Won't someone think of the children!!!

Einhard

So it seems that Dave Cameron is going to do something about the perceived sexualisation of children for commercial purposes. Proposals include placing lads' mags in non-transparent wrappers, making parental controls on the internet more simplified and accessible, and reducing the amount of skin that can be shown pre-watershed.

I don't think it's as big a problem in Ireland as it is in England, and I'm not some latter day Mary Whitehouse, getting my jollies from moral outrage, but seeing dancing poles, push up bras and the like marketed at young children is slightly disturbing. And, much as I enjoy scantily clad gals, there's something a tad off about some of the raunchy routines one sees on the likes of the X Factor, pre-watershed programmes, aimed to a a great extent at teens, and pre-teens. So, while I think the ultimate responsibility lays with the parents, I'd welcome some such proposals here in Ireland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/03/cameron-backed-report-commercialisation-childhood

David Cameron is to back a plan to stop retailers selling inappropriate clothes for pre-teens and shield children from sexualised imagery across all media, including selling "lads magazines" in brown covers and making the watchdog Ofcom more answerable to the views of parents.

Retailers would be required to sign up to a new code preventing the sale of items for pre-teens with suggestive slogans, which the prime minister has repeatedly criticised.

The proposals come in a long-awaited report, leaked to the Guardian, on the commercialisation of childhood. It was commissioned by Cameron and is due to be published on Monday with strong support from Downing Street. Recommendations in the review, entitled Let children be children, include:

• The Advertising Standards Authority to discourage placement of billboards with sexualised imagery near schools and nurseries or other areas where children are likely to view it.

• A clampdown on sexualised and violent images shown before TV's 9pm watershed and curbs and cinema-style age rating for music videos.

• A single website to be created, to act as "an interface between parents and the variety of regulators across the media, communications and retail industries".

• Making it easier for parents to block age restricted material on the internet.

• Lads magazines to be moved to the top shelf in shops or sold in covers.

The report, which was prepared by Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Christian charity Mothers' Union, finds "sexualised and gender stereotyped clothing, products and services for children are the biggest concerns for parents and many non-commercial organisations".

In response to his recommendations on clothing, it is expected that the British Retail Consortium, following consultation with Mumsnet, the web-based parents' forum, will announce a new code next week. It is expected to advise retailers against suggestive or gender-specific slogans on clothes, black or enhanced bras, and will propose modest swimwear for pre-teens.

Carrie Longton, the co-founder of Mumsnet, which has campaigned against suggestive children's clothes, welcomed the principle of the code. "We launched our 'Let Girls be Girls' campaign to ask retailers to commit not to sell products which play upon, emphasise or exploit their children's sexuality. Now it's great that the industry as a whole, through the British Retail Consortium, has recognised their responsibility and drafted their own guidelines to encourage more responsibility up and down the high street."

The Bailey report says the internet industry must also be ordered to "act decisively to develop and produce effective parental controls" with "a robust means of age verification" for any content that is age restricted.

It says the government should legislate for parental controls over children's use of the internet "within a reasonable timescale" if voluntary action from the industry is not forthcoming

Some Labour politicians have, however, called for regulation to be put in place faster, and in evidence to the review the Advertising Association federation pointed out: "There is no existing mechanism to verify the age of a child ... which means children can lie about their age and register as a user".

Overall, the report gives the impression that the advertising, retail, music and internet industries have been too complacent and need to show greater willingness to engage with deep parental anxiety at what they are collectively producing for young consumers, both intentionally or inadvertently.

The report finds that "some parts of the business world and sections of the media seem to have lost their connection to parents. We are living in an increasingly sexual and sexualised culture although it is far from clear how we arrived at this point. Many parents feel this culture is often inappropriate for their children and they want more power to say no".

It condemns what it describes as the "sexualised images used in public places and on television, the internet, music videos, magazines, newspapers", and calls for public space to become more family friendly, so changing "the wallpaper of children's lives".

On the TV watershed, the report recommends that Ofcom revise its guidelines to give greater weight to the views and attitudes of parents, rather than viewers in general, as to what is shown on TV before the watershed. It also directs Ofcom to seek out the views of parents and report back annually on their attitudes.

Ofcom has dismissed previous complaints at the way in which programmes like X Factor, watched by millions of children, feature huge stars such as Christina Aguilera and Rihanna wearing few clothes and posing suggestively.

Ofcom ruled that Rihanna's routine "featured some gentle thrusting", but it was "suitably limited".

