I started reading, my blood boiled so I skimmed the rest.

Don't know what to say. Lost for words.

There was a coppertone ad many years ago, cute as. 99% population thought it was cute. Now 99% think it porn. I blame the 99% of the population for even thinking such a thing. So the article writers seem to appear to be with this 99%. Am I wrong, do I miss something? Who has actually sexualised youth here?

It is the fashion for the current generation of young, incredibly self-assured women to crap on about "I do whatever the hell I choose and the rest of the world can go to hell". The more they say this, the more conformist they actually sound.

Anyone with half a brain knows that all decisions are made in a context and are influenced by a variety of sources. It is high time that people started investigating the rapid changes in the sexual behaviour of young women and what is influencing these choices.

Missus sums up how I felt when I read this long article.
I was somewhat taken aback by the rather 'ranting' pattern of this writer.

If this is feminism standing up for the current lives of young girls, then I want no part of it.

I have a 17 year old daughter and I don't see all this sexualisation happening with gay abandon all around her.

When Elvis Presley and Rock and Roll entered the scene many years ago, there was a great outcry over this 'evil, sex-crazed man and this devil's music.' The sky didn't actually fall in at all.

I remember when I was young and playing with Barbie dolls, my mother told me that feminists did not like these dolls, as they gave young girls bad ideas about how they should look.

The same is happening now with Bratz dolls, and I have no doubt something else will upset the next older generation.

Can't we just let the girls enjoy their youth and do the best we can to bring them (and their brothers) up as good citizens?
I know plenty of young girls and boys who don't seem to be displaying this terrible sexualization the author carries on about.

Sometimes people just see what they want to see. They see young girls acting sexy and deduce from this that they have been sexualised by some demonic other. They do not look beyond the comments of the girls and try and understand what they are really saying when they long to be ‘one hot chick’ or to be ‘wanted by boys’. Eight year old girls will say they just want to be sexy or to be like their gyrating ‘role models’. Those who want to heap scorn on the demon will just accept what they say at face value in ways that they would never do with an otherwise normal eight year old. A child of that age does not even know what sex feels like but these adults who are looking to use the children for their own propaganda purposes accept their statements with all the literalness of a supreme court judge.

These girls do not want to be sexy for its own sake – they want to be sexy because they see from examples that it will make them popular. It is their fragile egos that are being exploited by advertisers, retailers and even many parents. It is the same with wanting to be a celebrity, a singing idol, a sports star. Kids see these things as bringing them popularity and offsetting the pain they feel from not having enough love or self confidence.

Any decent parent looks beyond the literal desires of their kids for the real desire that they have and it usually is much more fundamental than stardom or being ‘hot’. These kids would not be able for exploitation if they had a secure sense of themselves.

If there is anyone to demonise here it is parents who do not listen to the real needs of their children. I suspect that amongst those on the warpath against the perpetrators of ‘sexualisation’ are parents who should be at home trying to listen to what their kids really want. Instead they seem to want their kids to really want what they want them to want.

Oh My! "One would have thought that we had left the Victorian era behind. Ages ago."

Was not Cromwell, part of the puritan movement?

I just guess that history has to repeat itself every so often.

Yep it is a real nightmare, this scare mongering business.

I use to think that the oppressive patriarchs were terrible for not allowing their daughters to get their ears pierced or to wear makeup.

Now I know why.

Loong live the Puritans.(sarcasm)

Examinator et al,

I admit my previous post was a little simplistic, but I don't always have the time for a more detailed commentry.

However, my point is still that the change in the advertising is largely a reflection of the change in society.

In the 50s:

Sex education virtually did not exist,
Open discussion on sex was taboo,
Birth control was crude and ineffective,
Abortions were performed in back street clinics with often lethal consequences,
Gay sex was criminalised,
Women worked in lower positions for lower pay,
Unmarried mothers were stigmatised,
Divorce was scandalous and left the wife financially worse off.

Today, most teens and tweens know about sex, are not afraid to discuss it, and are not restricted by the taboos that burdened us at that age.

The change advertising and sexuality of youngsters is largely an unwanted symptom of how society has changed, and to reverse this would require the reversing of many of the progressive changes of the last decades.

My daughter and her friends are 13, go to a top private girls school, and they are all perfectly aware of their sexuality, boys, and all desire to be "hot". However, while watching next top model, glee etc, but have clear focus on what they want to be later in life and it is generally not defined by sex. (although some are more advanced than others)

My experience is that the worst case scenarios experienced by the author are not the norm, and whilst I worry about my daughter, I far prefer the world as it is for her now than as it was decades ago.