Bronwyn,

I think this objection to the 'sexualisation' or 'premature sexualisation' of children is more about the adults than the children.

Children are NOT asexual. How can they be sexualized? I can remember having sexual thoughts and even obtaining erections at age 7, and I know many women who admit to humping their soft toys at a similar age. It's adults that cant deal with this reality, and want to 'protect' their children from sexual imagery and, well, reality basically.

The world is there for children to see, they have a sexuality of their own that develops as their mind and later their body does, and their parents are there to guide them in their interpretations of and reations to the world they see around them.

Anyone who sees an 8 year old pull faces and reject the 'mushy stuff' on the TV will know that the same child at 9 that wants to be grown up and wear lipstick is not being prematurely sexualised. They are developing in line with their current emotional and mental development and reacting to the reality they see around them. All children want to grow up and parents of individual children can best judge what a child is ready for.

So some would like to change the reality, or protect their child from reality, and good luck to them. But the rest of the world is under no obligation to change to fit into line with the reality they want to create for their child.

Regardless, I don't see anyone complaining about little boys wanting to be tough and strong. Learning to defend themselves and watching WWF and action movies. Society values male strength and female beauty. It must be terribly confusing for kids of parents who would rather lie to their kids and say it's not so, rather than admit it is so, but teach them they don't have to conform.

Steel

‘[Religion/feminism, socialism/fascism] are not contrasting in the slightest. They share many agendas, censorship is the primary one. To believe otherwise is is a simply a denial of reality.’

Like the boy who cried wolf, crying ‘censorship’ every time some individual or social/political group expresses distaste or offence at some aspect of the prevailing culture not only confuses the whole concept of censorship, but cheapens it as well.

As societies change, prevailing cultural myths are always challenged – usually through everyday communication, but sometimes through the courts and parliaments – and tensions then arise between those who want to maintain the current myths and those who seek to revise and rework them to reflect a changing society.

This kind of conflict is healthy. Ms Tankard Reist is simply engaging in this process as she challenges prevailing cultural myths about women. If you don’t like what she is saying, or the way in which she says it, that’s fine.

However, to call such a process ‘censorship’ is what I would call the true ‘denial of reality’.

CJ Morgan

‘Yes, this is an issue which makes for strange bedfellows indeed.’

True. And it’s these strange bedfellows that provide the important nuances in this debate.

Usual Suspect

‘It must be terribly confusing for kids of parents who would rather lie to their kids and say it's not so, rather than admit it is so, but teach them they don't have to conform.’

One important way to teach children that they don’t have to conform is to have ongoing controversies and debates such as these, that convey to young people that prevailing cultural norms are not the be all and end all of reality. In fact, knowing that there are people vehemently opposed to this kind of cultural portrayal of girls and women gives children ‘permission’ to question it in their own minds.

pelican: "You appear to have labelled me in the extremist camp "

It probably appears that way, but no. I would not bother with debating with you if I though you were a runner or Gibo. Their views are unlikely to be influenced by anything I say. You evidently like to think about your positions, rather than taking them on faith.

pelican: "My whole viewpoint is about caring what happens to kids ..."

I don't doubt that. But there is no evidence the kids involved were harmed by the art, regardless of what your instincts tell you. So if this is the basis of your argument it's a very weak foundation.

My point went further though. If you really are about "caring for kids", then take notice of the strong evidence showing increasing availability of pornography actually reduces the very sort of acts "common sense" might tell you it increases. So by ignoring your instincts and making this stuff more available makes a real difference to what happens to kids.

pelican: "You have totally missed my point - which was about where to draw the line in Art and obviously that is where opinion comes ..."

No, I didn't miss your point, although it seems you missed mine. My point is that if you are going to draw a line, in other words you are going to force someone to behave in a different way, then you had better have a dammed good reason for doing so. An "opinion" isn't such a reason. Nor are gut instincts. And nor is Tankard Reist's shrill appeal to those things.

Opinion is what we use to distinguish good from bad art. Different people can and do have different opinions each art work. Opinion has no role in determining what art should be allowed. All art must be allowed, good and bad - unless it can be shown to be harmful. If only because if we banned every art work someone expressed dislike, it would be a very bland world indeed. Thus your opinion of it is irrelevant, as is mine.

SJF: "Like the boy who cried wolf, crying ‘censorship’ every time some individual or social/political group expresses distaste or offence ..."

This is the stance you have take right through the discussion here. In summary, you are saying no-one is arguing the stuff should be banned, they are just saying they don't like it and questioning why others do. I didn't take such a benign view of this debate and others here don't either. But fair enough - if you take Tankard Reist's article in that vein then its a fluff piece about her personal likes and dislikes, and as such should not raise an eyebrow. It's not like we aren't aware of her likes and dislikes already.

Bronwyn: "damaging effect on young girls of the relentless and insidious marketing that is telling them they should be dressing in a certain way and that they need a certain body shape and look"

You say this often (and not just in this thread). Maybe you are right to some extent. I think of how effective the ads for cigarette smoking are. But still, on the balance I lean towards US's viewpoint. Really, compared to cigarettes how girls dress is a minor issue.

Does how they dress really matter? (I am smiling as I write this, because it used to matter to me when my daughter was at a certain age.) But on reflection how they dressed was really a minor point. Their sexual behaviour wasn't determined by how the media says they should dress, or how to use makeup. It was determined by how stable her home life was, how good the future looked, how much competition she perceived there was for the available males. The long term risks she faced were largely determined by the availability of contraception and whether she used it, and how her lifestyle effected her education. Despite her parents obsession with it, how she dressed was almost an irrelevancy, and thus so were the ads that tried to influence it. In hindsight the worst damage they inflicted was on her parents hip pocket.

SJF, it's disappointing that you say I'm crying wolf here because it is incorrect, trivialising and suggestive that you're also ignorant of some things.

Did you follow the events as they transpired...(or not...)?

You may not care about this too much, but I do. I don't think you are equipped to see what is happening.

You could easily have said that those who constantly refer to child pornography at every turn for political gain, are crying wolf about Henson. That would be far closer to the truth here as there are scores of markers and incidents that indicate this.

It seems that you are rather lazy or uninterested in the effects and intentions of this movement.

Rstuart

I actually found your response to pelican more relevant than your post to me, so I’ll comment on that.

‘All art must be allowed, good and bad - unless it can be shown to be harmful. If only because if we banned every art work someone expressed dislike, it would be a very bland world indeed.’

Firstly, you know full well that no one here is arguing that every art work be banned if someone expresses dislike towards it. Also, it is downright impossible to ‘prove’ art as harmful, so other measures of ‘harm’ need to be taken into account.

Secondly, the premise that ‘all art must be allowed, good and bad’ underlies much of the thinking of the pro-Henson/Olympia side of this debate. This thinking assumes that art is sacred and this, combined with our great Western tradition of freedom of expression, allows it to get away with a good deal of bohemian wankery dressed up as 'pushing boundaries'.

In reality, the art world is just another dream factory that needs money to exist. It's financed from three main sources – business profits (i.e. galleries and auction houses), government grants and patronage from the wealthy. All three sources are deeply conservative institutions that ply deeply conservative agendas. Thus, all artists know – but few admit – that it is unwise to challenge too much of the status quo.

This is not to deny that many artists are brilliant at what they do and deserve recognition, fame, creative freedom and wealth. However, few of them ever really question a point of view that is anything other than male, or a social system that is anything other than men dominating other men, men dominating women (by portraying them naked and/or dead as often as possible) and men dominating nature. The same can be said of all the ‘arts’ – film and television, publishing, literature and advertising.

I don’t always agree with Ms Tankard Reist, or her methods, but she does have her finger firmly on the pulse of what is driving today’s cultural anxieties – and it ain’t pedophilia.