Let Children be Children

[Bellie]

Wow! Well done mumsnet!

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/03/cameron-backed-report-commercialisation-childhood?CMP=twt_gu

I stand by everything except the spelling of plausible!

Both Slutwalk (which I'm not particularly a fan of, btw, but I do see its importance for some women) and these regulations can be thought of as an assertion of autonomy in sexuality. We've allowed children's developing sexual expression (and indeed much of our adult sexual lives) to be captured by consumerism, accessorized relentlessly according to fads that are cultivated in pursuit of sales. It is just a special case of the consumerization of many many of our daily activities. We don't pursue any activity autonomously any more we pursue it through the medium of shopping, buying into what the advertisers tell us it is about. That's particularly damaging in relation to a child's developing sexuality, which needs to emerge autonomously not prescribed either by male slut-calling or by retailers' profit-seeking.

So do you buy sexually provocative clothing for your children Threadworm8? Do you sit them in front of raunchy music vids? Flash Page 3 of the Sun at them? Feel powerless to resist? .... Or do you reject 'buying into what the advertisers tell us it is about' and let your children develop sexually at the speed you dictate?

I don't actually think that the sale 'sexualised clothing' is much of an issue -- it seems pretty marginal and avoidable to me (though that might be because I don't have to shop for girls). Popular music culture, the mainstreaming of lads' mags, and the tone of advertising imagery in general seems a more important target of the report, and those are things that is is impossible to shield your children from without regulative help.

Although I agree in general the only thing that concerns me is how a 'sexualised' image is defined. For example on BBC1 they were showing a billboard advertising suncream and there was a girl on the beach in a bikini. To me it was not an overtly sexual image at all. The idea to me that it was inappropriate to be near a school is prudish as there is nothing wrong with children seeing someone in a swimming costume imo. That said penis shaped rock, squeezing of cleavage and writhing around poles on music videos are a completely different matter.

Exactly.... who defines what what is unacceptable? I remember a thread on MN once where a pair of boots was denounced as 'unbelieveably slutty', 'the kind of thing a prostitute would wear', and 'totally inappropriate'. Intrigued, I clicked the link expecting to see something thigh-high with 6" heels, to find a pair of fairly ordinary-looking, low-heeled black patent leather boots with a bit of diamante decoration.

I also disagree with the idea that children should be 'shielded' at all costs. Keeping them in blissful ignorance only works to a point. But if we accept that we have a more liberal society where sexual images are fairly prevalent, then I'd have thought that the answer was more parental guidance, education and discussion. Not to wish it all would go away.

Actually I wish we had had a report about commercial pressures on children, rather than 'sexualising' pressures. I think it is going to prove too hard to keep the legitimate worry about a commercially engendered sexual objectification/exploitation sufficiently separate from a spurious moral panic about childhood sexuality. It is pretty shit finding oneself on the same side as Nadine Dorries.

This is a great result, but in the words of a Radio 4 presenter earlier today when talking to an Asda (I think it was Asda; I was distracted Mum on the school run) Brand Manager: "Do you [i.e. retailers] really need to be told what's inappropriate clothing for girls?"

What I find most disturbing about this issue is that retailers would not have been producing 'inappropriate' clothing unless there were enough people out there to buy it and therefore make it commercially viable. If there isn't a market for something, they won't make it.

So who was buying all this stuff? Clearly not Mumsnet members but there must have been one hell of a lot of people who were!

Commercial pressures are not new, "I want" is not new and, again, it comes down to parenting, education and steering your children to understand that adverts are always designed to sell something and that 'no' is a complete sentence. Cigarettes are illegal for the under 16's but most young smokers start around 14.... so we'd better explain why smoking is a bad idea rather than cross fingers that legislation keeps them safe. Same goes for drugs. Total bans don't protect our kids ... we do. Our children are subjected to all kinds of influences, benign and malign. It is our job, not the government's, to guide them into making the right choices.

Thats brilliant news for children!! Now can we look into songs on the radio like Rhiannas S&M song which has very explicit song content like "Sex in the air". And more recently Bruno Mars Lazy song which says he feel his crotch and has sex with his girlfriend! Im not a prude here but when we were growing up there was no risky radio songs except salt n pepper, and the radio stations banned the song from being played. When my 9 year old starts singing that hes going to grab his crotch in the back of the car when this song is on is ridiculous and worrying. I have to now switch the radio over whenever either of these songs are playing due to the content. Capital radio is the worst but Gem also plays the Bruno Mars song.

Can we now look into the radio stations being more aware of what they are playing the timing, and censoring certain songs with risky lyrics. As nearly every artist is jumping on the sex band wagon.

Oh blimey I'm not so sure about that. My DSs were merrily singing Sex 'n' Drugs 'n' Rock 'n' Roll in toddlerhood, and I grew up crooning along to oral sex from Lou Reed.

Jemery Vine talking about this at the moment. Extremes come across like they are nutters.

Extremes are not nutters if they are trying to protect their children under 10yrs old from being made aware of sex at an age where they should remain innocent. :(

I am not say that I don't agree with the cause I am saying that the woman who was arguing for this didn't come across well IMO.

I have to agree with those who have said that the issue is not so much the 'sexualisation' of children. I think it's more that there is a commercialisation of childhood which is where the pink alternatives come in.

I also think the problem is that the line between adult and child is becoming blurred as more people have an extended freedom in their 20s. So, for example, Little Miss Naughty knickers start to break down the divide between adult and child. Equally, children have more choice now because they have been made consumers and the parents' role is not so obvious.

I was thinking about high heeled shoes the other day. MIL wanted to get DD (almost 3) some high heeled dressing up shoes but I refused. However, I let her go round in my shoes? I think the difference is her role as a consumer. In my shoes she is parodying an adult, in shoes which are designed for her, are the right size etc. she becomes a consumer.

My thoughts on this are quite confused so I hope it makes sense!

There is a very strange part of the report which says "there is no button on the television for parents to regulate what is shown on the television" (or similar words to that affect).

But there are. Several buttons that do exactly that. The 'off' button, for example.

My daughter is 13. she listens to pop music with her friends and she goes to school disco's. As a child she has every right to expect not to be exposed to this. it is adults that write the records, record the music/videos, design the clothes etc. If you go into a shop and see clothing that is inappropriate then make a fuss there and then. if more people did it then there would be no market for it. There is a big difference between learning about reproduction and sex. My kids have known about the latter since babies because we live on a farm and they see it. However they don't need to see sex acts simulated by pop stars do they. I do my absolute best to keep them away from it - no soaps on TV, no sky TV etc but really the adults have to take this up. Why is it illegal for someone to make a racist comment but not illegal for them to be seen simulating a sex act on TV before the watershed?

What the woman on the Jeremy Vine show didn't manage to articulate very well is that it is not just the fact that things like the "sexy" clothing makes the kids look sexy (which the other woman understandably countered with the "problem is in your mind then) but that 7 year olds can read for themselves, so they are absorbing subliminally the fact that they should portray themselves as sexual objects.

Exactly thats the worrying part! Everyday they are exposed to subliminal messages. My children know whats an acceptable way to dress and non but now we also have to regulate their ears more so. Which is why regulation needs to be brought back into the radio stations like they used to do before. We have the most underage sexually active youngsters in Europe obviously music will play a part in there somewhere as well.

I know this is a little off the subject but I think this fulls under the same category. A friend of mine 2 daughters both under 11 went to a 'Big fat Gypsy wedding' themed party at the weekend. These little girls were dressed like little adults with fake nails, fake tans, hair all done, huge amounts of make up, high heals, mini skirts and cropped tops. The party age group was from 8 to 13. What were there parents thinking and how irresponsible! To put it bluntly they looked like little prostitutes and it was shocking to see. These children thought this was fab and fun but they are children and dont see the dangers, This is what their parents are there for - to protect them and be responsible for them. I believe that half of the parents did not agree to this wreak-less behavior of the mother of the child who organised it but felt pressured to allow their child to go and dress up so their child did not feel left out. What is as equally as shocking is that pictures of these little girls have been posted on facebook by parents stating how cute and grown up they look. Who else is looking at these pictures not with innocence but in a sexual manner??? The programme itself caused controversy and to think that mothers are copy catting the idea for birthday party's is flabbergasting. Please do not think I am a prude in anyway because I am not but I work in and see first hand the effects of child abuse and these irresponsible parents are only adding fuel to the fire. As the title states let children be children not little adults.
Ps - I have just been told, The only way is Essex parties for little girls are all the craze too!! Reem!!

I've totally gone off the Bailey Review now. A year or so ago it was possible, on MN at least, to see the relevant issues pursued in feminist terms in terms of helping to create an environment in which girls didn't need to explore their future adult selves by acquiring products that accessorise an inauthentic performance of sexuality. But today's reaction on MN seems to have been more censorious, more about 'protecting innocence'. There has even been discussion of censoring music lyrics and age-restricting books. I think without an explicitly feminist approach, or an explicitly anti-consumerist approach neither of which is in the report or likely to be permitted by govt -- it is all just sinking spongily into moral panic. And the report's recommendations aren't nearly decisive enough to be worth the provokation of that kind of conservative rhetoric.

Im amazed to hear that mothers would allow that to happen! especially with the facebook posting!

I'm afraid my DDs (10 and 13) think music age limits are very funny,
"But Mum if it's got an age limit and the TV won't show it that will just make it more fun to find on utube or vivo".
Now these are sensible girls who almost certainly not go looking at 18 certificate violent rap videos etc. But they watch 12 films, play 12 video games and know about sex so they are going to be a bit sceptical about controls on much else.
I'm going to take away far more of DD2s innocence trying to explain why people feel little girls dressing and dancing like that is wrong than letting her carry thinking it's just play acting growing up.

DD1 insisted on padded bras when she first got breasts, she said her breasts were tender and they were far the most comfortable. Only now does she want thin ones because they are cooler. Personally I wasn't keen on the bras because they made her look rather grown up. However, a year later she's taller than me, wears bigger shoes and adult sized clothes, so she looks grown up however she dresses.

Thread, it was clear from the outset where this was going.

Read through the thread in Campaigns. It's painful.