Dad, how do you make sex last longer?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

110
Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

210
There’s no one Thomson won’t burn to save his skin

by Tory Maguire

310
Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

by Helen Marston

410
If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

by Kate Southam

510
Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

by Tory Shepherd

610
Gina Rinehart’s the least interesting thing on this list

by Lucy Kippist

710
I’ve rocked out of my generation’s la-la-loop

by Jason Tin

810
Punch on: Open thread 24/05/2012

by Daniel Piotrowski

910
If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

by Anthony Sharwood

1010

by Joe Tucci

04 May 05:45am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

Schapelle has done her time

182

Do women need to know when to walk away?

Filed under: Advertising, Children, Parenting, Sex Education, Society

113 comments

As a parent, there is always that one question from your child that you struggle to answer. I never would have predicted the one that finally stumped me when it was asked by my 4-year-old son.

This sultry lady was once a Disney star.

With both of his Italian grandparents in the car, he asked me innocently and loudly - “Dad, how do you make your sex last longer?”.

I fumbled the answer, mumbling: “We will talk about it when you are older”. The conversation moved on quickly. The embarrassment for me lasted a little longer.

The question itself came from a billboard advertising a male impotency clinic. It is only one example of an ever increasing menu of ads, electronic games, songs, music videos and clothing that centre on messages about sex. Most of the time, the producers of these sexually laden images and words target adults.

But not always. There are t-shirts made specifically for babies with the slogan “I am a horny devil”. There are padded bras produced and marketed specifically for 6 and 7-year-old girls.

One day, children are watching their favourite starlet on the Disney Channel. The next day, the same starlet has released a raunchy music video. There are children’s pencil cases with the Playboy bunny in pink for girls and blue for boys.

Children are exposed to a growing and saturated diet of sex. Adult concepts are being forced onto children. It is confusing for them. It undermines their confidence. It often creates anxiety. It adds stress to relationships especially as they become adolescents.

Looking “hot” has entered the vocabulary of pre teens. You have to look sexy and thin to fit in. You have to change the shape of your body to look more like an adult. Then you will be cool. You will have fun. This is not just children playing dress ups. It is a cultural trend that can no longer be turned back.

Childhood is under attack by the adult world. And parents have been left out in the cold without the knowledge or the confidence to know what to do. They cannot really shield their children from these messages. They are everywhere.

Sex is interwoven into the fabric of children’s parties, toys, magazines and games. They see them on the way home from school. They have them texted to them by their friends. They find it in videos on YouTube.

The raunch culture is affecting children and young people in very real ways.

In our counselling services, we are referred more and more children who have engaged in problem sexual behaviour. These are children who have hurt other children with sex. They masturbate in public. They penetrate other children with their fingers and objects. They try to kiss children on their genitalia.

The majority of children receiving counselling only engage in this kind of behaviour when they have been sexually abused or traumatised in some way. For a smaller proportion of them, the problem sexual behaviour comes from the sexual messages that they see, hear and experience around them and cannot understand.

This information will be challenging for many to read. I would understand if there was a degree of discomfort when we are confronted with the reality that children as young as seven and eight years of age are engaging in problem sexual behaviour. But for the sake of all children, it is a reality that needs to be acknowledged and understood.

Awareness is the starting point for resistance. It holds the hope for sustained change. For some time, I have advocated for all advertisements to be accompanied by a child impact statement. This is a direct message from the creators of the ad to parents about the impact that the content and style of the ad can have on children.

It would highlight any potential problems for children. It would give parents information about how to address any concerns they may have for their children as a result of being exposed to the ad.

Child impact statements on advertising would unmask the aims of the advertising teams who develop ads and encourage them to think more sensitively about children and their needs.

Over time, it may lead to a greater appreciation of how the use of sexualised content is toxic for children’s well being and development.

Awareness would get people talking. It would be like an ongoing episode of the Gruen Transfer.

It would give all parents the confidence to know that being embarrassed by the questions of a four year old is part of being a parent.

It would give us the impetus to respond to children in a way that gives them an answer that is respectful of them. We could talk about how signs on billboards use words that are sometimes hard to understand especially for a child. It would be an honest answer.

Children appreciate it when they are told the truth. At the very least, it would be an improvement on the mumbled response I gave.

Share post:
Print page:
- Print Article

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself

371There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin

353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate

313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking

300Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer

262Who murdered the Arts degree?

246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...

231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

113 comments

Show oldest | newest first

- S.L says:
  
  07:08am | 04/05/11
  
  Joe my 5 year old son has timing as impeccable as yours!
  
  Reply
acotrel says:

09:11am | 04/05/11

Joe, I can’t see what your problem is? If a kid asks a question, your job is to answer it without prejudice. When my daughter was 8 years old we visited the red light district in Amsterdam, and she saw the girls selling themselves outside the Folies Bergere in Paris. We went to Pompei and the guy at the locked room said she probably shouldn’t go in. She said ‘we visited the red light district in Amsterdam’, so the guy said ‘OK, you can come in’, and she had a look at the explicit drawings from ancient Roman society. She’s now in her thirties, and has no hang-ups. She has always been very sensible, and somewhat reserved. I suggest your problem is with yourself - don’t worry about the kids, they can cope with the truth.
Super D says:

09:41am | 04/05/11

Why would you take an 8 year old to Amsterdam’s red light district? Having been there in my youth it would have to be the last part of Amsterdam I would take my kids.
Di says:

10:32am | 04/05/11

I was walking through Kings Cross with my teenage son once and noticed his curious glances at the women in the doorways, so I took the opportunity to ask him if he thought they looked happy. He said no not really, so I explained to him the social and economic disadvantages that most often drive women into prostitution, the dangers of prostitution and the effects that it can have on their physical and mental health. He’s since had a much more nuanced understanding of the ethics of sexual exploitation than the average bloke. I agree, honest, straight answers are the best policy with kids, age appropriate of course.
Jenny says:

11:00am | 04/05/11

I always though acotrel was a bit strange. These rockspider tendencies prove it
Steve says:

11:58am | 04/05/11

acotrel. You made the decision to visit the red light district in Amsterdam. You were in control of that. today sexual advertising is far more common and difficult to avoid. Apart from driving a different route it is difficult to avoid a billboard. I ahd a lovely evening in 1984 in the Amsterdam red light district but it would not be my choice to take an 8 year old. Parents now, via advertising, don’t have a choice as it is foisted on them.
Bruno says:

12:50pm | 04/05/11

reserved around you acotrel and reserved are two different things
Gladys says:

01:03pm | 04/05/11

I sort of agree with Acotrel, but what works for your child may not work for other children.

I don’t know what the answer is, but if we look at it another way, during WWI and WWII, little boys would have been keen to go off and join the army due to all the propaganda around the place.

Mothers would have had to control their urge to use their bayonets (sticks) on cats or dogs or other children. So they did.