Ofcom currently has no figures on the number of complaints made about pre-watershed material by parents. It insisted that "we take the views of parents very seriously", but said it will co-operate with any proposals.

The Bailey report also calls for a website to act as "an interface between parents and the variety of regulators across the media, communications and retail industries".

It would be a means of launching complaints and gauging parental reaction to products. "Results of regulators' decisions and their reactions to any informal feedback should be published regularly on the site", the report says. Mumsnet offered to host the site.


Key measures


• Retailers to ensure magazines with sexualised images have modesty sleeves.

• The Advertising Standards Authority to discourage placement of billboards near schools and nurseries.

• Music videos to be sold with age ratings.

• Procedures to make it easier for parents to block adult and age restricted material on internet.

• Code of practice to be issued on child retailing.

• Define a child as 16 in all types of advertising regulation.

• Advertising Standards Authority to do more to gauge parent's views on advertising.

• Create a single website for parents to complain to regulators.

• Change rules on nine o'clock television watershed to give priority to views of parents.

• Government to regulate after 18 months if progress insufficient.

I was actually quite surprised by the reaction in the comments section under the article in the Guardian. Lots of talk about "fascist" government etc etc. I would have thought that minimising the sexualisation of pre-teens is something everyone could agree on? Apparently I was wrong.

KeithM89_old

Damn sexy kids....

Sonics2k

I'm not so fussed about the things on T.V. and magazines available in shops.

My only real issue is some of the clothes people sell and make available to children, and I mean those under the age of 12. Some of it is just sickening.

phasers

I was going to make a point about adults thinking of children as sexy using a visual aid but I'm afraid to google 'sexy kids' in case the government are watching my computer.

Deus Ex Machina

Sexualisation? Maybe if we didn't decide to consider all things sexual somewhat morally dubious maybe people would grow up with fewer hang ups* surrounding their sexuality?



*No erotic-asphyxiation pun intended.

cucbuc

I think it's long overdue myself. Regarding popstars like Rhianna and Katie Perry etc - they make their money largely from sales to pre-teen children and young teenagers yet their videos are quite raunchy and generally unsuitable for kids to watch, imo. Surely they know the general age of their fans from the demographic at concerts etc, so I wonder is it that they just dont care?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

When you see things like padded bras and thongs for seven year old girls. you have to say he has a point.

Problem is with the internet and suggestive websites, how do you block them? How do you stop kids from watching post watershed TV shows via streaming and how do you stop them from watching raucnhy music videos on youtube?

This is just a vote-getter - he knows nothing can be done, and if it could, he'd face too much opposition from the entertainment industry, but as long as it looks like he's doing something, that's good enough.

IvySlayer

Cameron is just appeasing the think of the children brigade for support, he's not exactly Mr. Popular right now.

The clampdown on TV is getting ridiculous. Even a slap is 'violent'. Typical of some parents wanting the government to ruin TV because they can't be arsed to look after their own children and use the TV as a babysitter. If you don't want your children watching certain programs, change the channel.

Programs are so watered down nowadays Even the word bastard is cut out. I remember watching an episode of Scrubs, there's so much unnecessary editing done nowadays.

What's sexualised imagery? A woman wearing a bra? It's illegal for naked imagery to be used so I'm confused about that.

Mumsnet? Have they asked only mothers? Is it a site dedicated only to mothers? Have they heard from the male side of it?

Einhard

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm not so fussed about the things on T.V. and magazines available in shops.

My only real issue is some of the clothes people sell and make available to children, and I mean those under the age of 12. Some of it is just sickening.

I agree to a point. I'm not particularly fussed myself, but I was watching BBC news last night, and they had a clip of a routine that looked as if it could have graced the opening of the new Bunny club in London, until it turned out that it was an X Factor interlude. Was somewhat shocked at that to be honest.

phasers wrote: »

I was going to make a point about adults thinking of children as sexy using a visual aid but I'm afraid to google 'sexy kids' in case the government are watching my computer.

Too late. They're on their way for you!!:pac:

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Sexualisation? Maybe if we did't decide to consider all things sexual somewhat morally dubious maybe people would grow up with fewer hang ups* surrounding their sexuality?

You're missing the point. It's not about having hang ups regarding sexuality, but rather having hang ups about thongs marketed at 10 year old girls, stripper poles aimed at their younger siblings, and women dressed in thongs gyrating on chairs in a tv programme marketed at youngsters, and shown before the watershed. One doesn't have to be a sexuallty repressed curtain twitcher to see anything wrong with that.

