I can't help wondering if this thread is a fishing for another DM article thread. Apologies to the OP if you are genuine.
On a lot of these threads I am arguing on the other side. I hate Nuts magazine and Playboy pencil cases. I do not like the commercialisation of sexuality, and I do not like it sold to children.
But this is not because I dislike the idea of secondary school children developing a sexuality or even of them becoming promiscuous when they enter adulthood. I just think that commercial images of sex stop young people developing their own sexual identity.
Shag bands cost a few pence; most of the ones sold have no sexual packaging. To most children they are simply meaningless bands, and to others they have a sexual act identified with them. They are no more of a commercial product than marbles. I doubt there is a Hugh Hefner of shag bands, and they don't promote cosmetic surgery, fake orgasms, fake lesbians, uncomfortable underwear etc. Nobody is marketing a certain type of sex with them. They just mean everyday things like hug, kiss, blowjob, but only to some older, secondary school children who do not take it seriously.
There is a huge difference between objecting to children being dressed up by adults as adults or children being exposed to commercialised sexual identities, and older children using a pocket money price toy to talk about ordinary sexual acts. They could just as easily do it with different colour drinks tabs on a necklace, or nail varnish, or hairband colour.
If older children said an orange hairband meant blowjob, would you ban primary school children from wearing orange hairbands?
There is a big difference between objecting to the promotion of what is essentially pornography to teenagers, and just being a prude who objects to teenagers expressing any kind of sexuality or even having any kind of sexuality.