It’s a weak comparison, but parenting is non-stop. Each generation has its issues to deal with and so we deal with them.

But answering a question like that is simple: do you know what sex is? When they answer, go from there.

BTW we passed a prostitute on the street today, and my 2yo pointed and looked at me (she’s not good at actually speaking, thank God). ‘Street walker, darling. They walk the streets for business.’ Which is fully true, and in line with what she was asking. ‘Gimme a noun, mother’.
VPR says:

05:01pm | 04/05/11

Acotrel, there is a difference between explaining things that kids happen to see or hear or questions that are a natural part of growing up and the inappropriate sexual saturation that children are getting these days. And the messages are very different. The message is that to be cool and grown up this is what you have to do. And now it is being aimed specifically at children, desensitising them to it all.The information is becoming more explicit and few are willing to put any restrictions on it. The music videos are a classic example, they can be played anywhere to any age group and because most are not rated children as young as 3 and 5 are watching what is essentially soft porn with not so subtle imagery. They you need to supervise I hear people say, but this is at the local bowling alley where my child is in a league, I don’t get much of a say, except to not use one of the few activities in this town for a child o do. I have 4 kids, they also have been to pompei and Amsterdam though I didn’t deliberately take them through the main red light district. They have also been to auschwitz and that was also difficult to explain, that that is life and history but that doesn’t mean its ok for them to watch the texas chainsaw massacre. We need to protect our children from the onslaught of those who may have alterior motives.
- TChong says:
  
  07:22am | 04/05/11
  
  Joe - the problem you hilight goes back as long as societies have existed, and I dont believe it is any worse now than before.
  Many sincere moral campaigners were predicting the end of decency because Elvis wriggled his hips, The Beatles sang about love and Chubby Checker (?) sang about his “Ding-a -ling”.
  Society survived.
  The Disney starlet - isnt it her right to appear in Playboy ( or whatever mag) ?
  Is it a feminist statement by the individual, or is she being expolited?
  The women say they are making powerful , personal affirmations etc
  Recent “controversy” about an Islamic girl posing for German playboy.-
  Do we support her , sticking it to the mullahs, ? or shake our heads about another woman fooling herself about self respect etc.?
  Who is correct?
  The women ?, the moral campaigners? , both? neither?
  Whos exploiting who?
  
  Reply
Ting Tong says:

08:28am | 04/05/11

TChong I think what Joe was eluding to - as many of us are - where does this stop? It started with a hip waggle in the 1950s and in 50 subsequent years has descended into a blurring of the lines between decency, shock value and porn. How much further do we have to go down the timeline before you no longer have to subscribe to the porn channel; you simply flick over to a music video.

Sure society survived some gyrating hips and a ding-a-ling, however I’m glad I won’t be around when society is ‘surviving’ in an era of such blatant sexual projection.

In saying that Joe notes that ‘childhood is under attack from the adult world’. Perhaps we should drop 4 Blackhawk choppers in and shoot all the adults in the eye and drop their bodies at sea.
acotrel says:

09:13am | 04/05/11

Of course the obvious answer to that leading question about ‘how do you make sex last longer? ’ is ‘you stop thinking about it’!
acotrel says:

09:29am | 04/05/11

Chongy You are obviously a lot younger than I am. Back in the fifties we youngies were seen as being right into sex drugs and rock and roll, and the oldies were paranoid. The reality was most young guys were virgins until their 20s, and even then spent most of their time tripping over their own feet. The revolution in the 60s changed things a bit but the prudish attitudes were still around. Even in the 80s unwanted pregancies were cause for shame in many families. The prudery did much more damage to peoples lives than licentiousness ever did. Have a look at our current divorce rate and ask yourselves how many people were pressured into marriages that were doomed from the start?
Jo says:

10:44am | 04/05/11

I fail to see how Elvis wiggling his hips is in any way comparable to the kind of imagery that kids are regularly exposed to on a mass scale now. It’s actually considered child abuse by child health professionals to expose kids to pornography, yet significant numbers of kids are viewing hardcore porn and other violent images at an average age of 11. The level of exposure to such material due to easy Internet access is on a scale never before seen in our history. Researchers are noting an increase in child on child sexual assault, in youth sexual assault which was recently found to have increased in Australia while all other youth crimes decreased. To suggest that these concerns have something to do with prudery or ‘moral panic’ is disengenuous at best.
Economist says:

12:49pm | 04/05/11

@Ting Tong and Jo, yes the internet exposes people to more overt content and a wider audience. Yet T Chong has a point in that this behaviour happened pre-internet, pre-industrialisation etc. it has always been around.

You only have to look at rates of child sexual assault in small remote communities who don’t even have internet access. The key drivers are education and talking about these issues as well as condemnation and prescution of adults.
The Cricket says:

05:40pm | 04/05/11

It was Chuck Berry who sang about his Ding A-Ling.
Austin 3:16 says:

05:33pm | 04/09/11

Ting Tong,

Once upon a time, mum + dad and as many kids as they had all lived in a one room hut. It’s a bit older than a the 1950’s
- Peter says:
  
  08:09am | 04/05/11
  
  Simple answer to the childs question . Smoke mariguana.
  
  Reply
TChong says:

08:38am | 04/05/11

Psst Pete.
Over here man.
How much for a half oz. of iguana?
Best in a pipe? billy ? or jay?
Would you need to mull it all up ? shuold i consider the bones are like stem- too much in the deal = rip off.?
Dont know if the “buds” would be too desirable.
Most important, can you get on? and can i fix you up on pay day?
Jane says:

09:06am | 04/05/11

TChong - aren’t you full of info. Now I understand where your ramblings come from.
TChong says:

09:53am | 04/05/11

Is that you Jane, Maryjane?
Maryjane Hoowanna?
- jim morris says:
  
  08:31am | 04/05/11
  
  daughter watching pop video “mum, can i be a slut when i grow up too?”
  
  Reply
acotrel says:

09:17am | 04/05/11

@Jim Morris
I might ask my wife that question!
Gladys says:

01:17pm | 04/05/11

What did you answer?
Tim says:

02:15pm | 04/05/11

“What did you answer? “

not til you’re fifteen dear
- Luke says:
  
  08:33am | 04/05/11
  
  I like how the younger generation is always accused of being the ones in the wrong. It’s the teenagers, Generation [whatever], youth etc. Nobody EVER blames the people creating the environment that the younger ones grow up in.
  
  Who came up with the Bratz dolls? Or the bras for pre-pubescents? Or the plethora of other sexually charged crap that invades our culture? Who then makes the decision to stock it in their stores, show it on their channels, and print it in their magazines? None of these things are done by the ones who are affected - it’s always the older generations, the ones who then complain when their kids act in accordance with their ‘training’. It’s always the older generation who are only interested in getting a few more bucks in their coffers at the expense of anything and everything.
  
