The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Children’s bodies: adult sexuality > Comments

Children’s bodies: adult sexuality : Comments

By Liz Conor, published 19/10/2006

The cult of the accelerated child: when we rush children into adulthood one of the effects is to sexualise them.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I was shopping for underwear today and wondered into Target. I saw a nice range of sexy adult knickers and bras and started looking through them for my size until I realized that they were far too small. I was in the children's wear section and frankly, I was surprised. What in the world are girl children, from the age of three, doing wearing fancy bras and sexy knickers? What is the point, except to bypass their childhood and shoot them straight into adulthood without any preparation? The underwear was provocative and although pretty, it would have suited someone standing under a street lamp soliciting for business, not a three year old.
The longer it takes a child to mature into adulthood, the longer she has to develop a sense of self and an understanding of the way the world around her works. Dressing a child in these sorts of clothes is pushing the boundaries.
Posted by Ide, Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:47:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you very much for your incisive and balanced contribution to this debate. The Australia Institute's report contained some bizarre allegations, to be sure, but Rush rightly drew attention to a palpable problem with marketing that sexualises pre-adult girls.

Are you paying attention Steve Fielding?
Posted by The Skeptic, Thursday, 19 October 2006 1:23:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As long as there are weak willed parents who refuse ro set boundaries and say no for their children, the exploitation will continue. No one is holding a gun at the parents heads when it comes to buying clothes. We see children at a young age stuffing themselves with junk food and then the advertisers are blamed instead of weak willed parents who cant say no or spank the child for throwing a tantrum.

Its not only the young that are exploited but it is quite funny to see men and women in their 40's, 50's and 60's still trying to wear clothes that are no longer appropiate or simply don't fit. Has anyone ever told women that having a gut hang out of hipsters just should not be allowed. Having a pin in the belly button does not hide the fat. Vanity oh vanity, if only we were not so vain! The obseesion with the body is not freedom it is bondage.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 19 October 2006 4:25:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was hoping this would come up.

Hope to see one on abortion too.

I agree fully and whole heartedly with the Australia Institute analysis that kiddys should be kept from pedophiliac behavoiurs of adults. And they should be kept form exploitative behaviours. If not we will end up not only with the 'Swollen Generation', we will also have the 'stolen generation', those robbed of innocent behaviour and rendered null to/of exploitation.

Many ought to be aware that socialism is as devoid of caring as is capitalism. And there is nothing sacred in either camp. Suffer the little children eh.

I remember when this broke news, though i dont remember the commentators properly. But, there was one woman who was a doctorate i think who fully supported the capitalists. And that bloke who was cheif of the company in dispute. And then there was the mother pedaphile who was the one who took the photos of the child.

Now dont get me wrong ladies et al, for what i am about to say.

I was annoyed (a polite word) by what i saw. First this young boss saying it was all OK, but who had a vacant look about him. And then the two women. Now we all know what would have been said and the furore that would have erupted ifn these women were blokes. Right? So i condemn them wimmin too.

I reckon Austrlaia needs to back of accessing children for everything. There is plenty of time in our non-innocent adulthood for us to exploit. I reckon we all should damwell leave the kids to be kids and find something else to do.

There is so much...
Posted by Gadget, Thursday, 19 October 2006 4:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If any one might wonder why FOCUS ON THE FAMILY is going 'gangbusters'.. where they take a close look at boundaries and look at family life from the perspective of values which are:

a) Enduring.
b) Straight from the 'Makers Handbook'

-then look no further than this article.

If we don't have an enduring and robust values framework, we are vulnerable as a society to just this kind of opportunistic boundary pushing.

The OBVIOUS question is....'once we are used to this status quo and the new breed of hot sexy kids..... what's next' ?

There are only a limited number of possibilities, but given the amoral values of base capitalism (or the amoral permissiveness of atheistic socialism and/or environmentalism) one could easily speculate.
lets take a stab....

Briefer childrens undies with little DEVILS on them.
or..
As above with some scantily clad RAPPER chicks or blokes on them.

Deliberately choosing colors which instantly conjour up 'evil/naughty' ideas.. such as blacks with reds... (satan/Occult)

Or.. childrens briefs with Tarot cards on them.....

Even suggestive images of little boys and girls... I would not put anything past the 'make_it_up_as_u_go' crowd when it comes to fast bucks.

The list is endless.

But the more important question is... what is the socio/cultural DESTINATION of all this ?

As far as I can see, it will be the total breakdown of our social/moral fabric, and the fading into historical insignificance of our culture, overtaken and superceded by others which stand for a values framework they believe in.

For me, this kind of thing is as serious as international terrorism, because this....is done by us...to ourselves.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 19 October 2006 4:49:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article. The wider perspective is needed. I was becoming quite hungry for a balanced, thought-provoking article.

The girls are into Paris Hilton and some mothers don't mind helping them out. For some mothers, it brings back some of their lost youth. Pathetic.

But we can do something. We do know that marketers target adolescents and children as a source of sales. Another topical issue is junk food advertising. (Here there should be a chorus of "Shame, Mr Abbott shame!" for refusing to do anything about junk food advertising directed at kids.)

We shouldn't lose sight of the broader issues surfaced in this article, however at the same time we should all undertake to do something constructive to help children retain some childhood at least.

What about a more concerted effort from all of us to encourage the federal government to place a clamp on advertising directed at children? Why are we letting them get away with the fob-off by Tony Abbott?
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 19 October 2006 5:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to see regulation of junk food advertising, particularly to children. But junk food can be assessed on actual content of unhealthy fats, sugars, sodium and additives etc.

"Fashion", however, cannot be assessed on any logical basis. As long as the "taboo" body parts are at least partially concealed [and even this varies with the "season"], then regulation is virtually impossible in a country like Australia.

My children are all adult and I'm not into buying clothes for grandchildren, so I have no personal experience of this. I'm amazed to read on OLO about bralets for two year olds. But who would be stupid enough to buy them anyway? I think that something as silly as this really does have to come back to sensible parenting.

As I mentioned on a recent similar thread, whilst we may be scornful of bralets, bikini tops have been sold for many years as an essential part of tiny tots' swimwear. There's no logical reason why, because little girls don't have breasts, they have the same as little boys in this respect. But manufacturers make them, they go into the brochures which are pushed into our letterboxes and people buy them. For all I know it may be impossible to buy just swim pants for little girls and maybe a person's motives would be suspect if they requested this.

But what about paedophiles looking at our children and having evil thoughts? The fact is we have no way of knowing what may be going through a person's mind and no way of regulating it anyway. I would be in favour of more severe penalties for at least some kinds of sex offenders, but that's a different topic.

I seem to remember that, when we were young, we all liked to pretend to be adult characters in our games. Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, favourite film star heroes etc, in fact an amazing assortment of Goodies and Baddies. But I don't recall any of us trying to be sex symbols. Do any of the young kids really see themselves this way today?
Posted by Rex, Thursday, 19 October 2006 10:47:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have two daughters that have been accelerated. Of course the system calls it acceleration but for them it was just placing them at a level a bit more appropriate for their needs and making their school days a little easier for them to cope with. Letting children be children means accepting them as who they are and giving children an opportunity to learn and develop their skills in a supporting and caring environment whilst they are having fun. When you are inappropriately placed it isn't fun and the days are long and draining.

My daughter agreed that the fact that accelerated students get to high-school earlier might expose them to issues to do with sex earlier but that once they are in high-school, they are there for 6 years, so what difference does it make, a little bit earlier or a little bit later. Of course these days’ girls are sexualized in primary school already so acceleration in an educational setting is not really an issue or a contributor to kids behaving like adults too early. My daughter indicated that she believed that whether a girl gets sexualised earlier depends a lot on where they live and what school they are at. It is not the age that makes the difference it is the environment and exposure.

One problem as I see it is that too many students don’t enjoy school because they are not appropriately placed or supported, so they look for another focus that will make them feel good about themselves and we all know what direction that usually takes.

The problems also have alot to do with peer pressure as it really isn't easy going against the grain.
Posted by Jolanda, Thursday, 19 October 2006 11:39:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
REX.....have you watched MTV or youth/music chanels lately ?

you said.....

[But I don't recall any of us trying to be sex symbols. Do any of the young kids really see themselves this way today?]

If they don't see themselves and their clothing in that way,

a) Pigs will fly
b) 2+2=5

The whole "direction" of most commercialism, be it music or clothing/fashion or even your CAR... is connected deliberately with sex by the images portrayed.

Further, it is not just 'connected with sex'..but connected in a "promiscuous, just_do_it, no responsiblity" manner.

Why would it be connected in that way ? hmmmm *thinks*.. because none of us like the burden of responsibility, we like *freeeeedom* and that is the itch which commerce tries to scratch.

So.. we will continue to see trends such as was reported yesterday about the latest 'craze' sweeping US school formals (dance/prom things) where it is now overtly sexual. Girls turning around protruding their bums provocatively at their partner who then does all these pelvic thrusts etc etc... Now thats a FORMAL......

At my sons Deb ball..all dressed up .. at the end there was a girl who kind of wiggled her self down in front of her partner in a "I'm going to give you oral" kind of way.. this is in front of parents, young children and grannies.

Somehow... I don't feel this is helpful to a strong enduring soical values framework.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 20 October 2006 6:04:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To BOAZ_David
Well David, I suppose it all comes down to parental responsibility, which school you send your children to, what you allow them to watch on TV, which books and magazines they read and to where you live.
The fact that advertisers are allowed to run riot and use sex to promote everything should mean that as a parent you have to be vigiliant in censoring your child's viewing. Being frank with children about sex and truthfully and factually answering all their questions is a great help, as it takes the mystery out of it. Letting them understand that sex is just one part of life, no more important than sleeping and eating I found very helpful in raising my children to be the well-adjusted people they are today.
Posted by Ide, Friday, 20 October 2006 10:18:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I was saying, Boaz, we used to PLAY at being certain characters. We PRETENDED that we were sheriffs killing the rustlers. Or ruthless gunfighters killing the marshall and his posse. Or pioneers killing the savages who were surrounding our wagons. Or settlers/ invaders killing the original owners because we felt entitled to steal their land. Or cops killing the robbers, or robbers killing the cops. We never took prisoners, just an awful lot of killing going on. But we were PLAY-ACTING!

Isn't it possible that the young kids dressing up are just playing at being young adults? Young girls in particular always seemed to delight in trying on their mothers' clothes and high heeled shoes. Also their make-up, if they could get away with it.

In regard to dancing, well that's a bit like play-acting too. An effective way of looking good on the dance floor is to act out the essence of the dance style. The Viennese Waltz is romantic, in an old fashioned way. Jiving or Rock-n-Roll has an element of showy rebelliousness about it. The Cuban Rumba is unashamedly sexy and the ChaChaCha sexy in a cheeky sort of way. This is recognised, perhaps unconsciously, by many young people who take up this great sport. And also recognised by those who condemn the awakening of sexuality in young people and wish to artificially control this natural part of growing up. [I'm not talking about young children here, but perhaps young teenagers.]

Children don't suddenly become sexually aware young adults. It's a gradual process which occurs naturally over a number of years. I think it could be relevant here to mention the style of sex education which is used in Holland and some other European countries. Young people are taught the facts, without religious/moral overtones. Contraception is readily available, but the young people are taught responsibility. As a result, early onset of sexual activity is often delayed, irresponsible sex is lessened and unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates are significantly less than in countries like Australia and the US, where this sensible approach is opposed by religionists.

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm
Posted by Rex, Friday, 20 October 2006 3:30:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex
I wasn't suggesting fashion police. However we should limit advertising directed at children.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 20 October 2006 3:40:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I wasn't suggesting fashion police. However we should limit advertising directed at children."

I'm pragmatic, Cornflower. There are lots of things I don't like about what the advertising industry pushes at both children and adults. But most of it can't reasonably be either banned or regulated. So how would you go about limiting advertising to children?

We have a precedent in Australia. Tobacco advertising is banned, because we know smoking is likely to lead to premature ill-health and death. We know that overindulgence in many kinds of food is likely to contribute to obesity. We know that many food additives can cause other serious physical and/or psychological harm. So we can keep pushing on this. But fashion is something else altogether.

I watch very little TV, so I don't know much about what is advertised there. But I know that lots of literature comes through my letterbox each week and lots of it is concerned with "fashion", including the kids' stuff. If I still had kids living here, how would I stop them from looking at the pictures and saying "I want"? Answer: I couldn't. But I could say "No", if I didn't think it was appropriate for them.

I accept that shops want to sell and kids are seen as easy targets. And "sex sells" is far from a new concept. So what do [or rather can] we do about it? Rather than waging an unwinnable war against the advertising industry, I think that parents should draw the line at ridiculous things like bralets for two year olds, or even for ten year olds.

And when the kids are getting a little older, don't pretend that they aren't growing up, but start to prepare them for a different lifestyle. This is from the website I posted on sex education in Holland:
"This open talk is how some teachers in the Netherlands approach sexuality with students between 12 and 15 years old."
Yes, with 12 year olds. And it works. Less early sex, less irresponsible sex, less unwanted pregnancies, less abortions.

As I said to start with, I'm pragmatic.
Posted by Rex, Friday, 20 October 2006 11:49:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex

Being pragmatic, would you roll back the clock and have tobacco advertising everywhere?

We should also be aware that advertisers employ psychological trickery which is unfair enough on adults.

There are overseas aid organisations that advertise using young children during children's TV hours. This is a deliberate ploy because they know that children identify with those in the advertisements and this remains with them. it also gives children nightmares.

What I am saying is that advertising cannot be anticipated by parents. Also, advertisers deliberately pull psychological strings that are hardwired within a human's psyche. Alone, the last-mentioned point is reprehensible and would justify a ban.

We should regulate advertisers because self regulation has not worked. They continue to breach our trust.
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 22 October 2006 12:18:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Being pragmatic, would you roll back the clock and have tobacco advertising everywhere?"

I'll answer that by saying what I had a part in doing about it. I was a member of the WA Buga Up organisation:
http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1248541.htm

I have worked in sales and sales management and am aware of the psychological tactics used in marketing. But, as I said before, we can't ban something just because it is cleverly marketed. I believe that actual statements about goods and/or services should, by law, be factual. But implication is something else altogether. There's much that I am very cynical about, but again that's not reason enough to have something banned.

I think the Serenity Prayer says it very well [not getting religious here, just pragmatic]:

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference."

We know, even before we have children of our own, because we have already experienced it ourselves, that children are targeted by advertisers and other manipulators. This is not going to change, so we need to prepare ourselves and our children for the onslaught. Explain why, but not by using religious or abstract moral principles, why somethings are OK and others not.

In regard to matters appertaining to sex, this is why I used the Dutch method as an example.
Posted by Rex, Sunday, 22 October 2006 3:14:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex

The ethics of major companies pulling the psychological strings of children is what I am concerned about and that is something other than clever marketing. The word 'devious' springs to mind. Another could be 'fraud'.

I will agree to disagree with you on this.
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 22 October 2006 9:14:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When we can't find decent clothing for our children, we only purchase from Thrift stores such as Vinnie's. We saw recently at Big W, a mini skirt which ended right at the bottom of her buttocks. Now way would we puchase that.

Such is the immorality of society to financially reward such greed. Why parents dress up their kids in a way that would only serve to have the sicko's drooling over their children.

If you dress you kids like this, don't complain when they're molested for you invited them.
Posted by Spider, Monday, 23 October 2006 10:43:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spider,

You are right on the money there. Some of the contributors to these comments may not realise that 'skank' outfits rule on girls' clothing shelves. Maybe some have come to terms with that reality, but imagine that the retailers are responding to demand in a 'perfect' (sic) marketplace.

The manufacturer and the marketer are leading the fashion and it is a lie that they are responding to demand. They set out to create a demand through pouring money into advertising campaigns. The advertising campaigns are expressly designed to pull the psychological strings of children.

In the past revealing fashions were largely unavailable for children.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 23 October 2006 2:04:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that we would be in general agreement, Cornflower, on the unsuitability of at least some of the clothes which are promoted for young children. And I also believe that there is an almost total lack of ethics amongst manufacturers of a wide range of goods and of the marketing people who promote them.

My point is, what can we effectively do about it? There is a clear case to ban tobacco advertising, but even that took far too long and is still legally circumvented in some ways. The same health angle could possibly be used to control junk food and I am hopeful of that eventually happening. But we can't use that angle on dolls and kids' clothes.

If you read my link, you will be aware that I was one of a group of people who effectively campaigned against the glorification and glamourisation of tobacco. And that took far more time and effort than going onto a forum and saying that something ought to be done about it. I'm not having a go at you, because I'm in general agreement. But I'll ask you straight out, what do you propose we do about it?

In regard to paedophiles drooling over our children.
1. We have no way of knowing what is going through anyone's mind, regarding anything, so there's no point in getting worked up about it.
2. We have no way of controlling what goes through anyone's mind anyway.
3. Paedophiles are interested in children and getting access to them. What the children are wearing is irrelevant. To suggest that children are more vulnerable [in effect, asking for it] if they are dressed in a certain way is exactly the same discredited argument as saying that if women are raped, then it's their own fault for dressing and/or acting in a certain way.

I feel so strongly about sexual predators that I would like to see at least some of that category surgically castrated, but trying to campaign politically for that would also be a waste of time.
Posted by Rex, Monday, 23 October 2006 8:36:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex. Children are not asking for it if they dress a certain way but they certainly make themselves more of a target if they dress provocative. Our role is to protect children, before the event, as afterwards it is too late. Anything that puts our children at a greater risk, even if it is small, should be considered.

The fashion is influenced by by the video clips, magazines and stars and it is led by adults in positions of power and fed to teenagers. The younger girls just dress like the teenagers do.

I must say that the fashion at the moment is much more conservative than it has been previously. I have a 15 year old girl and a 10 year old girl and there was a while there when my girls found it difficult to shop because the outfits didnt' cover enough anywhere. At the moment teenage girls are not showing as much clevage and/or as much mid-drift as they are wearing tops under tops and it looks great. Skirts are also longer and/or they wear leggins underneath. Am I the only one that has noticed this?

We need to encourage our girls to cover up a bit, just in case, as they dont need to show thier body to look great.
Posted by Jolanda, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 12:01:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hijabs, maybe?
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:05:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Snout. I've also noticed some Taliban-like ideas implicit in some contributions to this debate (and, indeed the debate about nudity on beaches in the General forum). I was under the impression that in our society, the onus is on individuals to keep their sexual impulses under control, rather than relying on (sharia?) law to prevent exposure to the temptations of the flesh.

I have to say that some of the more strident commenters on this subject have far more salacious imaginations than mine - at least with respect to imagining intrinsic sexual connotations in the display or adornment of people's bodies - including those of children. Perhaps they could lift their minds from the gutter, lighten up a bit and allow kids to be kids - including dressing (or undressing) in the current fashions.

There seems to be a fair bit of good old Freudian projection going on in this debate.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:30:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Extremist thinking maybe?
Posted by Jolanda, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:32:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note than an ancient bronze age cuneiform tablet from Mesopotamia has recently been translated. It turns out to be a message from a father to his young daughter, and reads, “You’re not going out dressed like THAT!”

I think some of the posters here have forgotten what the primary purpose of young people’s fashion is. That is, to give us something to cringe about as we get older. (There have to be some consolations to ageing!) I personally experience a creeping sense of horror when I remember the skin tight stretch acid wash denim (with the crotch subtlely bleached) that I wore in my youth. No doubt middle aged women in 2030 will shudder as they recall the muffin top, and their menfolk will scratch their heads as they try to remember how difficult it was to ride a skateboard with your pants waist located somewhere south of the tropic of Capricorn.

Look, why can’t kids just wear what they’re comfortable with, whether it’s a burkha or a bikini? I know that child sex abuse is an important issue, but it seems to me that over the last 30 years we’ve gone from total denial to moral panic, seeing paedophiles in every shadow. Neither response is terribly helpful: the issue is abuse of adult power, not kids playing dress ups.
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 11:57:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex

The SMH of 15 April 2006 had an article on junk food advertising that gives a window into the attitudes of entrepreneurs and advertisers and their general lack of ethics in directing marketing at children. Here is the link:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/tighten-the-belt-on-childrens-advertising/2006/04/14/1144521506027.html

The Australian Association of National Advertisers’ (AANA) self regulation has a policy permitting advertising to be directed at children at 14 years and below.

Another way of putting it is that advertisers think all children are fair game. Well they would, wouldn’t they?

The policy recognises that children are buyers and should be exploited. The AANA link is below:

http://www.aana.com.au/pdfs/A2CCode.pdf

If you are saying that it is impossible or impractical to regulate advertising for children wouldn’t this also mean that the AANA’s self-regulation Code for children’s advertising is a sham?

The AANA Code is so broad and open to interpretation it is like trapping a rat in a wire netting cage. Advertisers know that children are highly susceptible to advertisements where children their own age are depicted having fun and that is but one of the proven psychological ‘hooks’ used to trick and snare the young.

Again, if it is unrealistic as you imply to have a minimum age for advertising, why then does the AANA claim its policy is for children aged 14 and below? What is to stop the Code putting children under a certain age completely off limits?

I am interested to know what you think the minimum age should be under the AANA Code. After all, Code has no minimum age at all.

What possible justification could there be for not having a minimum age?

Is it reasonably to a government Minister to shrug his shoulders and blame the parents for allowing children to watch TV when he knows full well that advertisers target children during their peak viewing times?
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 12:25:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all know that advertisers target children [if appropriate to what they're pushing]. Don't complain to me about it, Cornflower, it's not my fault. You obviously feel very strongly about it, so I suggest you try and do something about it. If you haven't already thought about this, why not contact the Australian Family Association?

I've already told you what I had a small hand in regarding stopping tobacco advertising. I'll tell you what else I do now. Because of the strong company link between Kraft Foods and Phillip Morris Tobacco, I will not buy anything made by Kraft. A very small drop in a very large ocean, but something anyone can choose to do if they wish.

A sweet biscuit made by Kraft is very popular in America with children and would certainly come under the category of junk food. In an endeavour to sell even more of these to kids, Kraft is using the same marketing people as their associate company, Phillip Morris, used to promote cancer sticks. I know how it works and what I am saying is that, except for goods which have a definite link to ill-health, there is probably little or nothing we can do about it.

You think differently? Fine. Go for it.

Getting back to childrens' clothing. It's a warm, sunny day here in the Perth area and I've just come back from the shops. I noticed a very pretty young mother with a very pretty little daughter. The mother was attractively and lightly dressed. Her little girl had a light, flouncy skirt and a little sun top, a bit like much older girls wear. I thought that they both looked very nice. And if it weren't for threads like this, I wouldn't have given it another thought. The mother, without much apparent effort, was keeping her daughter close at hand where she could keep her eye on her. And surely that's the answer.
Posted by Rex, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 3:38:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm doing an outcome on this very serious issue of the sexualisation of children. I was wondering if anyone has a link to any online journals, online newspapers or blogs that express the opinion of being for the sexualisation of children? I need to supply articles that are for and against this issue, and if anyone can find some "for", it would really help...as I'm having a lot of trouble finding any.
Posted by Jezza, Thursday, 26 October 2006 4:24:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dare attract a fire for suggesting that this article highlights explicitly stupidity a day-by-day ideology imposes on people, that is something of freedom of choice and possibility to make the best suited solution in any situation REGARDLESS OF surrounding, “no society, but men, women and families”.

Clarifying such an “authoritarian subversive out of this land” even “to some extent un-Australian” approach is to point on a bulk of pseudo-adult gadgets such as laptops, mobiles, electro-toys targeting kids as young as a few months old to factually accustom they with a notion that “the most expensive thing is the most necessary” in a place where for too many to-have-what-a-neighbour-has is a very living priority only.

Anyway, as toy shops provide no condoms yet for toddlers playing in sandboxes, things are not so alarming, seemingly.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 31 October 2006 12:13:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy