Oooh go pelican I knew you'd get fired up. Where's Bronwyn?

'Discussion about sex between parents and children can take place at the appropriate age or when questions are asked. This 'age' may be different for different children.'

What a lot of these parents want, really, is no sexual material to be seen by their children to avoid this ever coming to pass, until they (the parent) can cope with it. It has little to do with the actual child, who is asking questions in what they see in the world around them. I've known a few women who admit to humping pillows as young as 6, and I remember having erections that early as well. Children ARE sexual, it's just adults cant handle the fact.

Children are more exposed to the world as the world is getting smaller and smaller. It's a good thing. They are learning in the culture they will be living in, and there is more to learn in these times. Parents are there to explain to them what they see around them, not pretend it doesn't exist and legislate others to their personal world view.

'Parents have to take responsibility but it is much easier if the whole community gets behind and supports parents rather than make it a commercial battleground for the biggest profit no matter what the costs.'

Supports which parents? What about the parents happy to let their 6 year olds imitate them, or imitate rock stars, and see it as valid play and natural involvement in the culture that they see around them. What are the costs? Why does nobody get up in arms about selling hot rod matchbox cars to little boys? About boys being marketed WWF wrestling stuff, being strong and muscle-bound?

mikk,

'and acting like whores. '
Really?! I don't think I've seen any 6 year olds acting in such a way. Perhaps you are projecting your adult notions onto the young things just like you accuse the advertisers of doing.

I think young kids have always wanted to act like their parents.

When we talk about the "sexualisation of youth" there needs to be a distinction made between teenagers and children.
Teenagers as a group are sexually mature, if not emotionally mature, and trying to prevent sexualisation of this group would be akin to holding back the dikes with your little finger. The strategy of discussing perceptions towards sex and attempting to promote healthy attitude and behaviour is entirely appropriate. Teenage is a time when experimentation and exploration are default settings, and the influence of media, whilst undeniable, is not the driving force here.
Children or pre-teens, on the other hand, will be confused with notions of sexual behaviour. There should not be pressure placed upon 10 years old girls, or boys to look or behave in ways that are not commensurate to their maturity. Take the example of Britney Spears - marketed towards preteens with a pretty blunt sexual message that promotes a style of dress and behaviour in young girls that they are not ready understand. We should let kids be kids, and teenagers can be teenagers, and neither of them should be expected to be like adults.

Sexualisation of youth appears to be a misnomer when all of the concern appears to be about young girls.

Many people want to promote a very appealing view of sexuality to older girls and then wonder why younger girls want to be a part of it. We need to have the courage to tell these women that being flirty might get attention but little real respect. It might not boost these women's precious self esteem, but then neither does being labelled a tart. It might also mean that younger girls are in no rush to grow up too quickly.

I am pleased to see my article has generated some discussion. I am particularly interested in 'Pelican's' response, and wonder how thoroughly he/she has read the piece:

"This entire article is mocking concerns about sexualisation of young children ..."

No, I'm not "mocking" these concerns at all. I concede they have a strong basis in fact. My issue is with the misguided use of the terms 'sexualisation' and 'sexualised'. Such usage implies that sex is automatically degrading and oppressive.

This is quite different from supporting (say) child pornography or advertising depicting tween girls in provocative, skimpy attire. Indeed, I distance myself from such imagery in my article.

"To suggest that those with concerns about sexualisation of children are seeking in some way to hide sex or make sex shameful just means you have not understood the issue at all."

I agree - but that's not what I'm suggesting! I'm not suggesting that all people who hold these "concerns" want to "hide sex" or "make sex shameful". (Though, to be sure, some do hold these aims; I find it unimaginable that religious conservatives would support sex education in schools or the use of contraception).

" Parents have to take responsibility but it is much easier if the whole community gets behind and supports parents rather than make it a commercial battleground for the biggest profit no matter what the costs."

I totally agree, and indeed I concede as much in the article. Sigh ...

Hi Jay,

I have read the article.

"First, this use of the term “sexualisation” seems to assume that all sex is inherently harmful. Young people are corrupted and misogyny is perpetuated every time sex appears on a billboard or in a music video. Second, attacks against a “sexualisation of youth” assume that young people are asexual, and should be shielded against all sexual references - unless, of course, you are promoting abstinence."

I am certainly not a raving conservative and I don't assume that sex is inherently harmful. I support Clive Hamilton's (ex) Australia Institute's (TAI) research on this and the papers addressing this issue resonate strongly as a parent.

'Sexualisation' is possibly a misnomer - all living organisms are sexual including plants. Without sex we do not perpetuate the species. Children are born sexual but they are not born having sex. You would no more show a porn movie to a young child just because they are sexual beings. This is not an argument in itself.

Sexual participation comes hopefully with maturity, with some guidance and education. As a parent you hope you have done all you can in these endeavours. But teenagers will be teenagers and they will experiment.

The issue of sexualisation in regards to teenagers is a very different issue than that of young children.

I speak mainly in reference to girls, I don't have boys and cannot speak from experience how the effects of media and peer pressure affect boys.

It is a real battle for parents to convince teens that they don't have to participate in risky sexual behaviours due to peer and media pressure. There have been a number of cases in the US where girls have performed degrading sexual acts to be popular. Constant sexualised images in the media and from teen magazines does not assist in any meaningful way to the sexual development of children. The only benefit from teen mags is advice about contraception and sexual diseases.

What is wrong with letting kids be kids without burdening them with the complexities of adolescence before their time?

I think that lilsam gets to the crux of the issue by linking sexual behaviour with sexual feelings. Children for the most part do not have sexual feelings. They are not sexually aroused by provocative images of the opposite sex. They do not feel any desire to accentuate their gender characteristics in order to attract the opposite sex. To dress them or portray them in ways that suggest they have sexual feelings like post pubescent people is absurd. They may want to look like Britney Spears but not for purpose of sexual attraction. More than likely it is about wanting to be popular or even a celebrity. Children have those feelings.

Teenagers are entirely different and behave in ways that are pretty much natural throughout all societies. There are hazards and pitfalls but no more so than in any other area of human behaviour.

Sex sells. This seems to be an incontestable dictum over which we have no control. Why does it have to be so? If we as adults and teenagers refused to be swayed by such advertising it would soon disappear. Why does a product with a scantily clad female advertising it sell better than one that presents its claims in a reasoned way? This points to a deeper insecurity in many people who define themselves (including their virility) by the products they own or buy. This insecurity is what advertising agencies seize upon. The real need may be to educate young people about the insidious nature of a lot of advertising. It is also vital to affirm their real worth as human beings so that they are not easily duped in to ‘dumbing’ themselves down to the level where advertising would have them.