  Whilst this article didn’t place the blame at the children, it really didn’t take a dig at the adults who come up with such pervasive rubbish. What good is a parental advisement at the bottom of a gigantic billboard? “This ad might cause kids to ask unconfortable questions”. How will that help anything? Do you want TV ads to be rated individually? Does each ad have a 10 second advisory part for the parent to read before covering little Billy’s eyes?
  
  Reply
Mahhrat says:

09:15am | 04/05/11

@Luke, I agree, and this is yet another example of why the free market cannot control itself, though I don’t wish to totally derail the train right now.

The thing is, my 12 yr old lass is being exposed to these things, but they don’t affect her. Why? Because her mother and I (who’ve been divorced most of her life) are both teaching her that peer pressure is stupid, warned her that she’ll be subjected to it nonetheless, and shown her that people only ever ‘suggest’ things for their own benefit, not hers.

Of course, that might change, but for now it seems to be working really well.
Jay says:

10:53am | 04/05/11

Agree Luke. It really makes me wonder why they call it ‘adult entertainment’ when we act like such spoilt children at any criticism of the material we’re exposing our kids to in the name of our ‘freedom’ and ‘entertainment’.
DAvid says:

06:30pm | 04/04/12

Mahhrat, you like most others have overlooked the MOST important part of a free market ... It needs needs to be inhabited by free people who make decisions based on their personal moral values and not simply on whether it is legal or illegal / popular or unpopular.

If no-one bought the magazine or listened to the music or watched the movie because they felt it went too far and would contribute to the problems being discussed here then it would go away all by itself.

The real problem is that people these days are totally dependent on the state and if it is on the shelf it is OK, If it has a PG rating it must be OK, if it is not illegal it must be OK.

Personal responsibility and accountability is what is missing and is what we desperately need to get back.
- MikeH says:
  
  09:20am | 04/05/11
  
  @Luke: From the article: “Childhood is under attack by the adult world.” I think that places the blame pretty squarely.
  
  On the other hand, I think the focus of the article was more on identifying a real problem and suggesting some strategies to address it. Which, I think, is a more useful approach than seeking out who to blame.
  
  Reply
Luke says:

10:28am | 04/05/11

I understand what you’re saying, but don’t really agree. “...under attack from the adult world” is not an indictment on the people doing these things, but more of a statement of fact.

Anyway, that’s not really important. I do agree with your comment that strategies need to be discussed, but what was listed in the article seems so entirely unworkable (and completely weird) that it’s not really a suggestion.

Unfortunately my arguments tend to lean towards censorship, and that is something that MUST be avoided at all costs. When censors are free to dictate what can and can’t be seen, then those people will become so corrupt and power-hungry that we end up living in a place that is dictated to by fringe/fundamentalist groups, bleeding hearts preying on emotive arguments, and the odd “Refused Classification” laws we have here in Australia which is a neat way of banning things that could never be banned.

My ideas tend towards legislation that forces corporations and businesses to be socially, morally and financially responsible. As it is, a business can be as reprehensible as they want with the only penalties being if they break a somewhat related law (environmental damage, WorkCover/OH&S etc). Predatory behaviours, removing competition, collusion etc are all part of running a business these days and the ACCC don’t have either the legislation or the balls to free us from the tyranny of this corporative awfulness.
Erin says:

10:38am | 04/05/11

Not only that, but when people come out all guns blazing against teh advertising industry or whatever that are feeding these images to kids there is always some backlash screaming about ‘moral crusaders’. I think this article was right in pointing out it is important to recognise the problem. I think in essence this was the main point of the article.
Lisa H. says:

05:47pm | 04/05/11

Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of group dynamics at work in this debate: business pressures, advertisers wishing to ‘stand out’ and have a successful campaign. Shop keepers who wish to actually sell something they stock. Sex, titillation - even shock - sells, and everyone knows it.

So it’s easier, and more interesting, to just pass the buck. The advertising standards bureau which allowed the ‘SEX’ bill boards was a case in point. The ever-so-clever sexual ‘experts’ on the board decided that there was nothing wrong (‘dirty’)about the word ‘sex’ . Which of course, there’s not. But context is surely everything in sex, sexual health, and sexual discussion.

And then there’s the knee-jerk label ‘prudery’.

Our society is not very sophisticated in its discussions surrounding the CONTEXT of sexual behavior and context. The mystery was really more than half of the journey, was it not?
- acotrel says:
  
  09:35am | 04/05/11
  
  @Luke I have a religous friend with 5 kids, and no TV. The kids seem better for their situation, but I wonder how they’ll cope with the scam merchants in the real world.
  
  Reply
Reid Wright says:

10:49am | 04/05/11

it’s hard to say the kids are better for the situation when it is the only situation they know. They may well have more friends than just their siblings if they didn’t get called “no TV godhead” by all the kids at school. I think having strongly religious parents is probably more of an issue than the no TV. I’m pretty sure sitting around the living room singing songs of prayer breeds serial killers. I think religion should be discovered not taught.
Andre says:

03:35pm | 21/03/12

We quite often have “TV holidays”, where I pack up the TV and store it in the shed for a month or so. I have noticed our kids (6,4 and 2 yr olds) behavior change for the better when there is no TV.
Megan says:

07:18am | 15/05/12

@Reid Wright: why do you assume these children have no friends other than their siblings? Why do you assume they’re called names at school? Even if those two assumptions were true, the problem wouldn’t be with their parents, who are only teaching their children to follow their family’s moral codes, but with the people who *didn’t* teach their children to respect others even when they are different. Religion is only a problem when it breeds intolerance, which is usually caused by the followers and not inherent in the religion itself. Even though you profess to be opposed to religious teachings, it doesn’t seem like your approach is very respectful, or even tolerant of others. And tolerance is the very minimum we should be aiming for.
Oh, FYI - I’m not a huge fan of organized religion either, but it’s a personal decision for me just as it is a personal decision for them.
- Nil by Mouth says:
  
  09:54am | 04/05/11
  
  Joe,
  I thought your article was spot on until you stated:
  
  “For some time, I have advocated for all advertisements to be accompanied by a child impact statement. This is a direct message from the creators of the ad to parents about the impact that the content and style of the ad can have on children.”
  
  I don’t want to sound negative, but do you really think this is workable? How exactly would a ‘child impact statement’ (CIS) “accompany” an advertisement on tv? I mean, will the (let’s say) 3 minute CIS air on tv immediately before each respective 30 second ad is aired? Or will the creators of the ad come to your home and my home and everyone else’s home every time their ad is screened and explain it to us? Exactly which parents are they going to explain themselves to? Perhaps they will just post the child impact statement on their website for nobody to visit? And if concerned parents go to the ad creators’ website and read the child impact statement, then so what?
  “Woopdy doo, I read the child impact statement of the latest Bratz doll ad, and the creators of the ad said that , . . ” So what?
  Do you really think the ad creators are going to come clean about their motives? And even if they do, so what?
  Sorry Joe, but you are living in pixie land if you think that your proposal will have any positive impact. Please come up with a better, more realistic and more workable solution to this massive problem.
  
