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

Excellent topic Graham,

I can see your point but I believe it is still corporate responsibility. Corporates have a choice to puruse a socially responsible growth strategy to improve their image in the society. They can educate the market and sponsor education programs on harmful social & consumer trends.

Pursuing every $$ opportunity simply because there are buyers for it is not what one expects from the market makers.

DJ had a choice to make, and they chose wrong in my view.

T

Graham
you are touching on a very 'core' issue here.

Question (to all)

1/ "Why" are there people in our society who, according to marketing people, are happy to have our children sexualized like this ?
2/ In who's interests is the promotion now, of all manner of sexualization of children ? Clearly the economic interest of those who have invested in the manufacturing outlay.
3/ What are they likely to DO now that they have spent a lot of money ?

Is it jussssssst possible, that we have abandoned our moral compass ?
Sufficiently at least for a large chunk of our society to feel comfortable with this moral choice.

Each time I drive up Canterbury road past 'SexyLand'sex supermarket and get petrol from Ampol and walk past the in your face array of pornography, I ask these questions.

Would people feel comfortable sexualizing children if they were reminded that "Anyone leading these little ones astray will have a large millstone placed around his neck and be cast into hell"

But this sexualizing of children is just one of many little steps which taken together result in the degradation of our whole society.
We can accomodate 'small' steps down the slippery slope, but not LARGE ones. But many small steps make up a long journey.

In view of the absence of any human social force or idea likely to stem this tide, the words 'National Repentance' come to mind.

F.H. ...'socially responsible' is a concept continually being challenged by economic interests.

They seek to re-define it, to re-shape it into a more advantageous concept. The Canberra porn industry ... man.. they tried to change the law and make it legal to show this and that. They laughed at me even.. (by email) but now, I think the net has bypassed them and they are whining about an economic struggle due to direct access by the net.

Poor them.. Poooor them.. NOT. I asked our government to ban the mail order of xxx rated porn. They refused. Now maybe its irrelevant, because of net access.

This is just another piece of evidence that "Make_it_up_as_you_Go" morality leads down that road which is "broad, and easy, and leads to destruction"

If we could show people in ONE hit, the cumulative degeneracy of their society, they would shriek in horror. But because it comes in little chunks like this.... they are not suffiently motivated or shocked to see if for what it really is.

David

“1/ ‘Why’ are there people in our society who, according to marketing people, are happy to have our children sexualized like this ?”

Well, would I be in the minority in not seeing any sexual connotation in this sort of thing? We are talking about young children, dressed in fashionable clothes, photographed to look good. We are not talking about nudity or lewd photography. So….. what is this carry-on about “sexualising” children?

I reckon any connotations of this sort are purely in the eye of some beholders. And I think that the interpretation of this sort of thing being included under the banner of paedophilia is just ridiculous. It reminds me of the silly outrage expressed by some people when women first dared to show their knees in public or wear two-piece bathing suits. Could it be just a reaction to changing fashions?

“2/ In who's interests is the promotion now, of all manner of sexualization of children ?”

Your question takes for granted that there is child sexualization. Well, I don’t believe that there is. We could very easily look at it in a completely different light – simply one of fashion.

“3/ What are they likely to DO now that they have spent a lot of money ?”

Some companies are likely to get very angry due to there being no significant public concern expressed up until now, and that they have spent their money in good faith, only to find themselves in the poo overnight…. and be more than willing to take legal action on the basis of defamation where no indication of a problem existed even a few days a go.

The rest of your posts to me are irrelevant, because (again) there is no sexualization of children going on and therefore comparisons with the “Canberra porn industry” and so-on are irrelevant.

Delighted to find myself in full agreement with Ludwig here (unlike some other topics).

I think that this current moral panic is a bit contrived. Rather than children being supposedly 'sexualised' by fashion and its advertising, I submit that young girls and boys are usually dressed in ways that emulate 'adult' clothing and adornment - and that this largely holds across cultures.

My opinion is that those adults who are most obsessed about this are mostly likely to be the problem, rather than the rest of us who aren't all that worried about our daughters 'dressing up'. Sure the filthy corporates exploit this - but that's the nature of capitalism, no?

The childhood innocence of sexuality has been exploited for profit is undoubtedly true. The whole of societies obsession with overt sexuality is being exploited. There is money to be made in exploitation of the natural desire to be perverted for profit. Sex sells!

Current image of sexuality is about enticing any and every one else to view onself as a sex object - an object of sexual desire. It is the eve apple promotion. If it looks good it must be good to be eaten. The DJ promotion is about the children models, their make up and their flaunting poses. Since this is the aim of the promotion then pedophiles will naturally be attracted to children bearing such provocative images. How often at a party have you seen 13 year old girls appearing to be 18 because of their dress and make-up. They then become a target of interested males in their mature sexual portrayal.

If we remove the models from the images where we only have the garments displayed I believe it will reduce the promotion. It is about body image displaying sensual enticement. "Look at me aren't I sexy". Sexy has become a vogue word even among three and four old girls.

Remember many designers of women's clothes are male homosexuals who are obsessed with the display of female clothing.

Philo, your comment raises the issue as to whether we should be concerned because someone gets a perverted sexual thrill from our behaviour. Is the fault in us, or them?

I get a bit concerned when people try to ban others taking photos at school sports events because pedophiles might see the photos and get a thrill from them. They might also just hang around school sporting events too!

