The Australia Institute is right to be concerned about sexualisation of young children, but they're aiming at the wrong target.

In this report http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1762698.htm Clive Hamilton accuses David Jones of wanting to "shoot the messenger" because they've threatened to sue his institute for a report branding DJs "corporate pedophiles". The basis for this term is because they advertise products like bras and "bra-lettes" for young girls using models in provacative poses.

I'm one of those parents saying "good on them" (the institute that is), but I can't help feeling a little guilty of non-corporate pedophilia myself. Afterall, they wouldn't be advertising this stuff if there wasn't a market for it, and I'm afraid I've been complicit in uneasily helping my two daughters along to a prematurely mature look. But what do you do when mothers and aunts dish some of these products up at Christmas or birthdays?

It's fair enough to criticise the products and the practices, but let's admit that without customers, the products and the advertisements wouldn't exist.

I’m normally a supporter of the Clive Hamilton and the Australia Institute. But I’ve got to admit I found his comments a bit rough.

To just come straight out with a public accusation of corporate paedophilia is not what I’d call subtle, tactful or diplomatic. I don’t blame David Jones for taking offence and making some threatening comments about legal action in response.

Dr Hamilton’s comments do amount to a very strong and immediate tarnishing of this company’s image, especially when they come from a highly reputable body such as the Australia Institute. Innuendo of paedophilia is very powerful indeed, in the minds of the average person.

This sort of advertising has been going on for a long time with no apparent ill-effects or particular concerns, as far as I can tell. I consider it to be totally innocent. Afterall, the purpose is to sell stuff, which has to appeal to kids and parents alike. There is no other purpose. The accusation of corporate paedophilia is therefore bogus.

Of course parents want their kids to look sharp, fashionable and to be happy about it. What’s wrong with that?

Graham, I don’t point the finger at parents at all for promulgating this sort of advertising.

I implore the Aust Inst to focus on more important things.

Graham, in my view the same issue face parents in regard to fast and or junk food advertising aimed at kids. Parents should be the ones making the consumer decisions but corporates pushing this stuff at kids make the parents role more difficult that it needs to be.

It can be a tough role being a parent, most of us don't want to be the obsessive type who deny our kids excessively but we also want to help them be their age, learn good eating habits, healthy approaches to their sexuality etc. Having corporates deliberately pushing the boundaries in one direction makes the centerline look more like an extreme than it is which probably has the effect of most of us shifting a bit their way.

R0bert

So it's the corporate's fault? No fault in the individuals who respond to the advertising?

David Jones aren't the only ones using this sort of advertising, and it wouldn't work if there weren't a response to it.

I just wish we could ban porn from the internet or at least have some choice like pay TV where particular channels can be selected.
The internet have brought all the rock spiders out from under their lairs and now they openly flaunt their perverted sexuality as if it were a normal right.

I think the net is pushing many who may be just toying with the idea over the edge and with these images being available on the net,it gives paedophiles not only food for their perversity but a medium that gives these twisted beings,feelings of justified normalcy.

There is no excuse for paedophilia.If 98% of the population can control their sexual urges surely,so should the paedophiles.

Children grow up soon enough,and a mostly innocent,carefree childhood is essential for them to grow into balanced and responsible adults.

Graham, "So it's the corporate's fault? No fault in the individuals who respond to the advertising?" - where did that come from. Certainly not my views and I don't thing it's easily read into my post.

I think that individuals have ultimate responsibility for their own actions but some responsibility also lies with those who deliberately target kids or others less able to seperate marketting from reality. Some one having responsibility for their actions does not absolve others who make the choices that lead to those actions more difficult.

R0bert