  Reply
- Teal Linner says:
  
  10:05am | 04/05/11
  
  Is it me or does Tucci look a lot like Tim Curry?
  
  Anyway…...
  
  Media and social/peer/family pressure are to blame for this, I have a little foster brother who by the time he was 8 was/is basically brainwashed into believing his sole purpose in life is to grow up and find a “chick” to settle down with, fuck like rabbits and produce the next generation of the human race.
  
  Kinda sad really….
  
  Reply
Kelly says:

11:00am | 04/05/11

Yes. One of the biggest tantrums I ever threw as a child was when my dad sat me down and told me I was going to grow up one day, marry a nice young man and have lots of babies. Poor dad. I grew up to be a lesbian.
- Steve says:
  
  10:07am | 04/05/11
  
  I agree with Joe’s concern (even though I don’t have kids).
  
  But I’m laughing at the hypocracy of the boomer generation who embraced and benefited from the ethos of ‘if you’ve got it, flaunt it’ and ‘let it all hang out’. Who bought Playboy and Hustler magazines? And the Cleos and Cosmopolitans?
  
  The boomers yelled down the prudes and the churchy types. Those who objected to porn or raunchy ads were publicly tarred as a religious nutjob with a sexual hang-up. Now they are grandparents, and like all old people they think the world is going to hell.
  
  Tut-tutting about children’s sexuality after promoting the free expression of sex and sexuality for decades is just hypocracy.
  
  And going after ads alone is pointless unless you go after the contents of magazines like Dolly or Cleo and their male equivalents. How about the story lines of Home and Away? Music videos?
  
  Reply
- Sad Sad Reality says:
  
  10:11am | 04/05/11
  
  Just tell the truth. A full wallet.
  
  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5536873.ece
  
  Reply
TracyH says:

12:07pm | 04/05/11

Interesting read. It’s a no brainer to me though, why women biologically have orgasms…so they want to have sex! Otherwise we’d never have evolved because it’d just be rape rape rape all day long. Yes big wallets do help. However…this has nothing to do with the article.

I think kids have always played ‘doctors and nurses’...I did, anyway, and we didn’t even have a TV, or access to viagra ads etc. So, is it these types of games that are now considered sexually deviant, or are there far more serious acts occurring? What ever the case, the best way to tackle any problems in society is awareness, education and open discussion. I believe the kids in homes where people are thoughtful and perceptive have a far better chance, as they always have. The kids in unloving, alcohol and drug affected environments will always be vulnerable, so to say “the kids will be alright”, as an above poster claimed, is blinkered and naive. Fortunately, in government schools a lot of emphasis is placed on teaching kids how to recognize the persuasive and insidious nature of advertising. At least that’s a start.
St. Michael says:

12:52pm | 04/05/11

@ TracyH: “Yes big wallets do help.”

So does that mean ZZtop was right? Is every girl crazy for a sharp dressed man?
Sad Sad Reality says:

01:26pm | 04/05/11

I ain’t sayin’ she a gold digger.
TracyH says:

02:28pm | 04/05/11

Actually, I had a sort of reverse gold digger situation recently…I’m 47 and this nice enough bloke in his early 30’s asked me out…a male friend dragged me aside and said “Trace, he’s only after your money”..I was gobsmacked because I thought “What!!? Not my humour, looks and superb personality???”...ouch!!!!!!
- HappyCynic says:
  
  10:16am | 04/05/11
  
  “The majority of children receiving counselling only engage in this kind of behaviour when they have been sexually abused or traumatised in some way. For a smaller proportion of them…”
  
  This says that more adults are attacking children than ads and messages attacking children. Since most of the increase in kids being referred to therapy for engaging in overtly sexual behaviour is more to with adults who can’t keep their grubby hands off of children, I think that that is what people should be focussing on.
  
  In terms of the messages kids are receiving isn’t it the job of parents to put it into some age-appropriate context? If you’re not capable of doing so, and instead choose to avoid answering the question, then you as a parent are, potentially, the ones doing damage to your children’s sexuality. Since the child’s curiosity hasn’t been satisfied, they’ll seek answers from somewhere else, somewhere potentially far more damaging.
  
  Oh and there is always an age-appropriate explanation for everything in this universe, whether it’s the intimate details of how the universe operates or the embarrassing details of a human’s sexuality. Anyone who believes otherwise simply lacks the imagination and intelligence necessary to articulate the appropriate explanation.
  
  Reply
- NSW says:
  
  11:02am | 04/05/11
  
  “Well son, how about I tell you how you can? Go to the gym a lot. You’ll also need to have lots and lots of money and a nice car with big shiny wheels. Wear T-shirts three sizes to small all year making sure you act like a total wanker at all times whilst treating females poorly. Pretty soon you’ll have three to four of them sending you texts and you’ll be able to pick and choose at your leisure. For the younger naive ones the money factor wont be too much of an issue, the car will be enough but if you want some older ladies on the go I cannot stress enough that you will need to be rich or at least appear to be”
  
  Reply
- dancan says:
  
  11:26am | 04/05/11
  
  So instead of taking the opportunity to discuss (even in simple non descriptive terms) sex and I don’t mean right there in the car you could have waited till home. You’ve instead chosen to ignore his question and natural curiosity, dismissing him completely with “We will talk about it when you are older”.
  
  Meanwhile he will continue to see more of these messages on TV, billboards, school yard, magazines, etc, etc. And the only resource he will have to answer questions like the one in the car will be the very material which prompted his question in the first place because YOU won’t talk to him.
  
  Sex is not a bad thing. Your lack of confidence in the subject is a bad thing.
  
  You have the opportunity to teach your son about self-respect, self image and sex while he’s curious and learning, before he’s imprinted and instead you ignored him.
  
  Nice work on being a bad father.
  
