"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.