There is something unhealthy in allowing the observer to determine what we are, rather than accepting that we have a reality which is all our own.

Dear Ludwig.. yes. you are in the minority, and.. do you have shares in DJ ?

C.J. with all your posturing on high moral ground in the Siev X thread, and your condemnation of me, I find your blindness to what is going on here astounding. BUT....

One very VERY disturbing trend I also notice is the close connection between deviate sexual attitudes and Greens (including their leader) and a particular political attitude.

When I went to the Socialist Alliance/Palestine Solidarity demonstration (as an observer) one thing stood out. The SA were using that as a platform to promote gay and lesbian issues ! ie. Deviate sexual practices.

So, we have this curious spectacle of Bob Brown living in a deviate un-natural relationship,calling for Australians to live by "High Principles" yet his own life tells us what he means by such high principles.

I guess then, it should not surprise me that from this same political orientation, there would be those who see no issue in the sexualization of our children. Or..that they simply don't 'see' what is before their eyes.

I note also that Bob Brown was adamant that the flood of XXX rated Porn from the ACT should NEVER be stopped by legislation. Hmmmmm its falling into place.

As I said. "many small steps" = "One long journey". If you DON'T see the issue here, its perhaps because you see only the smallness of the step, rather than its place in the journey ?

We perceive things in terms of our values. The look on a persons face, we can differentiate 'shock/anger/panic/love' all by the look.
If you guys cannot 'see' what Graham is on about here... then you might have socio/moral conjunctivitus... goto the pharmacy of life and get some medication.

Greens/Left=Promotion of Deviate Sexual practices + promotion of degenerate portrayals of human interaction + Social/Immigration policies designed to white-ant our whole society.

Not....a pretty picture.

*sigh* I know its off topic, but if the judgemental ones like Boaz are going to heaven, then I'm thinking hell will be much more comfortable...

BD, "The SA were using that as a platform to promote gay and lesbian issues ! ie. Deviate sexual practices.

So, we have this curious spectacle of Bob Brown living in a deviate un-natural relationship,calling for Australians to live by "High Principles" yet his own life tells us what he means by such high principles."

A refusal to abide by the imagined moral codes of your god does not make something deviate or un-natural. The gay thing is not to my taste but it's been happening for a long time - much longer than belief in your god. Clearly not un-natural, nor is sexuality.

I don't like Brown much but your rather sick interest in what he may or may not do behind closed doors is much more deviant than anything I've heard from him.

Back on topic, I agree that what I've seen of the claims about sexualisation of children has not left me overly convinced that it is occuring to any significant degree but then I've not spent much time browsing fashion catalogues for young girls.

I also agree with Grahams point about not being defined by how others see us or stopping healthy activities because some might abuse it (photo's of key moments in your childs life etc).

R0bert

David,

“yes. you are in the minority”

I doubt that very much. I would think that the vast majority are not concerned about this issue at all and don’t see anything disturbingly sexual or paedophilic in it.

“…do you have shares in DJ ?”

I’m not a fan of big corporations and I believe in strict government regulation to keep them in their place. I hate the way our lives are ruled far too strongly by aggressive market forces. So to answer the question directly – No.

It seems to me that there is a real contradiction in your concern about immorality here. On the ‘Blind-eye policing’ thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=99#1898 you don’t seem to be too concerned about the terrible standard of policing in our society and yet here you are rather critically concerned about something that I think is a complete non-event in terms of morality.

How can anyone be particularly worried about any aspect of morality without being offended by a poor and declining quality of law-enforcement and respect for the law in general?

First an overview of advertising. It could be said that advertising anything at all that a significant number of people can't reasonably afford can lead to stealing, cheating, uncontrolled gambling, illogical prioritising and overworking, in a desperate attempt to find enough money to buy the advertised "must haves". But [hopefully] most of us can control these socially destructive urges.

Next, the strange idea that we can control what others think. Women shouldn't be allowed to look attractive, otherwise men may lust after them, indulge in fantasy liaisons, and perhaps be tempted to act out their fantasies. Fortunately there is an answer, the burqua, but for some strange reason this is not yet popular in Australia.

There are compromises, of course:
http://www.wholesomewear.com/

How about those who fantasise about bestiality? Maybe, if I had a dog, I should put pants on it before taking it for a walk. After all, we never know who may be looking and having evil thoughts, do we?

A couple of photos have turned up on the net on my primary school website. My class of 1940, when I was 6. All the little girls were prettily dressed and most showed their knees. And a similar 1968 photo with one of my nieces. A glimpse of what we may imagine was a bygone time of childhood innocense. But I think the girls wanted to look pretty and their mothers wanted to help them achieve this.

The fact is I didn't give a damn what little girls looked like when I was a kid. And by the time I was a teenager, I was interested in what teenage girls looked like, not little kids.

Back in the 1930s, men fought for and won the right to take their tops off on the beach. And presumably that initially begrudged concession was also extended to young boys. I wonder if alleged paedophile activity was raised as an objection in those days.

[Cont.]

But, because of what I regard as unwarranted religious driven political interference, womens' breasts are still generally sexualised and women being "topless" are often regarded as daring or worse. [But it's OK to artificially enlarge them, push them up, push them out, push them together, push them apart, and deliberately sexualise them, because all that makes money for the fashion manipulators.]

