrepreneurial chutzpah, experience and humour...

In which world does she live? For men, the slogan: Either you're rich or you're nothing... And men are only valued by the size of their... wallet... So fuck off.

Quote:

Feminists hoped if girls were given options that went beyond wife and motherhood, they would find a wider range of ways of living opening out before them. Of course, many have done. The gains are real. But today the main option opening out seems to be to look hot and thin – which is all very well in its place, but hardly a career.

Yeah, competition is a bitch.

That being said, I've seen many a female friend with decent jobs and a career declare that they'd like nothing more than meet a rich nice guy to marry and take care of them... Those are women in their 30s with superior IQ (or at least superior education). I tend to reply: "WTF?! You wanted to have a career. Now, go and get these toys and stuff you want yourself!" To which quite a few reply: "Yeah, sure, we could try but it's easier to marry a guy who's already a success - All the gain, none of the pain".

For these women (and, I stress again, fairly young, liberally educated ones), career is a second-best alternative to being taken care of.

Arguably, some of them are still single because they don't really want a sugar daddy. They want a guy who is rich but also young, handsome/alright, smart, generous, healthy, wholesome etc etc etc (as they see themselves).

Quote:

In the absence of religious or ideological checks, the default mechanism of western consumerism seems worryingly and depressingly narrow.

Yeah, well, that's freedom for you. No one said it wouldn't suck.

Quote:

But let's be clear. We can only help Annie and her friends if we have a good alternative to offer: the role models, the interesting jobs and the alternative ways of enjoying life that make a padded bra and a bit of rude dancing on the telly not shocking – just rather dull.

You got a way to get everyone super-charged careers? Do tell, I am still trying to get mine under way so I'd appreciate the tips...

As to rude dancing on the telly being dull rather than shocking, it comes from two things and two things only (in the absence of a religiously backed ideology: Personal experience (eventually, 'gentlemen' clubs' get a bit boring) and emotional depth. None of which can be transmitted by magic.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

Parents will be encouraged to make a stand against companies, especially retailers, advertisers and broadcasters that cross the boundaries of decency. A special website designed where they can register their concerns will be set up within the next few weeks. However, the report, which has been warmly welcomed by David Cameron, relies entirely on regulators and companies to adopt a voluntary approach, leading to some critics to say the report does not go far enough to put the brakes on "an unthinking drift towards ever greater commercialisation and sexualisation." The wide-ranging review has called for companies and regulators, especially Ofcom, in charge of broadcasting, to adopt a variety of measures to curb the worst of the television, music and advertising industries excesses including inappropriately raunchy performances by pop stars on family shows such as the X-Factor. It has also instigating a one-stop website which can be used by parents to register complaints and find out information. "We need parents to be parents," said Reg Bailey, who authored the report. "We want it to be more socially acceptable for parents and others to say that they are not happy about aspects of sexualisation and commercialisation, without fearing ridicule or appearing out of touch." The key recommendations suggest that advertising billboards within at least 100 metres of schools and nurseries do not display sexual imagery; music videos will have a cinema-style rating; retailers should not sell lacy, black or underwired bras to under-12s as well as no longer stocking thongs and T-shirts for toddlers with inappropriate slogans such as "future WAG" or "Dive In". So-called lads magazines such as Nuts and Zoo should either be sold on the top shelf or have their front cover images covered up in a "modesty sleeve"; consumers should be given the option when buying, or first turning on, a smart phone to block any adult material; and companies should no longer be allowed to pay children to promote their products in schools. However, questions have immediately been raised about the voluntary approach, which relies on companies agreeing to change their behaviour and regulators to adopt a more censorious attitude. Bhs, Matalan and Primark, all major childrenswear retailers are not part of the British Retail Consortium, which has been responsible for drawing up the code for stopping the sale of inappropriate clothing. The Mothers Union, the Christian charity of which Reg Bailey is the chief executive, was one of the bodies to question whether the report was robust enough. Rosemary Kempsell, the charity's president, said: "We cannot agree with the review that a purely consensual approach will be the most effective and that further regulation or legislation would necessarily disempower parents. "As the review points out several times, parents want help and support to address the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood, and Government intervention is one way of achieving this. We should not be afraid to challenge industry when the welfare of our children, and their future, is at stake." Sarah Teather, the Children's Minister, who commissioned the report, defended the voluntary approach: "One solution will not fix it. "You don't always change things by regulation. That's not to say we rule out regulation. The Prime Minister has already said we will come back to this in 18 months time." She added that she hoped the retailers that had not signed up to the pledges would follow suit. She and Mr Bailey both admitted it would difficult for parents to "put the brakes on" when it was impossible to define "inappropriate" or "sexual" when deciding whether a advertising billboard could or could not be placed near a school. Mr Bailey said: "It would have been very easy to get bogged down with definitions of how many metres from a school or what is a sexualised image. "What we have tried to do is put power back in parent's hands and let them decide. There will always be a range of views. One person's view of what is acceptable is another's persons unacceptable." He said the most important thing was for parents to feed back and complain to the regulators. Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, is to be encouraged to take into account the concerns of parents when deciding what is and is not appropriate before the watershed. Many, Mr Bailey said, had expressed concern about the 2010 X Factor final, which sparked controversy with its sexualised performances from pop stars Rihanna and Christina Aguilera. "That really came back very strongly that a programme that was essentially family viewing, a lot of parents felt very uneasy about some of the acts on there," he said of the hit ITV talent show.