Einhard

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Problem is with the internet and suggestive websites, how do you block them? How do you stop kids from watching post watershed TV shows via streaming and how do you stop them from watching raucnhy music videos on youtube?

Well, I think parents have to shoulder most of the responsibility. But if a parent monitors their child's internet activity, it goes against that somewhat, when the child can see raunch on the X Factor, blatant sexual imagery on pop videos on MTV etc.

Mike 1972

cucbuc wrote: »

I think it's long overdue myself. Regarding popstars like Rhianna and Katie Perry etc - they make their money largely from sales to pre-teen children and young teenagers yet their videos are quite raunchy and generally unsuitable for kids to watch,

Who is this Rhianna you speak of ?

When I was growing up I had Madonna and Frankie Goes to Hollywood to corrupt my morals and dammit it was good enough for me.

ejmaztec

I wonder how fewer popular singers there would be without music videos?

Seachmall

I think Burqas should be worn in porn, there's just too much skin in those videos.

Deus Ex Machina

Einhard wrote: »

You're missing the point. It's not about having hang ups regarding sexuality, but rather having hang ups about thongs marketed at 10 year old girls, stripper poles aimed at their younger siblings, and women dressed in thongs gyrating on chairs in a tv programme marketed at youngsters, and shown before the watershed. One doesn't have to be a sexuallty repressed curtain twitcher to see anything wrong with that.

I don't think I am missing the point. These things are only considered bad or unwholesome from a perspective that considers sexuality to be inherently dirty or immoral, and I think it is difficult to justify that point of view without recourse to religious or prudish notions. If overt sexuality were ubiquitous then things like that the creepy old Irish view of sex could finally be put to rest.

ejmaztec

Seachmall wrote: »

I think Burqas should be worn in porn, there's just too much skin in those videos.

Or at least a paper bag over the head if it's Lady Gaga

OutlawPete

I was at the beach yesterday and some kids were wearing skimpy bikinis like you'd see on a porn star, worse - some were running around naked.

Remove vaginas, penises and bum holes at birth, give them back when they reach the age of consent, it's the only logical solution.

Einhard

IvySlayer wrote: »

Cameron is just appeasing the think of the children brigade for support, he's not exactly Mr. Popular right now.

What's wrong exactly with thinking of the children?

The clampdown on TV is getting ridiculous. Even a slap is 'violent'. Typical of some parents wanting the government to ruin TV because they can't be arsed to look after their own children and use the TV as a babysitter. If you don't want your children watching certain programs, change the channel.

Don't be ridiculous. The amoutn of sex and violence on tv now is far greater, and more explicit than ever before. I've anothing against that. Indeed, some of my favourite tv shows are both violent and contain their fair share of sex. However, the whole point of the watershed is to allow parents to make a decision about what their kids can and cannot watch, in the knowledge that programming before 9 will be deliberately less sexual in nature. I don't think this a bad thing at all, but it's undermined by some routines in some shows.

Programs are so watered down nowadays Even the word bastard is cut out. I remember watching an episode of Scrubs, there's so much unnecessary editing done nowadays.

No, they are not. Yes, some channels redact certain words, but quite often this is for daytime repeats, when children are watching. I have no problem really with kids hearing swer words, but the notion that tv is more tame than it once was is ludicrous. Some of the themes explored in an innocent show like Scrubs for example, would have provoked outrage in earlier decades.

What's sexualised imagery? A woman wearing a bra? It's illegal for naked imagery to be used so I'm confused about that.

No, of course not. I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Sexual imagery is generally quite obvious to most rational observers- gyrating on a chair wearing a thong is sexual imagery. I'd rather that kids weren't deliberately exposed to that kind of thing. Note the word deliberately. Of course children will encounter sexual imagery, it's unavoidable. But that doesn't mean they should be knowingly exposed to it for commercial purposes.

Einhard

OutlawPete wrote: »

I was at the beach yesterday and some kids were running around naked, worse - some were wearing skimpy bikins, like you'd see on a porn star.

Remove vaginas, penises and bum holes at birth, give them back when they reach the age of consent, it's the only logical solution.

Nothing at al wrong with that. I'm sure though, if you were on the beach and saw a pre-teen wearing a thong and a tiny bikini top, with something like "Porn Star" or "Hot Stuff" emblasoned on it, you wouldn't be quite so blase.