But little girls don't have developed breasts, do they? They have basically what little boys have. But what the young girls don't have still has to be covered by a bikini top, doesn't it? So what's new about unnecessary bras being promoted to young girls?

No, we can't control what goes through peoples' minds and it's pointless trying. And I think the ban on family photos at school sports days and suchlike is both unnecessary and disgraceful. I remember being taught at school that some primitive people didn't like having their photos taken, because they thought that this gave power over them to the possessors of the photos. Well, are we "primitive", or not?

But what do we do about paedophiles? This is what I think. People who, by their actions, show that they can't be trusted to use firearms in a responsible manner would be denied the [legal] right to own a gun. I would suggest that those men who sexually prey on others shouldn't be allowed to own testicles. What could similarly be done about female paedophiles I would have to leave to the medical profession to explain.

well said Rex

We do not cry foul when little girls play at being mothers with their dolls and yet sex is a necessary precursor to having children. Kids dressing up as adults and mimicking adults can be just another case of children playing. They play at driving cars, they even play at shooting each other and a thousand other things that they are not actually doing. Why need this be so different? Maybe the adults they are imitating need some kind of therapy but the kids could be just learning how children learn, ie by play and by imitation. The important thing is to recognise that it is play and that is all it is.

I think this hysteria has a great deal to do with the puritanical wave washing over this culture that regards anything evenly vaguely sexual as somehow 'dirty'. It is ok if the kids play ‘cops and robbers’ and pretend to kill each other but they cant play dress-ups! I am struck once again by the lumbering bi-polar disorder of this culture. We went from a culture that ignored pedophilia when it was virtually institutionalized last century to a culture that sees pedophilia in holiday snaps of children at a playground.

One important point which someone made the other night on TV who was complaining about this form of advertising was that the pedophiles would use this form of advertising as an excuse because ‘they will use anything as an excuse’. And I think that there is the tail of the donkey right there – pedophiles will use any excuse – the existence or otherwise of this type of advertising won't make a drop of difference. Personally I don’t like it – I think it is highly exploitative but it is not particularly linked to its sexiness – I think Bindi Irwin is being exploited unconscionably.

To Rob,Ludwig and Laurie....

I call them as I see them.

1-Rape is WRONG,
2-Theft is WRONG,
3-sleeping with the same gender is WRONG
4-Bestiality is WRONG
5-Incest is WRONG, ..
now the only ones there u will disagree with is '3' right ?.. well..too bad. I nail my colors to the flagpole.

I have no bones about making the issue of BB's sexual deviance a top of the flagpole issue, because he is a would be alternative prime minister. And calling it anything other than 'devience' (until I'm censored) is something I'm not prepared to do, as in terms of my value system, and presuppositions, I am being consistent and not intimidated.

A persons sexuality is MOST important, as we found with that Supreme court judge who committed suicide in Sydney. His track record on sex related crime was clearly BIASED due to his own sexual issues.

Now.. how about we get OFF the 'bash boaz the bad Christian' bandwagon and make some astute social obervations.

My major contention is this:

Corporations which sell into the fashion market, will INEVITABLY seek to push social boundaries to INCREASE the 'titilation' of their advertizing, because yesterdays titilation is todays "ho Hum..boring"
I point to the recent billboard which became controversial because of the 'overtly sexual' poses. The girl with legs spread.... etc.

Next billboard.. spread wider ?

The POINT being..... 'sex sells' "more sex sells more" ?

The pressure is ALways on to expand the market.. increase shareholder value etc etc...

and just in case no one gets it yet...SEX IS GREAT...in the right place.
Not only is it a powerful force in our lives, it is vulnerable to exploitation. If folks are so blind as not to recognize 'exploitation for financial reward' as being pretty close to 'prostitution' then,....I shudder.

In case you haven't noticed. The more 'permissive' our society, the more we are on the lookout for sexual predators to the point where Graham mentions taking photo's at school events is a nono.
Things were not that way in the past when we were less 'permissive'.

Alright David, all of that is fair enough, except as you note, your number 3.

I don’t hold BB’s sexuality against him at all. There are plenty of other things to hold against him without worrying about that, such as his incredible lack of input into real sustainability issues, which is just crazy for the country’s leading environmentalist politician.

Of course corporations are going to push the boundaries of sexuality. That is why we need strong regulation, both in the law and its enforcement.

So I ask again;

How can anyone be particularly worried about any aspect of morality without being offended by a poor and declining quality of law-enforcement and respect for the law in general?

I agree with David Boaz.Sex is our natural drug which probably makes us so suseptable to all the other unnatural ones.Having human foibles we all like the escape from lifes mundane chores and responsibilities,however when we seek too much escapism we risk our very survival a civilisation.The Egyptians,Romans and Greeks all suffered destruction from within.There has to be a balance in our lives and we need to draw a line in the sand as to how much sexual freedom should be allowed.

Puritanism is just as self destructive as unbridled self indulgent sexuality.Puritanism probably produced our paedophile clergy.Our sexuality can motivate us to explore other intellectual and physical capabilities of our being,and sex should not be the tool of power or manipulation.

Both the corporates and individuals have responsibilities not to use children as objects of desire.Some children do have sexual feelings at an early age and masturbation releases the tension,so they will be able in the future to cope with the complexities of a long term sexual relationship.