  Reply
dancan says:

12:16pm | 04/05/11

Actually. Calling Joe a bad father is a bit harsh. Though he should learn how to talk to his son and understand that the world is constantly changing. Joe needs to update his parenting method to reflect this rather than stick his head in the sand
TracyH says:

01:20pm | 04/05/11

Glad you could amend your post a bit dancan…I was going to say it was a bit harsh, but you beat me to it. Nothing more refreshing than self reflection.
Lisa H. says:

06:20pm | 04/05/11

Dancan seems to think Joe thinks sex is a bad thing… why would he come to this bizarre conclusion?
Oh, because Dan himself is such a groovy guy and LOVES sex and so he’s very relaxed about the subject.
You might be self reflective, Dan, but you’re still holier than thou!
stoneage liberal says:

03:01pm | 26/04/12

I think Dancan has a valid point here, sex is not bad, the strange moral constraints that every so often become a generational norm are just that, swings of a cycle. It should be remembered that in biological terms, recently people had children at a very early age and if you look at lots of hunter gatherer type tribes sexual taboos and inhibitions barely exist. The entire take on sex and sexuality is viewed through your own window of subjectivity. I would also question what magically happens at 16 to make it all OK. Silly people all frighten of the big bad genitals.
- Shenanigans says:
  
  11:27am | 04/05/11
  
  i put the blame on the parents, i see children and pre teens walking around with clothes on that really couldnt be called clothes, they would be better off wearing a fig leaf. I’m not a parent yet so i can’t really defend myself here yet, but what parent in their right mind lets their child wear clothes that don’t cover their arse or are so high you can see their pubes, or shirts so low cut that the navel is poking out, teach children modesty and self respect and you will be off to a good start.
  And its not just young girls and their clothes, its those idiot young boys with “rat tails” and mullets (when the hell did they come back into fashion) walking around with the idea that everyone woman is there to serve a man’s every sexual desire and as such should be dressed accordingly.
  
  Who ever said modesty isnt beautiful is/was an idiot, from my POV women who were taught self respect and modesty as children and who can dress conservativly are far more attractive.
  
  Reply
Mum of Three says:

05:58pm | 04/05/11

Shenanigans, I am a parent with 3 teenagers (2 girls 1 boy), and I definitely DON’T let my kids out wearing the clothes you describe. They are also aware of how of their father and I feel about such clothing. There was the time, however, that my 14yo daughter left the house in perfectly respectable clothing, but changed (or bought) clothes while she was out with friends and was shocked and embarrassed to run into me at the shopping centre. I smiled and said hello to her and her friends, and asked if she would like me to take her “old” clothes home so she wouldn’t have to carry them. She fumbled, head down, mumbled yes and gave me the bag. Lesson learnt. We talked about it when she got home, and decided that self-respect was more important than peer pressure. No doubt I am not the only parent that has “caught out” their child (accidentally or otherwise) - it’s too easy sometimes to blame the parents. When we don’t allow our children freedom to learn independence and the chance to build trust, we are not giving them “life skills”. I have noticed with children the lessons they learn in their own time (not in parent time!) are usually more successful. Wandering around town inappropriately dressed is something kids, especially girls, will do regardless (usually in spite of) parental disapproval until they finally come to the realisation themselves that it’s not good.
Tim the Toolman says:

04:50pm | 05/05/11

“We talked about it when she got home, and decided that self-respect was more important than peer pressure.”

Oh irony. No dear…pressure from me is fine. Pressure from your friends is not. Now come over here and do some knitting with me until I die…then you can make decisions for yourself. Not before.
- Govt@FauxCitizen says:
  
  11:44am | 04/05/11
  
  @ Joe,,, You should have been brutally honest Joe and told your 3 year old it’s just some rubbish, fantasy and bullshit some money hungry con artist is trying to sell. We do not have to be embarrased by other people’s bullshit, as responsible parents we have an obligation to our children to be brutally and openly honest and teach them the difference between bullshit and reality, with due regard their age. Social engineering takes on many formats, desensitising and sensitising in its various forms, take for example the meat in supermarkets, divorced from reality nowdays conveniently cut and presented in black trays with a black absorbent mat so that no one will be upset by the fact that there is BLOOD heavan forbid, yet dead and mutilated human bodies are shown on a regular basis through various media, children are taught at an early age how to accept sex and reproduction by our educators way before they learn how to be loyal and helpful to their family and parents and ultimately to themselves, it’s akin to teaching a child how to fly a 747 before they can ride a pushbike safely. Children are being taught that fantasy is acceptable while reality and respect is not,, so much so that often they do not seperate the two, and it becomes a culture we see too often with graffiti, public nuisance, violence, and general disrespect.and disregard not only for the community but also for themselves, honesty is the best policy for all children and with due regard for their age, show me a child or parent if given the choice would rather have sex education and safe syringe lessons or instead learn how to plant a vegie patch, raise poultry for eggs and meat, small engine maintenance, motor car maintenance, or just plain how to separate bullshit from reality lessons and develop their individual self esteem and intelect reducing peer pressure and perceived society requirements, as you did when you too read that same billboard bullshit.
  
  Reply
- Othello says:
  
  01:03pm | 04/05/11
  
  Childhood is our most enjoyable part of life, we get to play and have none of the responsibilities we will have as adults, let children be children for as long as they can. There is plenty of time as they get older for them to delve into questions of sex and other issues. I don’t like those billboards , I wonder how many people driving down the street, suddenly realize they have a problem and go to the advertiser for help. Most of us don’t need a billboard to tell us if our sex life is failing
  
  Reply
- Shane from Melbourne says:
  
  01:08pm | 04/05/11
  
  As long as information on STDs and prevention of unwanted pregnancy is given at some point in time (when they are older) then that is what matters.
  
  Reply
Lisa H. says:

05:50pm | 04/05/11

HAHA , yeah! It’s all about the physical!
Lisa H. says:

06:15pm | 04/05/11

Sorry didn’t finish my comment properly

It’s all about the physical…except if you’re under 16.
Then it’s an outrageous tragedy.
But once ‘legal’ - and it’s all good healthy fun as long as a rubber is involved.
The reductionism surrounding sexual discussion in our culture is depressing.
- L. says:
  
  01:16pm | 04/05/11
  
  To the author..
  
  So your 4 yr old, pre-school aged child can:
  
  A.. Read at that level and.
  
  B Comprehend what he just read..?
  
  Sorry sport, I just don’t believe it.
  
  Reply
Gladys says:

01:45pm | 04/05/11

Maybe he wanted to brag about his boy being advanced?
Andy says:

01:54pm | 04/05/11

exactly my thoughts. a four year old would not be able to construct the sentence to repeat it or understand it at all even if it could read the words.(which is highly unlikely). Totally unbelievable.
Economist says:

02:34pm | 04/05/11

To be fair to the author he didn’t say the child read it. The more feasible scenario, but I’m speculating, is they were in the car and he and the grandparents were talking about the filthy sign they just passed on the road and the kid piped up “How do you make sex last longer?”.

So the lesson is, be careful what you say in front of your kids, because you might think they’re distracted , but they’re always listening in.
Markus says:

02:37pm | 04/05/11

I could read and comprehend newspaper articles by the age of 5.
I’m not sure what sort of special kids you are hanging around if you think being able to read and comprehend a single short sentence is out of the realms of possibility.
L. says:

03:10pm | 04/05/11

Really Markus..?? Reading about the carbon tax or middle east issues (typical news paper articles) were well within your grasp at age 5..??

Sorry, again..don’t believe it.
TracyH says:

03:30pm | 04/05/11

I could read and write, and construct meaning well before school. So could my brother. We are of average IQ. Just had parents who made learning so much fun:). To the pedants…the author was just making a point with an eye catching heading…
Markus says:

04:51pm | 04/05/11

In my 5 year old self’s defence, nothing the government has released thus far about the proposed Carbon Tax makes any sense, so I’d forgive him for struggling to understand the concept of taxing air.
L. says:

08:33pm | 04/05/11

“the author was just making a point with an eye catching heading… “

And here I was thinking the foundation of his article was a lie. I have seen it before from the “think of the kiddies” set.
Alice Anne says:

08:27pm | 06/05/11

I was also able to read at that age, and had been reading before I started school. Believe it or not, your choice, simple statement of the facts.
Leah says:

08:57pm | 15/07/11

He could have heard it on the radio or on TV.

Besides, I know 4 year olds who can read whole sentences.

Chances are the kid didn’t comprehend it because he probably doesn’t know what sex is, he’s just repeating what he saw/heard.
- zoe says:
  
  01:34pm | 04/05/11
  
  your 4 year old can read?
  
  Reply
L. says:

01:41pm | 04/05/11

snap
L. says:

01:44pm | 04/05/11

Actually Zoe, not only that…

But this 4 yr old wunderkid who read a sign about sex just happens to be the son of the CEO of the Australian Childhood Foundation..

I mean, what are the odds..??
Austin 3:16 says:

08:19pm | 04/09/11

Hey L,

With all the qualifications and experience the author has the best he can come up with is “We will talk about it when you are older”.

What are the odds of that too ?
- caitlin says:
  
  01:55pm | 04/05/11
  
  Parents should be able to communicate about sex and sexuality with their children at an appropriate timeline for their child- not because a billboard or other unavoidable adult media has been imposed on them.
  
  I keep hearing things like ‘it’s just the parents being too uncomfortable talking about sex’ and other references to shortcomings of parents. This is an unfair generalisation, one that I personally do not put a lot of stock in. I know for myself that I intend to have honest, open communication with my children, and also educate them and teach them to think critically for themselves. But should I have to explain overly sexual or graphic images to my 5 year old, just because they are on a billboard, or on a poster in a shop front? It seems I can’t take my children anywhere out in public without risking a scenario like this.
  
  Children should be free to develop their own healthy sexuality naturally- on their own timeline. It shouldn’t be something that is imposed on them when they are not yet at an appropriate stage of development.
  
  Reply
Steve says:

02:39pm | 04/05/11

I agree with you caitlin. As a parent I am losing my freedom to choose when to have discussions about sex because of advertising. Unfortunately I don’t think it will change before my kids grow up so I am forced to adapt to it.
dancan says:

03:54pm | 04/05/11

The world changed a long time ago, several decades back I’d say. Previously it was fine to have a more hands off approach to child raising, that innocence would last till their mid-late teens, that the worst thing a parent could think of was “the talk”. Now it is a case several talks over several years ensuring that as the child, pre-teen and teen are exposed to different forms of sexual (and also violent) media the parent can guide them through. The idea of “talking to you when you’re older” is an absurd notion now because by the time they’re older, they’ll have seen and done more than you.

Educate yourselves as parents, yes that means probably reading, hearing and seeing things you’d prefer not to and probably find revolting. But with the internet it’s a pretty good bet your kids will read, hear and see these exact same things and then where are you going be? With so many sources of influence and information available these days a parent must be able to hold an opinion, be confident in their response, be honest and make sense. As a parent if you’re unable to do this when your kid asks you about longer lasting sex (or worse) they’re just going to go elsewhere.

Lastly. The world will forever change for better or worse and will never go back to what is was previously, holding onto old parenting styles which your parents probably used won’t be anywhere effective now or in the future
- kimberley says:
  
  01:56pm | 04/05/11
  
  A 4 yr old knows how to pronounce S E X ?
  
  Reply
- Mike says:
  
  04:01pm | 04/05/11
  
  @Kimberly, I too would like to know if the child can read at 4 yr old or if he overheard the adults in the car talking about the advertisement, in which case the author or the grandparents brought it upon themselves. The annecdotal evidence (unless this child is gifted) is that this was a rather poor/clumsy lead into the subject being discussed.
  
  Reply
Teal Linner says:

04:41pm | 04/05/11

You know I’m thinking AMI and the radio “up the nose and away it goes” ad

Very easily could have heard it.
- The Liberal Loafer says:
  
  04:07pm | 04/05/11
  
  How to make sex go longer? Never empty.
  Just imagine sex alone or with a doll.
  Liberally, if you are female, try another female.
  
  Reply
- Jaq says:
  
  05:16pm | 04/05/11
  
  I’ve had a very similar experience yesterday with my daughters. Supermarket car park, some daring genius had graffitied the trolley return sign to read “please leave your sluts here”. Well, my 5 year old (sigh - yes, she can read, and for that matter spell better than most of the commenters on this page ...) immediately wanted to know what “sluts” were.
  
  How do you explain that to a five year old, those of you who believe in share, share, share? How do you explain that some people in the world objectify other people, by saying they are sexually promiscuous? Because sex isn’t bad, but girls aren’t supposed to do it? Because being a girl who has sex is supposed to be the worst thing you can be? Because just being a girl who doesn’t have sex, but might look like she might have sex, is enough to be called a slut? HOW do you explain so much idiocy, so much prejudice, to a young child, with a hope they will understand, and actually take away a valid message?
  
  Being anti-sexualisation does not mean being anti-sex. I believe in openness and never present sexuality as something to be ashamed of or degraded - but commercialisation of children’s sexuality is harmful because it presents children as sexual objects in ADULT terms, not children’s terms. Let children develop their own sexuality in their own time, not fall victim to adult ideas of sexuality that are ludicrously narrow and disconnected from reality.
  
  And finally - calling someone a bad parent because they chose not to explain something in a crowded car while driving? How ridiculous. Could it be that the question WAS answered, later, at a better time? Once the author had a chance to think about how best to approach the issue for a 4yo?
  
  Reply
- The Liberal Loafer says:
  
  06:02pm | 04/05/11
  
  Pippa
  Please Bend Over
  Thanks
  Al Queda
  
  Reply
- Dave C says:
  
  07:25pm | 04/05/11
  
  I think what everyone on this forum has missed is one word….. APPROPRIATE.
  
  I am an adult, as adults we are programmed to want sex and therefore talk about what we want. Porn Sex Toys and Prostitution is going to happen its a free country let it happen and let consenting adults enjoy it. In fact if two fully sexually aware consenting 14yos or 15yos do it then really its their choice as long as they are also aware of the consequences of their actions I dont believe we can stop it so why should we.
  
  What the author is talking about is what is APPROPRIATE around children and what is APPROPRIATE for children of a certain age. Kids under 7 or 8 do not need to be exposed to raunchy videos (ie what is shown on day time TV) or longer lasting sex signs (ie what is shown in public) its just not on to have them exposed to this stuff. As for the “tweens” thats when it becomes difficult, they have to be shown what happens in the world but really its difficult to talk about what a “slut” is to an 8 year old.
  