I think people realise what's meant by sexual imagery, so why do they pretend not to?

Einhard

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I don't think I am missing the point. These things are only considered bad or unwholesome from a perspective that considers sexuality to be inherently dirty or immoral, and I think it is difficult to justify that point of view without recourse to religious or prudish notions. If overt sexuality were ubiquitous then things like that the creepy old Irish view of sex could finally be put to rest.

Are you suggesting that only people with an unhealthy, respressed sexuality, find something untoward in the notion of pre-teens in thongs, playing on stripper poles, or with sexually explicit labels on their clothes?

My name is URL

Parents should ultimately be responsible. Perhaps instead of introducing a long list of rules, they'd be better off ensuring that parents actually accept the responsibilities rather than rely on the government to protect their kids.

Mike 1972

Einhard wrote: »

pre-teens in thongs, playing on stripper poles, or with sexually explicit labels on their clothes?

Im getting on a bit but when I was a kid my parents bought my clothes and toys and made a point of not buying anything they didnt approve of.

Im assuming it still works the same way right ?

liah

Well the thing is, it's not really about the children, is it?

What we forget, as our impure adult selves, is that kids don't automatically think about sex when they see videos like that. They just see people dancing. It's only us who see the sex part of it.

There's an optical illusion image floating around out there somewhere that can either look like a bunch of dolphins or two people embracing in a somewhat erotic fashion (not blatantly, but intimately I suppose). Kids? They only see the dolphins. Us? We typically see the figures first.

It's like with dirty lyrics - I think it was OutlawPete who posted a thread awhile ago about how he grew up singing filthy lyrics to a certain song without realizing it. We've all done that, a lot, and it never harmed us, because we didn't really 'get it.' Most of us turned out pretty okay.

So when it comes to clothing and the like, the only ones who think that it's sexual are people like us with no innocence left. The kids don't look at it that way, they just see it as dressing 'grown-up,' not 'sexy.' It's not a bad thing for them, it's not going to cause them psychological damage.

And so the only issue with people's objection must then be pedophilia-related, which I think is largely missing the point. Pedophiles don't give a crap if kids are dressed up like Lindsay Lohan or the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Pedophiles aren't attracted to adult sexuality (which clothes like the ones mentioned in the OP are created to emphasize), that's the whole point of pedophilia. They're attracted to children. Kids dressing 'sexy' isn't going to make a difference in the amount of kids being abused. Or at least, I don't believe so.

This kind of stuff really needs to be left up to the parents, not the government. The government is intrusive and damaging to freedom enough as is.

OutlawPete

Einhard wrote: »

Nothing at al wrong with that. I'm sure though, if you were on the beach and saw a pre-teen wearing a thong and a tiny bikini top, with something like "Porn Star" or "Hot Stuff" emblasoned on it, you wouldn't be quite so blase.

I think people realise what's meant by sexual imagery, so why do they pretend not to?

Your comments in the OP do not only refer to what you define as "sexual imagery" though. You stated:

Einhard wrote: »

Proposals include placing lads' mags in non-transparent wrappers, making parental controls on the internet more simplified and accessible, and reducing the amount of skin that can be shown pre-watershed.

It was this and this alone that I poked fun at, I have no truck with the rest of your points but nudity in-itself is not inherently sexual.

enfant terrible

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

When you see things like padded bras and thongs for seven year old girls. you have to say he has a point.

Padded bra is the last thing a pedo would want to see.

RussellTuring

Einhard wrote: »

So it seems that Dave Cameron is going to do something about the perceived sexualisation of children for commercial purposes. Proposals include placing lads' mags in non-transparent wrappers, making parental controls on the internet more simplified and accessible, and reducing the amount of skin that can be shown pre-watershed.

I don't think it's as big a problem in Ireland as it is in England, and I'm not some latter day Mary Whitehouse, getting my jollies from moral outrage, but seeing dancing poles, push up bras and the like marketed at young children is slightly disturbing. And, much as I enjoy scantily clad gals, there's something a tad off about some of the raunchy routines one sees on the likes of the X Factor, pre-watershed programmes, aimed to a a great extent at teens, and pre-teens. So, while I think the ultimate responsibility lays with the parents, I'd welcome some such proposals here in Ireland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/03/cameron-backed-report-commercialisation-childhood




I was actually quite surprised by the reaction in the comments section under the article in the Guardian. Lots of talk about "fascist" government etc etc. I would have thought that minimising the sexualisation of pre-teens is something everyone could agree on? Apparently I was wrong.

Yes you were. I saw reports yesterday about the calls for tighter restrictions on music videos and thought even that was too much. This is nothing sort of censorship which is another way of saying it is forcing the morals of some on many. If people have such a problem with these things they can choose not to watch or buy them or let their children do so. The companies are only responding to demands from customers and not initiating it. They may feed it, and we can argue to what extent, but they won't do anything unless they can make money from it.

Mike 1972

The ability of the UK government to restrict music videos is pretty limited in this day and age given that not all of the satellite music channels broadcasting into the UK are actually based there.

liah wrote: »

What we forget, as our impure adult selves, is that kids don't automatically think about sex when they see videos like that. They just see people dancing. It's only us who see the sex part of it.

Hit the nail on the head there.

When I was five years old one of my favourite songs was about prostitution. I heard it on the radio and mortified my parents by singing it around the house I knew all the words by heart but obviously hadnt a notion what it was about.

Einhard

My name is URL wrote: »

Parents should ultimately be responsible. Perhaps instead of introducing a long list of rules, they'd be better off ensuring that parents actually accept the responsibilities rather than rely on the government to protect their kids.

I agree with you there, but demanding parental responsibility does not preclude a government taking any form of action. Well, it doesn't preclude it in any other sphere save this one. For example, parents should ensure that their children are sufficently educated.. Most people would agree with that. Yet the government also enforces truancy legislation. The one complements the other, and nobody screams "intrusion".

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Im getting on a bit but when I was a kid my parents bought my clothes and toys and made a point of not buying anything they didnt approve of.

Im assuming it still works the same way right ?

Yes it does in most cases, and should in all. But there are some parents who just aren't that responsible, and I don't think it's a bad thing for a government to seek to minimise their deliberate sexualisation for commercial profits. Because that's what it amounts to. To analogise, should governments just abandon the minimum drinking age, and trust parents to enforce it on their children?

liah wrote: »

Well the thing is, it's not really about the children, is it?

What we forget, as our impure adult selves, is that kids don't automatically think about sex when they see videos like that. They just see people dancing. It's only us who see the sex part of it.

There's an optical illusion image floating around out there somewhere that can either look like a bunch of dolphins or two people embracing in a somewhat erotic fashion (not blatantly, but intimately I suppose). Kids? They only see the dolphins. Us? We typically see the figures first.

It's like with dirty lyrics - I think it was OutlawPete who posted a thread awhile ago about how he grew up singing filthy lyrics to a certain song without realizing it. We've all done that, a lot, and it never harmed us, because we didn't really 'get it.' Most of us turned out pretty okay.

So when it comes to clothing and the like, the only ones who think that it's sexual are people like us with no innocence left. The kids don't look at it that way, they just see it as dressing 'grown-up,' not 'sexy.' It's not a bad thing for them, it's not going to cause them psychological damage.

And so the only issue with people's objection must then be pedophilia-related, which I think is largely missing the point. Pedophiles don't give a crap if kids are dressed up like Lindsay Lohan or the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Pedophiles aren't attracted to adult sexuality (which clothes like the ones mentioned in the OP are created to emphasize), that's the whole point of pedophilia. They're attracted to children. Kids dressing 'sexy' isn't going to make a difference in the amount of kids being abused. Or at least, I don't believe so.

This kind of stuff really needs to be left up to the parents, not the government. The government is intrusive and damaging to freedom enough as is.

That's an excellent post. However, I'd take exceptions with some ot it. Of course, it's an easy mistake to imagine that children see the world as we might, and to object to images etc on that basis. That's a fallacy, but I think that anecdotal evidence, that which we see around us every day, would suggest that children are becoming much more sexalised at a much earlier stage. I have friends who have teachers, and they have commented on this. I see it myself with some of the items marketed to children, which are clearly sexualised in nature. A dancing pole I could accept- sure, it could be just an innocent plaything. But a thong with something sexy written on it, or a padded bra? That's something else entirely. I think you're right in pointing out that children don't necessarily see what an adult might see in an image or product, but I think it's wrong to suggest that children are entirely naive, or that such imagery and products doesn't re-enforce their sexualisation at an earlier age that might otherwoise be the case.

Also, it's not at all about paedophilia.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Your comments in the OP do not only refer to what you define as "sexual imagery" though. You stated:



It was this and this alone that I poked fun at, I have no truck with the rest of your points but nudity in-itself is not inherently sexual.

Rightio. That wasn't my opinion though, more a summary of the British proposals. I don't think nudity is at all wrong, and I have the photos my parents took of me in the bath as a toddler to prove it!!:pac:

RussellTuring wrote: »

Yes you were. I saw reports yesterday about the calls for tighter restrictions on music videos and thought even that was too much. This is nothing sort of censorship which is another way of saying it is forcing the morals of some on many. If people have such a problem with these things they can choose not to watch or buy them or let their children do so. The companies are only responding to demands from customers and not initiating it. They may feed it, and we can argue to what extent, but they won't do anything unless they can make money from it.

I find it strange that, in every other walk of life, people are suspicious of big corporations, and seek to limit their influence, yet when it comes to the early sexualisation, or at least the re-enforcing of that sexualisation, the companies should be allowed to make their profit. Don't dump your waste in the Atlantic; stop massacring dolphins; stop with your factory ships, and sweat shops; stop martketing baby formula in the 3rd world- but by all means, market thongs and "Sexy babe" emblazoned tank tops to our pre-teens. Seems odd to me.

Anyway, it's not all about selling such products, but also their marketing. A mother or father might take the decision to prevent their 10 year old buying a thong, but they can hardly prevent her from seeing the sexually charged billboards outside her school, or stop her watching an X factor interlude involving dance acts that one might see in a strip club.

As for censorship, don't be ridiculous. The watershed has long been regarded as the line after which, relatively speaking, anything went. I don't think it's too much to ask that, before 9pm, or 8pm, or some agreed time, the programming minimise explicit sexuality and raunch, especially when it is gratuitous. I mean, to continue your logic, it would be censorship to disallow such raunchy routines on Den TV or the Disney Channel.

Mike 1972

Einhard wrote: »

Yes it does in most cases, and should in all. But there are some parents who just aren't that responsible, and I don't think it's a bad thing for a government to seek to minimise their deliberate sexualisation for commercial profits. Because that's what it amounts to. To analogise, should governments just abandon the minimum drinking age, and trust parents to enforce it on their children?.

To a large extent they already do.
In the UK the minimum drinking age is five

Fukuyama

Forget about the internet. Infact, forget trying to censor anything. It won't work.

What we need is a change in attitude where women (and men in certain circumstances) aren't sexualised so much in-front of a teen audience so much.

I see it all the time. Girls want to be like *insert random glamor model here* and guys want to be like *insert random ripped rent boy here*.

Censorship won't work. It's underestimating he depth at which the sexualisation of children has been embedded into our attitudes. It's a band-aid for a bullet would.

Marketing push-up bras, magazine articles to 'impress boys' and 'fakeness' to young girls is sick. As is marketing unnatural 'six packs' to men (they're not natural - doing 100 crunches is not natural. Abdominal muscles should not look like that) and sexist attitudes as cool.

RussellTuring

Einhard wrote: »

I find it strange that, in every other walk of life, people are suspicious of big corporations, and seek to limit their influence, yet when it comes to the early sexualisation, or at least the re-enforcing of that sexualisation, the companies should be allowed to make their profit. Don't dump your waste in the Atlantic; stop massacring dolphins; stop with your factory ships, and sweat shops; stop martketing baby formula in the 3rd world- but by all means, market thongs and "Sexy babe" emblazoned tank tops to our pre-teens. Seems odd to me.

Yes that's exactly what I said in my post. The examples you gave such as destroying the oceans and exploiting people for cheap labour I certainly would consider worse than suggestive slogans on children's clothes so I'm not sure what your point is with that. If you think they aren't as bad, good for you but I disagree.

That said, I am the last person who would trust corporations to self-regulate. But there's a difference between stopping them harming people and telling the people that they are being harmed and so no longer have a choice.

Anyway, it's not all about selling such products, but also their marketing. A mother or father might take the decision to prevent their 10 year old buying a thong, but they can hardly prevent her from seeing the sexually charged billboards outside her school, or stop her watching an X factor interlude involving dance acts that one might see in a strip club.

They can complain and if the companies don't want to lose customers or get fines, they'll stop.

As for censorship, don't be ridiculous. The watershed has long been regarded as the line after which, relatively speaking, anything went. I don't think it's too much to ask that, before 9pm, or 8pm, or some agreed time, the programming minimise explicit sexuality and raunch, especially when it is gratuitous. I mean, to continue your logic, it would be censorship to disallow such raunchy routines on Den TV or the Disney Channel.

Well they could show that stuff but it wouldn't be long before they realised parents didn't want their kids to watch that and so would change their programming accordingly. Conversely, who are you or anyone else to decide what is appropriate and what is not, with the range of opinions on both sexuality and parenting that exists?

OMG Its EoinD

Like my sister is 12 and hearing her listen to Rhianna's song "Rude Boy" just seems so wrong....

google the lyrics if you don't know what I am on about....

Overheal

I am morally against these proposals. WHY do we want to de-sexualize future generations? When I become an old man I want there to be a horde of beautiful, young and sexualized 20-somethings to gawk at. Why would someone try to take that away from me? Those sick animals. They won't learn if they don't start early!

Einhard

RussellTuring wrote: »

Yes that's exactly what I said in my post. The examples you gave such as destroying the oceans and exploiting people for cheap labour I certainly would consider worse than suggestive slogans on children's clothes so I'm not sure what your point is with that. If you think they aren't as bad, good for you but I disagree.

I'm not equating environmental degradation or human exploitation to exploiting and driving the early sexualisation of children, but making the point that we rare rightly are suspect of the means by which such corporations make their profits, and object vociferously at times to those means, yet seem to have no problem if thoase means include the sexualisation of children.

Feck the whales, save the children!!:D

That said, I am the last person who would trust corporations to self-regulate. But there's a difference between stopping them harming people and telling the people that they are being harmed and so no longer have a choice.

Quite often children don't have a choice though. Off licences can't sell naggins to 12 year olds, but HMS can sell them thongs. Seems slightly odd.

They can complain and if the companies don't want to lose customers or get fines, they'll stop.

Well how exactly are companies going to receive fines if there's no regulation, something against which you're arguing?

Well they could show that stuff but it wouldn't be long before they realised parents didn't want their kids to watch that and so would change their programming accordingly.

Perhaps, but many parents don't, and can't police their kids every hour of the day. I've seen X Factor before, and say nothing at all untoward in it. However, I was fairly shocked that they included on the show such a raunchy and explicit performance as they one I saw on the news. parents can;t sit all day with their kids supervising every minute of every programme. I think therefore, it's eminently reasonable to state that, if you're going to show gratuitous sexual imagery, or if the show contains high levels of violence, or gore, or sex, then have it after 9pm. That way, parents can make an informed choice. Simple really.

Conversely, who are you or anyone else to decide what is appropriate and what is not, with the range of opinions on both sexuality and parenting that exists?

Are you serious? Sometimes I think people deliberately express the extreme opinion in AH just to be contrary. Because anyone who proposes that wider society have absolutely no say in parenting and the actions of parents towards their kids, is pretty freaking extreme.

Overheal

liah wrote: »

Well the thing is, it's not really about the children, is it?

What we forget, as our impure adult selves, is that kids don't automatically think about sex when they see videos like that. They just see people dancing. It's only us who see the sex part of it.

No, no I knew what I was doing when I watched The Thong Song on MTV.

Einhard

Overheal wrote: »

I am morally against these proposals. WHY do we want to de-sexualize future generations? When I become an old man I want there to be a horde of beautiful, young and sexualized 20-somethings to gawk at. Why would someone try to take that away from me? Those sick animals. They won't learn if they don't start early!

By the time you hit old age we'll be able to genetically programme hotties to become hyper-sexualised at 20, and to have a perverse attraction to dirty old men!;):pac:

Overheal

Einhard wrote: »

By the time you hit old age we'll be able to genetically programme hotties to become hyper-sexualised at 20, and to have a perverse attraction to dirty old men!;):pac:

something about that made me feel like....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu32fBkiHFE

cat_dog

Sex sells :cool:

enfant terrible

Einhard wrote: »

You're missing the point. It's not about having hang ups regarding sexuality, but rather having hang ups about thongs marketed at 10 year old girls, stripper poles aimed at their younger siblings, and women dressed in thongs gyrating on chairs in a tv programme marketed at youngsters, and shown before the watershed. One doesn't have to be a sexuallty repressed curtain twitcher to see anything wrong with that.

I remember people complaining about Rihanna's outfit being too reveling on x factor.

Don't know why because she had a bunch a topless guys dancing around her and nobody minded.

You also have Amanda Holden asking some young fella to take their top off so they can see their chest and no one cares.

Seems people just want female's to cover up.

Biggins

phasers wrote: »

...I'm afraid to google 'sexy kids' in case the government are watching my computer.

What do ya mean "in case"...
Big Brother is always watching.

xsiborg

Einhard wrote: »

...

ironic username OP considering the thread content...

AudreyHepburn

I think first and foremost the responsibilty for protecting children against the sexually explicit content on tv, adverts etc has to lie with the parents.

But from what I have seen, many parents are either unable or unwilling to enfore rules and boundries and so if the government wants to get to get tough on those promoting/using explicit advertising and so forth then I am all for it.

I saw recently at a certain cinema a group of young girls the oldest of whom was about 12 the youngest maybe 8 and every one of them had belly tops and mini skirts and high heels on. They looked like little prostitutes (can't think of any other way of putting it)! How their parents let them out of the house is beyond me. Is this way we want our children to grow up?

UsernameInUse

LOL...what a load of absolute BOLLOCKS

dvpower

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But from what I have seen, many parents are either unable or unwilling to enfore rules and boundries and so if the government wants to get to get tough on those promoting/using explicit advertising and so forth then I am all for it.

I saw recently at a certain cinema a group of young girls the oldest of whom was about 12 the youngest maybe 8 and every one of them had belly tops and mini skirts and high heels on. They looked like little prostitutes (can't think of any other way of putting it)! How their parents let them out of the house is beyond me. Is this way we want our children to grow up?

You want the government to regulate what clothes kids can wear?

RussellTuring

Einhard wrote: »

I'm not equating environmental degradation or human exploitation to exploiting and driving the early sexualisation of children, but making the point that we rare rightly are suspect of the means by which such corporations make their profits, and object vociferously at times to those means, yet seem to have no problem if thoase means include the sexualisation of children.

Feck the whales, save the children!!:D

Then I definitely agree to a large extent. I just think responsibility ultimately lies with the parents.

Quite often children don't have a choice though. Off licences can't sell naggins to 12 year olds, but HMS can sell them thongs. Seems slightly odd.

Well I honestly don't think the legal drinking age is very effective at curbing alcohol consumption by youths and think that we could have a lower limit (probably not as low as 12) if only we could change the problems deeply rooted in our culture. I think making something forbidden for children only makes it more desirable and if we don't give children enough freedom, they can rebel in ways we would never expect.

Anyway, the reason we don't sell alcohol to twelve-year-olds is because it can cause some very serious problems for them in the short and long term so it's not exactly the same as clothing.

Well how exactly are companies going to receive fines if there's no regulation, something against which you're arguing?

I think the current standards should be adequate. What's the point in banning billboards from the vicinities of schools, for example? Children don't spend that much of their time outside their schools; they go into towns and shopping centres, places immersed in advertising. It smacks of appeasement to me. I think it would make sense to ban any kind of promotions or advertising in schools during teaching hours, however.

Perhaps, but many parents don't, and can't police their kids every hour of the day. I've seen X Factor before, and say nothing at all untoward in it. However, I was fairly shocked that they included on the show such a raunchy and explicit performance as they one I saw on the news. parents can;t sit all day with their kids supervising every minute of every programme.

No they can't, but perhaps they should reconsider if they think a television is a good alternative to encouraging their children's creativity, reading, or anything else more productive they could be doing with their time. I know that's not what you meant, but I think that's a bigger issue here. If people really think television is that influential and indeed negatively so, why would they continue to watch it? Culture may be influential in many ways but it is mainly a reflection of the society that creates it.

I think therefore, it's eminently reasonable to state that, if you're going to show gratuitous sexual imagery, or if the show contains high levels of violence, or gore, or sex, then have it after 9pm. That way, parents can make an informed choice. Simple really.

Well what's gratuitous sexual imagery? A bra? A bare arse? Breastfeeding? A medical programme with full nudity? People have different ideas of what constitutes sexual imagery and violence. I wouldn't like the government to start asserting that much control on the media. Bad times.

Are you serious? Sometimes I think people deliberately express the extreme opinion in AH just to be contrary. Because anyone who proposes that wider society have absolutely no say in parenting and the actions of parents towards their kids, is pretty freaking extreme.

Pardon me, but I in fact do believe that wider society should have a say on this. The proposals are that parents should be given more of a say when deciding legislation that will affect the whole populace. While it is a very important role in society, parenting does not bring with it a greater sense of what is morally right for everyone. I didn't realise democracy was such a radical concept.