Destroy the family unit and we will see our prosperity diminish in the same proportions.We should not be pushing sexual images or conformity on those who are not emotionally able to cope.

I think our media is just too lazy and cannot be bothered creating new ideas to get our attention beyond our usual sexual compulsive disorders.

Perhaps there should be more love and less sex.

PS;I will qualify one important point David Boaz,homo sexuality is fine if those who practise it,don't try to convert the rest of society to their way of thinking .We have to accept the fact that some people are born that way,but today many are converted because they think it's trendy.

Interesting topic, Graham.

It’s a shame that kids are not happy anymore to spend most of their days covered in mud and grime.
Kids have become very self-conscious about their looks and image.
There are even kids as young as 6 that show signs of anorexia!

It seems like we are being told by advertisers not only what we (and our kids) should eat, but also what our kids should wear and how they should look.

But I agree that we do not want about 1-2% of the population (pedophiles) to regulate what our kids are wearing. I believe that most of the girls clothes on the market are innocent and seen as fashion items rather than as seductive clothing.
When my daughter was little she picked out her clothes in the mornings, but as soon as she had dressed herself she went off to play and forgot all about what she was wearing.

I think parents will be good judges in deciding what is ‘too much' (or should I say: 'too little') for the age of their daughters.

BOAZ, the fact that you post on this site is proof that you are not with the Exclusive Brethren, but you sure sound like one!
I find it hard to believe that, in the 21st century, people still haven’t accepted homosexuality and even worse, mix up homosexuality with pedophilia.

Rex, excellent post!

Celivia,
The fact is most pedophile acts on young boys are homosexual, and rarely bisexual. That is the reason for the association.

Quote, "I find it hard to believe that, in the 21st century, people still haven’t accepted homosexuality and even worse, mix up homosexuality with pedophilia."

One of the most basic of human needs is acceptance by others. We ought not dress in public so our sexuality is overtly expressed, such should be reserved for the bedroom. The most common purpose of dress and make-up is to find acceptance by others. Of course we ought not dress to raise the displeasure of others - burka being a case in point. We ought to dress so that our clothes do not draw others attention to them rather than to who we are. We have much to give to others without pushing our sexuality upon them as the most enticing part of who we are.

Philo, I'm hoping this has some kind of tenuous connection to Graham's topic "We ought to dress so that our clothes do not draw others attention to them rather than to who we are."

Would you then condem the backwards collars of anglican priests, or the variety of odd clothing worn by various catholic orders? What about the strange attire of the Amish? I don't like Burka's either but they are the choice of the wearer (hopefully) just as other clothing choices are.

People dressed to cover up or show off, thats their choice and not yours to control. It only becomes a real problem when society starts trying to enforce one or the other on those who don't want to make that choice.

A more difficult issue is with parents who's kids want to make choices different to the parents preferences.

How much are the childs preferences influenced by marketting rather than values?

How well does the parent cope with the ongoing change as a child grows older and should have more say in what they wear and how they act?

How well does the parent go at accepting that their child is an individual who will need to make their own choices as an adult and that part of childhood is learning to manage that responsibility?

Worry a bit less about those burka's and a bit more about getting the balance right in our own families.

R0bert

Arjay.. yes.. Puritanism can also be very dangerous. In fact the greatest danger for we Christians is our success. If a society becomes like 95% Christian (and I've seen this at village level) then the temptation or perhaps even the natural consequence is to make laws which reflect the faith.

This works fine for those of that generation, but their offspring, or some within the community who might be intelligent and stubborn, may dislike this and begin campaigning against it. Then tension arises, and possible conflict. That is the point of departure from the very foundation of Christ.

The point about drawing attention to "what we are wearing" rather than who we are.... is interesting.
There is the peer pressure angle, requiring people to wear 'designer' stuff for social acceptance, where the image conveyed by Calvin Klien etc is clearly not only "be with it" but.."and be sexxxxual"

I think most people assess what a person 'is' BY what they wear. A skimpy spagetti strap halter top (or strapless tube top)with mid rift showing and short short hotpants kind of convey a very clear message to me.

My daughter often throws this back at ME by telling me my wearing of Lycra bike shorts to the gym is 'sending the wrong message' but my motive was in reality that I don't get chafed inner thighs when I run. Still, I've now bought some looser basketball shorts, and use my Lycra's mostly for running alone.

The bible teaching about modesty does not mean 'no fashion sense' it just means not drawing deliberate attention to the shallower aspects of our personhood. A man can clearly see if a woman has generous breasts without needing to see 30% cleavage. But the more cleavage he sees, the more he thinks about her breasts apart from her total personhood.. unless I and Tony Barber are alone in this :) (see his add for Cash Trivia with Elise and watch his eyes :)

Just so with childrens clothing. It should be age appropriate and 'message' appropriate.

Crikey David, I’m at a loss to understand why you have twice ignored my straight and highly relevant question.

.
This business of judging people by what they wear has got knobs on it. I really hate the shallowness inherent in this outlook. I knock around with bare feet and very casual dress practically all the time. As far as I’m concerned, this is eminently sensible attire for the climate. But lots of people turn up their noses at me for daring to go anywhere in public with bare feet or a singlet. Now lots of these people have big pot guts or thunder thighs or are puffing on a cigarette ….and aren’t exactly smart dressers themselves. I have to seriously question their values.

So, should I be a smarter dresser and always wear footwear? Nope not on your life.

We just shouldn’t worry too much about clothing. Let’s stop trying to appeal to people we don’t know, and who would judge us based entirely on a split-second’s observation. Practicality should be our priority. Likewise with our children.

.
Philo, “The fact is most pedophile acts on young boys are homosexual, and rarely bisexual. That is the reason for the association.”

What about heterosexual acts on girls? I mean, the heterosexual connection to paedophilia had surely got to be stronger and than the homosexual connection. So why is there a perceived much stronger homosexual connection in many peoples’ minds?

Humble Apologies Ludwig... missed the radar :) I'll try now.

[How can anyone be particularly worried about any aspect of morality without being offended by a poor and declining quality of law-enforcement and respect for the law in general?]

I totally agree !

How do you think I felt when I read of groups of middle eastern boys with BASEBALL bats being "spoken to and allowed to move on" While Anglo youths were arrested and imprisoned on the same day, during the Cronulla period ?

I was churning inside !

My experience with the special events police here in Melb showed me that they do indeed prioritize things.

The lack of respect for the Law, and the lack of modesty in clothing, are related. To me, it signifies a general decline in our culture and social well being. Changed attitudes to discipline are resulting in more contempt for authority. "6 of the best" only hurt 'inside' when you got it for the wrong reasons and I testify, the mere thought of Mr Lee whacking my hand with his huge strap deterred me from LOTS of naughty things.

The issue of clothing and morality is a minefield. Some say "If you've got it, flaunt it" and some gullable people have bought this.

Its socially irresponsible in my view.

Wearing appropriate attire is one thing, that doesn't mean girls have their breasts hanging out, the curves and bumps deliberately highlighted, there are modest ways of wearing climate appropriate clothes.
A lot of it is context sensitive too. If I rolled up on Sunday morning showing as much skin as many of the girls do, I'm sure I would create HAVOC :) Or came to Church in a pair of Speedo's...

We tend to adjust our attitudes according to the context.

I just feel that given the powerful nature of our sexual drives, it doesn't take much for the old mind to begin a journey which has a sorry outcome.

I went to watch my lady friend this morning. She took and passed an exam in modern ballroom dancing at a high level, as also did a number of our friends. Her teacher also has a large number of child students, most of them girls.

The young girls were dressed virtually as miniatures of adult ladies going to a dance. Some had ball gowns, some short flirty skirts. They had make-up, dangly earings and sequinned shoes. They were dancers and wanted to look the part. And their mothers and fathers looked proud of them.

To those with strange minds, this may sound like paedophiles' heaven. To a person with a normal way of thinking, it's just kids learning what we used to call social graces. And learning to be suitably dressed for a special occasion.

I'll draw an analogy. I think the ladies may agree [I know that some of my very respectable female friends would] that the fit young guys who play footie look great in their short shorts and sleeveless shirts. Don't the young boys who take up the game dress the same? And does this make watching kids' footie paedophiles' heaven?

I went, on a scholarship, to a very religious school. I remember being taught that "To the pure at heart, all things are pure". Well, I would be inclined to think that the opposite may also be true. Those who see dirt everywhere they look have dirty minds. Think not? Well, I [and most others] can see children dressing the part without having evil thoughts. But paedophiles think differently and also too do at least some puritans and prudes.

Rex well said.

R0bert

Rex.. strangely enough I find nothing wrong with the ballet thing.

Its cultural, and long standing, and I've never had any sense of young children dressed for ballet etc being in anyway used in a bad way.
I guess I feel that because since I can remember, my 2 female cousins were doing just that.

I am gravely suspicous though of anything which 'suddenly' gets pushed by large commerical mobs, which is outside our existing and accepted modesty boundaries.

I don't see many commercial oppotunities in the childrens ballet, but I sure do in chidrens clothing in todays social context.
We didn't have MTV etc in my childhood days.
Perhaps the best idea is to closely look at what real/actual values are being promoted in these boundary pushing excursions.
I think if we look closely over time, a pattern will emerge which is quite convincing that its just repackaged 'sex sells' and 'young sex sells even better' ? Once a society reaches a level of equilibrium in its sexualization of life, the only way you can go to keep it interesting is look for some as yet unexplored boundary to push ..don't u think ?

-Younger.
-More Explicit.
-Combination of the above but adding 'same sex'.

Are the only 3 boundaries left.

Boaz, you forgot bestiality.

Oh - ballroom dancing is a far cry from ballet, but it's pleasing that you acknowledge that neither is inherently sexual, even when kids do it.

Reminds me a bit about the old joke about Methodists - who disapproved of sex because it might lead to dancing...

While of course you're entitled to your opinions, I think that your expression of them in this forum sometimes verges on the obsessive.

I mean, your phobia about Bob Brown's sexuality... really! ;)

Thanks for the reply David

“The lack of respect for the Law, and the lack of modesty in clothing, are related”.

Yes, but they are very different in this respect: - “The issue of clothing and morality is a minefield”, whereas the issue of law-enforcement and respect for the law should be a black and white matter.

"If you've got it, flaunt it"

Well yes, why not? Why shouldn’t we be proud of our bodies and we willing to show it…. within well-defined limits?

I reckon we could easily draft laws that would take care of this issue, so everyone would know the limits. As it is now, we just don’t know. And where there are laws pertaining to this issue, we cannot have faith that they really apply, or apply equally to all.

So again, if we are really concerned about immorality when it comes to clothing (and all sorts of other things), we need to be concerned about our terrible and worsening rule-of-law regime (good laws, good policing and good respect for the law).

Parents should set decent standards, try to set an example for their children and at least let them know where they stand on moral and ethical issues as more questions arise as they get older .
Big companies prefer to make money , not to make moral choices .
Don't expect this Government to stop the ROT .

Talking about ballroom dancing, the Viennese Waltz was regarded as outrageous and immoral by many when it was first introduced, because men and women who were not necessarily married [or even engaged for that matter] held each other in their arms. Prior to this, they generally just met in passing, in the Lancers or some other folk style dance.

And I'm old enough to remember how rock-n-roll was called the Devil's music and jiving was banned in most ballrooms. Now it's a set dance style in the World Championships Latin category.

And somewhere along the way, we had this old classic:
"But Grandpapa and Grandmama had never really met
When Grandpapa kissed Grandmama in the second Minuet."
I have a romantic turn of mind and I think that the full lyrics are delightful. But I have a sneaking suspicion that these words would have ouraged some people when they were first written.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=81118

Yes, times [and dress styles] change, don't they? But not if the more narrow-minded members of society get their way.

It's been an interesting journey, this one. Thanks Graham.

My basic view is the same as I hold for fast food: if it is legal, then the supplier should be allowed to advertise.

In the case of David Jones, the advertisments seemed to me to be right on target - if I had a daughter, I would expect pressure for me to fork out, followed by further pressure to be allowed to wear the stuff.

Fortunately, boys don't feel the same need to dress up. Nor do men, come to that.

It's a chick thing.

So is the campaign good? Bad? Wholesome? Unwholesome?

All in the eye of the beholder, I feel.

I cannot imagine anyone who is not already so inclined being swayed into the paths of unrighteousness by the garments in question. They seem to be about the same as were on display at my son's Year Six "Formal".

Girls of that age get off on that stuff. Boys of that age don't notice. Fathers get a shiver up their spine when first confronted, but soon get over it with some help from the girl's mother. Who treats the whole thing with an admirable sang froid.

Fashions change. I recall ladies' fashion in the sixties with particular fondness, in much the same way as my grandfather reminisced about the twenties. But all that suddenly exposed - nay, flaunted - flesh didn't turn me (or him) into a raging pervert.

So am I "making it up as I go along", in Boaz's most captivating phrase?

I don't think so. But then I am relatively unconcerned by the odd glimpse of a youthful knee, so I find the fuss remarkably pointless.

Just one point. How come philo, our resident prurient, disapproves of the burqa? I would have thought from the tone of the rest of his posts that he would welcome top-to-toe covering, to prevent inordinate stoking of his suppressed lusts. No?

Mmm, I think the issues that the report raised are two things -
1) Dress styles - why are companies making 'bralettes' for little girls aged six? And why are people buying them?
2) Modelling styles - the poses these kids are in, with the open lips, and 'glance' over the shoulder, and spread legs, are all classic model poses, which is why to some extent we havn't noticed them. To some extent, its just 'oh yeah, they're modelling', nothing suss. But when you stop to think about it, WHY are children's clothes being advertised with classically 'sexy' poses? Why are there things like a cardigan being shown over a bikini? Why not over a singlet top and shorts?
I don't think we need to have 'standards' for kids clothes, but talking about it is very important - why do people disapprove of blatantly sexist advertising? Because people spoke up and pointed out that it has some dodgy connotations.
I don't think that many people looking at these images 'see' paedophilia - I see little kids dressed up - but we do need to question why we've not noticed the sexualising of little kids.

And Boaz, the reason I was lamenting your judgementalism is not only in relation to homosexuality - it was in relation to your general attitude that EVERYTHING bad MUST be because of so-called "make it up as you go" morality. As a person who does not follow your faith, or indeed any formal faith, I get very irritated at constant calls to 'return to the church and then all will be well' - I live a 'good' life, I do community work, donate to charity, pay taxes, obey the law. I resent the implication that doing so without a faith somehow means I am helping to erode the ethical character of society. And for the record, I currently live in Canberra, and as yet, have not found myself corrupted by the presence of pornography.
Heh. Sorry, that turned into a bit more of a rant than anticipated. Maybe I should "take it outside" :)

Pericles,
Obviously you missed my point. Clothes are not to distract from the real person wearing them. Too little flaunts suggestion not welcome or too much hides the true character of the person. Good dress sense is not a distraction or a hinderance to a good relationship with the person. Good dress highlights the character of the person, and is not of itself the focus of a relationship.

Rex.. on the Viennise waltz... this kind of confirms my point.

Once something is accepted, we know the boundaries, and can live within them. When I used to be bussed off to Lowther Hall or St Micheals as a young RAAF apprentice to learn ball room dancing, I didn't really think so much of the personal male female contact in a salubrious way. I just thought it was nice to be able to meet a nice girl, and the dancing simply facilitated a structured and allowed means of getting to know them.

The problem comes when people with a vested interest suddenly want to 'push' those accepted boundaries.

Ludwig.... making laws is only workable to a point mate. When it comes to dress styles, bathing costumes etc..
There are always those who want to be 'different' and are prepared to stir until they get their way.

For this reason, I think we are consigned to 'dynamic' culture. Waxing and waning according to the impact by various opinion leaders and agents of change. Some will seek to liberalize and others to conserve.

C.J. you love hammering me on BB don't u :)
I see it as an important social issue, not an obsession.

Pericles "If it's legal, it should be advertizable" ? Well the personals section in even the local rags certainly testifies to that. Amazing stuff.

Just imagine the 6.00pm news Ad "Come.. all Caltex servo's now have a new range of HOT Porn"

Or.. "All Ampol service stations have a 25% off sale on all Porn"

“Ludwig.... making laws is only workable to a point mate.”

For sure David. But you’ve got to admit; there is a lot that can be achieved with a bit of concerted law-making.

It is not a case of increasing the complexity of regulations or increasing overall restrictions on us all, it is a matter of knowing where we stand.

“For this reason, I think we are consigned to 'dynamic' culture. Waxing and waning according to the impact by various opinion leaders and agents of change. Some will seek to liberalize and others to conserve.”

There’s nothing wrong with a dynamic culture or with changing laws that reflect it…. just as long as the laws do reflect it, and they are policed and respected accordingly.

David, please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=73#2637

In regard to the Viennese Waltz, Johann Strauss had exactly the same commercial interest as anyone else who has something to sell. And it became popular [as did rock-n-roll] despite determined moral opposition. But I certainly agree with you, Boaz, that ballroom dancing is a great way to meet girls.

But how about this "dress sense" stuff. If we took too much notice of the rag trade, what we couldn't possibly do without "this season", we wouldn't be seen dead in next.

Most of us have probably lived long enough to have seen many changes in fashion. I can recall [in England] zoot suits [drainpipe trousers and very long, loose jackets]. Edwardian style [Teddy Boys]. Italian suits [with short striped jackets]. Long hair for men and assorted facial hair fashions. None of it did any harm, but the amount of moralising which went on about it was almost unbelievable.

Womens' skirt hems went up [Hoorah!] and down [Boo!]. Bikinis became popular on the beach, despite attempts in Australia to ban them and advice from Catholic priests that good girls wouldn't wear them.

Judges, priests and people at graduation day ceremonies carried on dressing like circus clowns.

And the English national dress, the mans' suit, is required wear in hot Australia for funerals, parties, business and even calling the footy.

Anyone like to have a go at defining "good dress sense"? And anything along the lines of - if you have it, then you don't need to have it defined, if you don't have it, then no amount of defining will help you - is a cop out!

I failed to click on ‘email alerts’ that’s why I’m late responding.

Philo, Ludwig is correct: what about the pedophile acts on young girls?
This link is an ACTS AMENDMENT (SEXUALITY DISCRIMINATION) BILL report you should read to get some facts right.
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/hans35.nsf/451a59fb51257dd248256c85002bc738/225a9c34c262b0e9482565fd001311af?OpenDocument

From the report:
“The paranoia and uninformed opinion that "dirty old homosexuals" would prey on vulnerable 16 year old boys is a most offensive notion. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of paedophiles are heterosexual men who violate young girls, yet we hear no objection to an age of consent of 16 for girls who wish to be sexually active.”
And
“Discriminatory behaviour is most often the result of ignorance and fear fed by myths, misconceptions and stereotypes, and there are few areas in life that have evidenced this more than sexuality.”

I just wanted to clear that up with a link because I feel that you don’t have your facts right about homosexuality and pedophilia and I am afraid that RObert’s and Ludwig’s words will fall on deaf ears.

Further, when you talk about ‘good dress sense’, I do see what you mean, but this is a matter of taste as well: good dress sense is in the eye of the beholder.
O how I like to stare at men (especially at their knees) when they walk around in long socks, brown leather sandals, pressed shorts and grey acrylic cardigans. They sure draw my attention to themselves (especially to their knees) when they dress like this ;)

Thank you for this link, Celivia.

And BTW, if ever anyone organises an OLO get together, I'll know what not to wear if I wish to avoid the lustful glances of the ladies!

That's a shame, Rex ;)

I received another interesting article on a parents concern at the way parents are responding to adverstising, and the consequence being premature sexuality.

The media, while complicit, is not entirely to blame.

Pedophiles will peer at children no matter what they wear.

However, due to the 'sex sells' across all advertising these days, are we stealing our children's childhood away from them?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/childhood-shrinks-under-marketing-barrage/2006/10/16/1160850866638.html

Celivia,
Off subject: The act of anal sex between males is what is condemned by society, not a group of persons whom you describe as homosexuals, because of their effeminite nature and whom you believe have a right to practise such acts. They are a sad lot of unfilled men. Many men calling themselves homosexuals have had children, or surgically emasculate themselves. This identity malady does not originate by genetics but by choice. Their problem is an emotional relationship identity with females.

Philo
I'd better not tell you were my thoughts went when you talked about "unfilled men" ;)

I don't really understand why you are so opposed to same sex couples.
What does it matter to YOU what people do in their own bedrooms?

Would your life change dramatically if homosexual people did not exist?

Just going back on the topic, after reading the links and the comments of everybody, are you now convinced that homosexuality and pedophilia are not as connected as you thought they were?

All acts of sex committed by males on young males is a homosexual act. The term refers to an act not a group of people that some in society wish to refer to as gays, another misuse of a term. The article was emotive propaganda put foward by the homosexual lobby group [The Australian Democrats] not clinical research done by an authorised body of clincians interviewing abused young men. The acts committed upon them were homosexual.'Homo' means of the same sex. A sexual act committed by persons of the same gender. That many of them were also heterosexual persons involved does not change the nature of the act of abuse committed on minors. The act was a homosexual pedophile act.

Philo,
I didn’t really expect you to let facts get in the way of your bigotry.
You say: “All acts of sex committed by males on young males is a homosexual act.”
What is your point?
I hope you are not suggesting that child abuse is only commited by homosexual men.
If that was the case, then you should have no objection to what little girls wear.
But more girls are sexually abused than boys.

All acts of sex committed by males on young females (under 16) are also pedophilic acts.
Whether pedophiles prey on young girls or young boys, both are called pedophilia. Both are cases of child sexual abuse.
I remember you saying in another discussion that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural.

I suppose only articles written by liberals or religious fanatics are in your opinion, unbiased and unemotive.
All I know is that so-called Christians like Exclusive Brethren and Hillsong are quite pally with our Liberal party.

I wonder how unbiased the govt is in making decisions for homosexual people regarding gay marriage etc. I'm sure they are being well rewarded with funding from religious sects/cults like this as long as they do 'the right thing' by those cults.

Here’s an article about homosexuality among animals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
Perhaps homosexuality is less unnatural than you may believe.
“Curators say a Norwegian exhibition on homosexuality among animals has been well received, despite initial indications of strong opposition.”
And
The museum says it is the first exhibition in the world to touch on a subject that has been taboo in the past.
“It says sex between animals - as between humans - is often a matter of enjoyment, rather than procreation, and that this applies to animals of the same sex as well as opposite sexes.”
And
“ “The museum says one of its aims is to "help to de-mystify homosexuality among people... we hope to reject the all too well known argument that homosexual behaviour is a crime against nature". “

Question remains: “What does it matter to YOU what other people do in their own bedrooms?”

Celivia,
It was you who raised the question of why the link between paedophiles and the acts of homosexuality. It is undeniable that the majority of paedophile acts are committed on young girls by men. Similarly most paedophile acts committed on young boys are also done by men and the nature of that act is homosexual.

What has been done in bedrooms is no secret as it has had great affects on society, the public health system and the National budget. Ever heard of AIDS? You might consider it a personal affair, but it has caused great pain and devistation to families and Nations. What Australian community have been most affected by AIDS? Certainly not the Exclusive Brethren or Hillsong that you want to blame.

Your attempt to justify anal sex among amimals is pathetic, no such behaviour occurrs among males unless they are isolated from females. For 39 years of my life I have worked among breeding animals, and the only acts of two males engaging in simulated sex is when they are isolated from the females.

That two male brolgas attempt to nurture an egg that was not laid by them is no different to many other bird species. In fact some male birds almost exclusively hatch the laid egg while the female searches for food. It is a matter of survival, and at least these birds do procreate and nurture their eggs, unlike some humans who want to destroy the outcome of procreation.

Philo, I have a few wicked things to say to you.

"It was you who raised the question of why the link between pedophiles and the acts of homosexuality."
Hypocrite! On almost any thread about homosexuality, you can be found linking pedophilia and gays.

"It is undeniable that the majority of paedophile acts are committed on young girls by men. Similarly most paedophile acts committed on young boys are also done by men and the nature of that act is homosexual."
Pedophilia is a sexual aberration – many men who have sex with children are not necessarily gay or straight.

"What has been done in bedrooms is no secret as it has had great affects on society, the public health system and the National budget. Ever heard of AIDS?" What about all the other STD’s ? – this is why condoms are so effective. Aids is not just a gay issue, it is another STD that every sexually mature human being must take appropriate precautions against.

"You might consider it a personal affair, but it has caused great pain and devistation to families and Nations. What Australian community have been most affected by AIDS? Certainly not the Exclusive Brethren or Hillsong that you want to blame."
These organisations are guilty of influencing government policy at the expense of all Australian citizens – gay, straight or callithumpian.
They are pursuing a narrow agenda.
Wouldn't you have problems if fringe Muslim groups were doing the same thing?

To be continued

"Your attempt to justify anal sex among amimals is pathetic, no such behaviour occurrs among males unless they are isolated from females. For 39 years of my life I have worked among breeding animals, and the only acts of two males engaging in simulated sex is when they are isolated from the females."

The Norwegian exhibition is the result of extensive expert scientific study, analysis and research, whereas the experience of a right-wing Christian farmer is not only irrelevant due to its built in bias, but completely erroneous.

Plenty of animals with a choice of either sexual partner engage in homosexual behaviour –male with male and female with female simply because it is fun. And animals are free of the sexual hang-ups created by religious zealots.

If you had bothered to do some research you would know this – but then these facts do not fit your narrow world view and must be denied.

"It is a matter of survival, and at least these birds do procreate and nurture their eggs, unlike some humans who want to destroy the outcome of procreation."

The only humans out to destroy procreation are those who would prevent women from controlling their fertility and demanding abstinence for all – apart from themselves – which if one thinks this through to its logical conclusion, is not enough humans to maintain human population.

And some more links for you to ignore - otherwise you might learn something.

"Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates."

National Geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

And good old Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality

And this one addresses your 'erroneous zones' with astounding relevance.
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Well there is clearly an abundance of thoughtful and considered research on the topic, Philo.