WTF?

I found this an interesting and thought provoking read.

This really caught my eye: “In a sexualised society, women and girls are required to live out a pornographic idea of the female ...”

Are required or choose?

Choose I would think.
Is it the advertising industry (including that disguised as music videos) that provides young girls with this imagery?

If it is then it is the same advertising industry that portrays males (and fathers in particular) as idiots, oafs, fools and objects of scorn and ridicule.

In these uncertain economic times maybe it is the adults that need to push the issue by keeping the plastic in the wallet/purse.

I have seen articles like this pretty much every year since I was a child several decades ago.

All that has changed is the technology, but the sexualization theme has not.

Everyone is programmed with an inbuilt sexual interest and identity, and advertisers have always used it.

Girls are no longer afraid of their "reputation" and feel free to act sexually like boys.

The only real solution is to turn back the clock. Maybe even introduce the Burqa as mandatory?

How disappointing to see the red/green/loony/left, lesbian, femanazi, paedophiles handling such an important matter, in the usual manner. No acknowledgement of their own culpability, typical.

1, "gurrrl power" and "women can do anything", without any consideration of possible consequences, is one cause of this.

2, taking girls away from the proven safety of biological fathers to the proven dangers of deadbeat, single motherhood is another one. Girls growing up without their fathers love, always end up with lower self esteem. BTW, they are "reviewing" the "shared parenting" laws right now. In other words, femanazism has been and still is, trying to continue, grooming girls for abuse.

3, Their shrieking, misandrist, propaganda has been encouraging all men and boys to be more mistrusting and hateful towards women and girls, in return.

Less half truth and you might get somewhere. The most evil tool of the ruling elites, both loony left and raving right, to oppress everybody and create poverty is femanazism.

Men try to create wealth and opportunity, for their own, children. Women try to create wealth and opportunity for "Hardly Normal's" children, with retail therapy. Which brings us back to the "Bratz", a direct consequence of 40 years of femanazism.

Lets lighten the mood with a joke. Q, Whats the difference between a femanazi and a paedophile? A, Well, none really, but at least a paedophile, is willing to do their own dirty work and is only abusing, one child at a time.

SM,
Not one of your better posts. Given it's both factually and ideologically biased/flawed.

I would change some phrases like " advertisers have always used it." to "advertisers have increasingly exploited it"

'Used it' implies it's normal (Status Quo) but there is no comparison between a 1910-1950 add with muted (stereotyped) sexuality ads and the blatant sexuality in today's.

Technology didn't push the boundaries of manipulation. Ads did by exploiting psychological manipulation always trying be more 'noticeable' than the last.

Compare children's toys ads of the bygone era with the overt sexualisation of the 'tweeny demographic market' today non existent 20 years ago they were children. All this to sell hyped up consumer goods and part of the myth to support the magic pudding economic growth.

Even from a genetic perspective there is a difference between a potential and actuality. Much like the fact we all have the potential to kill (other humans) but few of us receive the circumstances to complete the equation.

As for comparing it to the extreme (Burqa) is obfuscation/denial not reasoned comment

Excellent article, Anna. Melinda's latest and collective shout sounds like another timely addition to the growing body of literature sounding the alarm on the hyper-sexualisation of girls. She's obviously garnered contributions from a wide range of well respected writers and it's pleasing to see it selling so well.

I agree especially with the need to join the 'causational dots'. Corporate greed and unregulated advertising are indeed some of the bigger ones. It's a tall ask, but they both need to be brought to heel, so to speak. Only the combined strength of people power and governments acting in people's interests, rather than those of ruthlessly profit-driven corporations, will be effective in curtailing their currently unprecedented freedom to exploit, not only women and girls, but men and boys too.

My only real point of departure here, from both Anna and Melissa, is that of contraception and abortion. I agree totally with their critique on Big Pharma's increasing control over our health and its medicalisation of all aspects of beauty and wellness. But, in light of the urgent need for population control, I do think women need to feel free to use chemical contraception and abort unwanted pregnancies without extra pressure being applied by their well intentioned sisters. Yes, there are health risks, and yes, there is emotional scarring for women to deal with, but these in my view are a necessary price to pay when over-population is one of the major threats facing life on this planet.

But in all other respects I totally support Melissa and the other essayists. I thank them and wish them all power in getting their message out there.

Rule number 1. It's always someone else's fault. We are 'victims' of advertising, of men, of 'societal attitudes', now 'Big Pharma' (Wouldn't the pill be one of the most liberating inventions for women?) blah blah blah.

I'm not religious at all, but I think there was a commandment long ago about vanity. Even one on greed, one on envy. Look to yourself and you have the power to solve all your problems. That's much more 'empowering' and 'liberating' to women than telling them they're victims all the time.

Some of the quotes here are hilarious...

'felt ripped off in their sexual encounters, finding out early that sex has become the primary currency of personal interaction.'
A currency they have in abundance, and that the boys want. Not exactly a rip off when you're setting the price.

“This cheap and nasty experience of sex, if not downright violent and dangerous, does not encourage either the expectation of all the other dimensions of sexual experience that are truly human. Tenderness and intimacy are lost.”

Such outrage at women performing oral sex. 'downright violent and dangerous'?.
I'm sure it would be for any man putting his penis near MTR's mouth.

I wonder if she considers cunnilingus cheap and nasty if not downright violent and dangerous, inhuman and without tenderness or intimacy.