spot on, thanks.

Sex sells. Money is god.
Profitability is sacrosanct. Freedom in the marketplace is best.
Freedom to pervert in the name of profits.
The corporation is king, the people its serfs.
Children are just another market, to be bought and sold and anything else that makes the company money.
Advertising uses psychology against vulnerable and defenseless children and is tantamount to abuse.

How to stop it? Get rid of what drives it. Capitalism.

Something has happened to capitalism over the past 30 years, or maybe it has just morphed into the ugliest extremes. We have always lived under a capitalist system and you could always rely on the integrity of corporations and businesses to protect the interests of children for the most part.

It is something more than just capitalism. The capitalist system certainly sucks up and responds to changes in the market place in the pursuit of the dollar, but what other changes in society have essentially made it easier to push the limits in regards to sexualisation of children?

The tendency to corporatise every facet of our lives is increasing and pervades all areas of our life. The economy used to be just one part of the social order, now it is the order and we are under the illusion that it has to control every facet of our lives no matter the consequences.

Most people seem to be asleep at the wheel but thankfully it seems that times might be a'changin' and a few have woken up to the problems inherent in a totally free market.

Thanks Emma. A sickening phenomenon.

Every other species on the planet nurtures its offspring. We, as a society, exploit ours. One of the many reasons we have little future if we don't change. Just a larger perspective, and still recognising that it's really about love.

Regarding comments about "capitalism", there is no single version of capitalism, so it's not very useful just to toss the name out without being more specific. We could have a market-based system that did not exploit children, people, or the environment. We are free to either ban exploitation of children or make it highly unprofitable. The latter might seem distasteful but it would remove the predators from the marginal areas that are hard to regulate. How to do it? Not easy, but we could find creative ways if we had the will.

Anyway, good to see a subject aired that should be a national and global shame, but that passes by hardly noticed in our jaded, manipulated society.

To Emma and all those who think that all facets of life should have a legislative straight jacket;

The point of government and legislation / regulations is not pander to small vocal minorities and implement labyrinthian legislation that is costly to police, (more so for business to implement), of which the benefits are tenuous and the negative impacts on freedom of expression are enormous, and the cost to the consumer (who inevitably pays for it) is considerable.

The sexualisation of children in adverts has so many facets and is so much a matter of perception, that any regulations would be very difficult to define and the policing of which would be extremely subjective and inconsistent.

Even the author has no idea as to the form any possible legislation would take and resorts to the pathetic call for the government to do "something".

Emma rush:

Apart from "not about banning little girls from putting on mummy’s lipstick or playing with Barbies" what do you really want?

I read this article and I don't find anywhere in it the argument that "all facets of life should have a legislative straight jacket". All facets of life of course are bounded by law, and markets only work at all because they exist within a framework of law (property rights, whether individual or communal, are established and protected by law, for example). Markets are not natural phenomena. But to say that Emma wants to put a "straight jacket" (sic) on all facets of life is an invention. Why not read what she says, instead of setting up a complete fabrication and then mocking it?
Helen