Bailey review: 'parents must not be ridiculed' for complaining - Telegraph

I had no idea until I read this that black bras were especially hot 'n' dirty. I feel a lot cooler now.

Of course he's got it completely wrong. What parent who doesn't like this sort of thing says to themselves "Well I'm affraid that little Jocasta's innocence is being tarnished, but I'd better not say anything or the neighbours will think I'm frigid"? The fact is that if people aren't complaining it's because they're not bothered (or feel as I do that a toddler in a "dive in" t-shirt is the most hilarious thing evah).

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Quote:

As well as a promising to stop selling inappropriate underwear for under 12s, especially black, lacy or revealing underwear, as well as the curbing of high-heel shoes and T-shirts with suggestive or adult slogans, retailers have promised to do more to stop children being confronted with adult content. That includes trying to separate "adult-only" sections, such as departments that feature racy lingerie with provocative marketing, away from areas that sell children's clothes, toys and products. Jane Bevis, the director of public affairs at the British Retail Consortium, said: "We know, for instance, the top floor of Selfridges has some fairly racy lingerie. Now you wouldn't – and they don't – to have that situated next door to the department selling girls' knickers. "We know in practice not all stores have an ideal layout, but this is something retailers should aim for." As part of their response to the Reg Bailey review into the sexualisation of children, retailers have also undertaken to attempt to ensure their websites only return children-appropriate clothes when parents, or children, search for children's underwear. Ms Bevis said: "Often parents sit down with their children at the computer to research the child's first bra. We don't want people when they are searching for a first bra to be bombarded with suggestions which might be inappropriate. "It is technically possible for retailers to do this but it is difficult to separate the information like this. It won't happen overnight."

Ms Bevis said: "Often parents sit down with their children at the computer to research the child's first bra. We don't want people when they are searching for a first bra to be bombarded with suggestions which might be inappropriate.

Wow. One of my friends was introduced to the concept when her grandfather yelled across a crowded swimming pool "Oi, Sam, yer tits are hanging out!" but being forced to sit down and wikipedia it with a parent on either side must be a million times more awkward than that.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Yes, our children are growing up too soon. But blame capitalism, not sex | Suzanne Moore | Comment is free | The Guardian

Quote:

As if conducting some perverse sociological experiment, I managed to have a child in each decade, starting in the 80s. Don't worry, I've stopped now. Chatting this week, I asked them at what age they had become "sexualised". My middle child said: "Mum, when will you stop making up words?" "It is a word," said the oldest. "There is a government report on it." We then talked about who was going on the Slut Walk. The 10-year-old told me off about the word "slut", saying it was disgusting. This is the same 10-year-old who asked me what fisting was a few days ago. I may be fairly liberal, but I did not answer fully. We are all censors at heart. If I don't tell her the internet surely will. So yes, as a parent, I understand feeling powerless. Often. Of course I can block sites, but I cannot monitor what my kids see and hear all the time: the sexual "wallpaper" that is said to surround them. This was how the Bailey review describes the sexual imagery with which our culture is saturated. Our children are growing up too soon. They are encouraged to venture into territory that they are too emotionally immature to inhabit. These are the charges, repeated again and again, which presuppose an age of purity. I have made them myself at times. How this imagery affects us all needs to be studied. Properly. The latest report is an example of how not to do it. The Bailey review set up by this government – at what cost, I wonder – was headed by Reg Bailey, who is head of the Mothers' Union, a Christian charity. Still, it is quite novel that something that was in both the Tory and Lib Dem manifesto has been acted upon. It must really push middle-class buttons. Never mind that we had reviews by Professor David Buckingham and Dr Linda Papadopoulos only recently. And two by Professor Tanya Byron on internet safety. What does Bailey bring to the party? To be honest, little we don't already know, and zilch in terms of evidence to back up any of the claims made. And as we have come to know, there is not even a basic understanding that our view on sexuality may be culturally moulded rather than revealing some innate "truth". OK, so I will put away my Freud, but it is significant, as Dr Petra Boynton has said, that this is yet another report that does not include much about how young people themselves feel. Actually, my daughter is right. There is a basic problem with the word "sexualisation". What does it really mean? It is used now to describe a kind of societal grooming of girls – and the entire discussion is focused around girls – into a premature sex life. Our children know and see too much too soon. (Whatever happened when children did not have separate bedrooms from their parents, I wonder?) Still, left and right agree that the selling of padded bras to seven-year-olds is abhorrent. The display of naked breasts on the middle shelf thanks to Lad Mags is not nice. Don't worry – such mags are in decline anyway, and nothing in this report will challenge Page 3 or indeed the peculiar "sexualisation" of those poor Middleton sisters with their breasts, bottoms and legs now permanently on display as they lay back and think of England. Or Wales. Wherever. Those who like posh totty are also those who don't want to see "raunch culture" acted out by their own offspring. Personally, I do not want to explain Rihanna's supposed excitement over whips and chains any more than to explain why a woman who has never supported herself is now a national "icon". Here is where it gets a little difficult. The omnipresent sexual imagery long questioned by feminists precisely because it devalued women is now being questioned by the right, who in every other respect are pushing things back for women. The Tories are not the Taliban – of course not – but rightwingers are invariably fundamentalist in the attempt to control female sexuality. The awkward encounter between the right and feminism is premised on this daft word, sexualisation. So let's call it as it is. We are talking really about commercialisation. Bodies do not exist without sex. Is there a difference between infantile and adult sexuality? Yes. At what age can that sexuality be commodified? At what age can it consume? At what age can it be regulated? These are the real but difficult questions. And the hardest one of all, what really makes children grow up "too soon", may have nothing to do with sex and everything to do with poverty. Watching the incredibly revealing BBC1 documentary Poor Kids this week, to see small children scratching their eczema while talking about parental debt and how things can never change, shows us some kids do learn the facts of life way too young because of deprivation. This glimpse into gross inequality should shock us as much as porn downloaded on to mobiles in the playground. But we live with it. We cannot control what we are sold and not one of the Bailey recommendations suggests we can. The hardcore shot is this one: this government will not act to regulate the market even when the market sells additive-filled food and thongs to little children. It will instead make sensitive noises at the outer edge and the middle class will dress its children in pretty polka-dot dresses while the useless underclass will dress its little girls as tarts. Boys clothes, indeed their entire sexuality, are ignored. Generally they should not wear hoods or have their jeans hanging off their arses. Otherwise they can go hang. The Bailey report is not only ineffective practically, as no one will do anything, but it is theoretically vacuous. There is indeed a body of research that seeks to understand how visual imagery affects us, and what harm it may cause. It is often done under the cover of the much-maligned media studies. But experiments and evidence appear to count for nothing against the moral panic of concerned parents. The viewing of porn, we are told, for instance, is addictive. What model of addiction are we using here? If we want the state to intervene – ie censor more material – we need to think very carefully. I started off talking about my girls because I wonder if my youngest has been exposed to much worse stuff than my eldest. Certainly, in terms of technology she has more access to more imagery. But it seems to me that they have "grown up" at around the same time, though in a culture that has shifted from telling us ever more strongly that what we look like is much more important than how we think or feel. What is needed then is not some weird repression of sexuality or of young people, but of a rapacious capitalism that commodifies every desire and yes, will sell sex to children. No review that tells politicians this is what they need to regulate is ever acted on. Concerned parents, even that nice David Cameron, need to put out or shut up. Instead, they will protect their own children, knowing full well that the system they get down on their knees in front of means other people's children may get screwed. Because "other people's children", if no longer kept innocent, will in such a world inevitably be guilty.

Yes, our children are growing up too soon. But blame capitalism, not sex | Suzanne Moore | Comment is free | The Guardian

Eh?

So she points out all the faults in this inane enterprise and then somehow manages to come to a conclusion that's way more extreme than the report that she's criticising. It's basically "Well we've got absolutely no idea whether this supposed phenomenon exists, so let's ban capitalism to prevent it." Wtf?

Incidentally, fun game: replace "capitalism" with "freedom" in each instance...

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

So she points out all the faults in this inane enterprise and then somehow manages to come to a conclusion that's way more extreme than the report that she's criticising.

"Extreme" doesn't mean "wrong".

Quote:

It's basically "Well we've got absolutely no idea whether this supposed phenomenon exists, so let's ban capitalism to prevent it." Wtf?

That isn't what it said at all. Specifically it said it's not a thing distinct from the general case of commercial intrusion into our lives.

Quote:

Incidentally, fun game: replace "capitalism" with "freedom" in each instance...

... and it would make no sense whatsoever, unless you are so ideologically conditioned that you can't tell the difference between the two.