  I agree with most of what the author has said, we dont need the increased sexualized nature of our society by the mass media imposed on kids who havent got the maturity to handle it. Parents and teachers are the ones who should be educating children about sexuality issues, and not the media
  
  Reply
- Antar says:
  
  08:22pm | 04/05/11
  
  Sad Sad Reality, I have perused several of your posts and although I have no objection to the blatant mysogyny you portray - couldn’t give a proverbial - I do feel a vibe of rage emanating from your rantings.
  Seek help - seriously - for the sake of your own happiness.
  Unless you prefer to drown in a stagnant turd infested swamp of unadulterated misery.
  
  Reply
- Glen says:
  
  09:56pm | 04/05/11
  
  Actually for all my anti-feminist free uncensored Internet rhetoric I’m going to do a 180 and say absolutely you should protect your children from the Internet. My kids won’t be going near the Internet unguided til High School - and even then with my tech know how they will be seriously locked out lol. Ah Internet History Tracking… not alright for me but perfectly acceptable for them haha.
  
  Reply
- Zopo says:
  
  12:52am | 05/05/11
  
  I’m with Othello I don’t like those billboards either.
  
  I’m not a prude but seriously they are just foul and crude.
  
  Reply
- Ryan says:
  
  07:11am | 05/05/11
  
  Congratulations to having a child that can read so well at the age of four!
  
  Reply
- Shane says:
  
  09:10am | 05/05/11
  
  I was actually shocked when I was having a conversation with a friend from Copenhagen where he told me first had sex at 16 and that most people he knew from Denmark had lost their v plates much earlier (from 13 upward). I had a rather sheltered upbringing where sex wasn’t discussed much so I was suitably taken aback.
  
  However he explained that they’re generally raised around open and measured conversations about sex as opposed to the “I’ll tell you when you’re older” concept, which means sex doesn’t quite have the same level of sensational fascination as it otherwise might have.
  
  After thinking about it for a while, I can definitely see the merit in that type of attitude. Like my mother used to say to me when I was in my early 20’s… “people have been having sex for the last 10,000 years… it’s not exactly earth shattering news”. Mind you she also convinced me babies come from the cabbage patch (only reinforced by those old dolls cabbage patch dolls) which may explain why I hate cabbage as an adult. But she does have a point - most of the “exotic” things people think of these days have been in the kama sutra for a lot longer than rubber soled shoes.
  
  Maybe if we all calmed down a bit and treated sex as what it is instead of insisting it’s some kind of incredible modern discovery, we wouldn’t half to worry about what kind of sexual diet kids are being raised on all the time?
  
  Reply
- Alice Anne says:
  
  08:03pm | 06/05/11
  
  I am not sure why people cannot understand the difference between censorship and being asked to place something in the appropriate context –or is it that they do not wish to understand it? Nobody is trying to censor the porn and sex industries. It is NOT censorship to be told that you do not have the right to force your choice of sexual content on everybody, at all times, under any circumstances. We do, however, have a right to be free of these images when simply driving to work in the morning. Whether you, personally, are comfortable with these images or not is irrelevant. Many are not. If you want to see the images, you can easily access them. I should not be forced to.
  
  There are thousands of outlets for porn, sexual content, sexual advertising etc and those who wish to seek them out can do so quickly, easily and without stigma. These images and adverts do not belong and should never be in public places like bill boards. The sex industry very clearly does NOT have the right to force their images upon those who do not wish to be bombarded with them.
  
  It is NOT the right of the sex industry to decide what adult, sexual content is appropriate for our children. However, it is our absolute right as parents to decide when to educate, and how to educate our children about sex. The porn and sex industries have a vested interest in the adultification and sexualisation of young people so they can start making money from them as early as possible. To assault people, who absolutely do not want to be constantly exposed to sexual content, against their will and without their consent should be illegal, as clearly the sex industry refuses to accept our right to freedom from their advertising and refuses to self regulate.
  
  Once again, this is not censorship and we are not asking for the sex industry to be censored, it is simply our right not to be assaulted by these images when we are going about our normal, daily business.
  
  Reply
- Sara says:
  
  10:56am | 19/07/11
  
  This is so boring - All I can get out of it is this: If your kid can read that sign at the age of 4, then you won’t need to explain too many other things to him at all.
  
  Reply
- Ken says:
  
  09:11pm | 20/07/11
  
  Let’s call a spade a spade. Capitalism is to blame.If you want to make money you need to sell, sex on billboards sell. Money distorts all our values and provides more than an adequate foundation for the erosion of our society.
  
  Reply
- Ned says:
  
  09:43am | 29/07/11
  
  Better realities of the world are presented to children early, given context and allowed time to digest. Better at least than being thrust on them at school by other kids in a reckless fashion- if anything that has the potential to leave them more distraught and more anxious. If the world’s turning sexual better prepare children than wonder why it’s so.
  
  He won’t be a boy forever. And winter is coming.
  
  Reply
- Kipling says:
  
  12:04pm | 27/08/11
  
  I don’t think the “timing of these discussions” is at all up to the parent. Clever parenting would allow the child to set the timing of discovery.
  
  Whilst the world has become more sexually explicit in many senses, particularly in advertising, that has not diminished a parents right or responsibility to educate their children in anyway shape or form.
  
  Rampant consumerism has contributed greatly though to diminishing parental availability, which comes back to the parent wishing to dictate the “timing”.
  
  Parents role is to facilitate the maturing process and education (social and academic) of their children. How did we forget this concept en masse?
  
  Reply
- Audrey says:
  
  04:29pm | 05/03/12
  
  I think that sexually oriented advertising and paraphanalia are all too common these days and that children are exposed at too young an age. What age is the right age for them to start becoming exposed…. I don’t know, every child and every parent is different but I really do prefer to try support the innocence a child has for as long as humanly (and responsibly) possible. I remember my daughter hearing an ad on the radio for an adult shop called Adam & Eve when she was about 9. She turned to me and said “mummy, they must be very religious people to have named their shop that!”.... I still laugh when I think of it. I would have been concerned had she had any other thought when she heard it. She is now 20 and quite well balanced and accepting of things around her and she didn’t need to be exposed to a range of “adult” material at a young age for that to be the case.
  
  Reply
- Pavlo says:
  
  06:16am | 21/03/12
  
  Your 4 year old son can read billboards?
  
  Reply
- Hans Sander says:
  
  09:55am | 26/03/12
  
  The answer is it lasts as long as you like.
  
  Reply
- Chonko says:
  
  01:03pm | 05/04/12
  
  Children need protection from sex as they might one day indulge and create children for themselves, the quicker all this evil is nipped in the bud the better.
  
  Reply
- Tegan says:
  
  06:08pm | 05/04/12
  
  I was visitng my friend recently and I sat down with her daughters aged 5, 7 and 8 to watch Bratz, which is some show about teenage girls based on dolls from what I can gather, anyway I was a bit horrified with how vapid they all were, and even more so when the 7 year old started explaining to me the bratz girls wear short skirts because short skirts are ‘hot’
  
  Reply
- Craig says:
  
  07:12am | 16/04/12
  
  And this is worse than what children were allowed to see 200 years ago how?
  
  Wrapping children in cotton wool has not been shown to provide any intellectual, social or economic advantage.
  
  Individual anecdotes do not make a convincing case for governments to impose restrictions on an entire population.
  
  We have worked hard to have an egalitarian and open society, with human rights tied to democratic rule.
  
  Cut down on what people may see or do and you begin losing freedoms.
  
  It starts with ‘thing of the children’ and ends with no-one allowed to think or breath at all.
  
  My children are alert and smart individuals - they do not need protection from life, they need opportunities to sample it in small doses, to use their childhood years as an opportunity to learn how to become adults, how to behave appropriately in society.
  
  If we protect children from adulthood, we create poor adults and, therefore, a poor society.
  
  Reply
- Georgia says:
  
  01:50pm | 16/04/12
  
  My partner’s boys play songs with lyrics that scream “violent porn, yeah choking chicks and sodomy” and I am just expected to keep wipin the dishes and not comment or feel upset because “that’s just their generation” I am told. But it’s not THEM making that music, they are listening to it and being desensitised to it. I understand and love power role plays between consenting adults, I think anal sex is great, but young people don’t have enough life experience yet to distinguish between what is ok in a game form versus imposing non consented actions on another. It horrifies me that they listen to songs about “choking chicks”; women suffer enough violence as it is. Perhaps there is no “scientific evidence” this content increases violent acts, but it is violent on ME as I wipe the dishes.
  
  Reply
- Steve says:
  
  03:56pm | 16/04/12
  
  Marketing to kids is how Capitalists eat their young.
  
  Reply
- Jay Duncan says:
  
  08:28am | 17/04/12
  
  We must stop adultifying our children
  
  Reply
- Yep says:
  
  08:42pm | 17/04/12
  
  There’s never going to be an end to the ‘inappropriate’ images and ideas that kids are exposed to. Regulation and red tape isn’t going to stop sex, rude words and drugs existing until each child is 14yo. The thing that matters is parenting and the mechanisms kids develop to deal with and understand the things they’re exposed to.
  
  Reply
- AnAlarmist says:
  
  01:38pm | 20/04/12
  
  What television stations and billboards are actually showing mouth to genital contact, sexual penetration ect? None that I see. So how are these children, who are too young to know of these things learning how to do these things. One answer could be the internet, but this article barely mentions that. The most obvious answer is they learnt it by it being done to them. The assertion that it’s popular culture causing that behaviour, even in a small minority, is absurd. And is the writer insinuating you can find porn on Youtube?
  
  Reply
- Gramps says:
  
  10:56pm | 22/04/12
  
  Silly answer to a silly question .... put more men on the job!
  
  Reply
- drecked says:
  
  08:49am | 24/04/12
  
  Marry a sensuous woman if at all possible with a mind of her own !
  tell him , better still don’t get married just have taste test :D
  
  Reply
- Robinoz says:
  
  08:13am | 25/04/12
  
  Damn, when I saw the headline, i thought I’d find out how to make sex last longer. But then I already know the answer ... I’m older and it takes longer.
  
  My wife and I were always honest with out kids, now in their mid-thirties and well adjusted people. I am pleased though that the society hadn’t deteriorated to the stage it has today when we were providing the foundation morality and ethics for them.
  
  Reply
- Max says:
  
  01:07am | 30/04/12
  
  Many seven and eight year-old children have always had sex, including “kissing” genitals, if my childhood experiences were anything to go by, and I had certainly never seen any pornography.
  
  People really don’t know what they don’t want to know, do they?
  
  Reply
- Jason says:
  
  03:57pm | 03/05/12
  
  If you don’t like it, pay for the billboard and post what you want on it. Don’t like it fund studies to see what the effects are on children. then you can start a class action lawsuit against the companies shoving these ads in your face. Don’t like it move to North Korea, there they will tell you what the answer is. Bottom line is if you don’t like do something about it constructively don’t just complain about it. Having 4 year read a billboard isn’t outside the realm of possibilities. Teaching your child to read only requires a parent that can read and a child that wants to learn. my 3 year old can write the english alphabet. and with learning to write comes that mysterious skill, READING.
  
  Reply
- Sam says:
  
  06:53am | 14/05/12
  
  Don’t fall for that crap, you don’t need to make sex last longer at all. If she wants more, you can go for seconds after you’ve recovered and she’s done the work to arouse you again. The lazy bitches always want it handed to them on a platter. Don’t allow yourself to be reduced to a dildo. And if she doesn’t get pregnant in the first year, leave her, unless you’re prepared to sacrifice yourself for her even though she makes no such commitment to you (aka sucker).
  
  Damn it, I wish I could go back to high school knowing what I know now. That’s ok, my sons will be ready to conquer, and no pussy will be safe within a 10km radius. Ooops, but what if I have daughters :-| Men are animals seriously, but females are no angels either.
  
  Aaaah, What a wonderful world.
  
  Reply

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 07:23PM

@apiotrowski I feel your pain #workingtheweekend

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 07:21PM

@apiotrowski You sounded testy at 11. I can only imagine...

See all tweets

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Dad, how do you make sex last longer?

Must Reads

Most commented

113 comments

S.L says:

acotrel says:

Super D says:

Di says:

Jenny says:

Steve says:

Bruno says:

Gladys says:

VPR says:

TChong says:

Ting Tong says:

acotrel says:

acotrel says:

Jo says:

Economist says:

The Cricket says:

Austin 3:16 says:

Peter says:

TChong says:

Jane says:

TChong says:

jim morris says:

acotrel says:

Gladys says:

Tim says:

Luke says:

Mahhrat says:

Jay says:

DAvid says:

MikeH says:

Luke says:

Erin says:

Lisa H. says:

acotrel says:

Reid Wright says:

Andre says:

Megan says:

Nil by Mouth says:

Teal Linner says:

Kelly says:

Steve says:

Sad Sad Reality says:

TracyH says:

St. Michael says:

Sad Sad Reality says:

TracyH says:

HappyCynic says:

NSW says:

dancan says:

dancan says:

TracyH says:

Lisa H. says:

stoneage liberal says:

Shenanigans says:

Mum of Three says:

Tim the Toolman says:

Govt@FauxCitizen says:

Othello says:

Shane from Melbourne says:

Lisa H. says:

Lisa H. says:

L. says:

Gladys says:

Andy says:

Economist says:

Markus says:

L. says:

TracyH says:

Markus says:

L. says:

Alice Anne says:

Leah says:

zoe says:

L. says:

L. says:

Austin 3:16 says: