Child health experts told a Sydney conference last week that children as young as six are displaying inappropriate sexual behaviour – and that violent and sexually explicit images in advertising and popular culture were to blame.

All kids deserve a normal childhood. Working out in Tokyo on the coldest day of the year. Pic: AFP

Why wasn’t this front page news?

Most disturbingly, over the past decade there has been a 20-fold increase in the number of children being referred to the Australian Childhood Foundation with these serious problems. We’re talking about sexual assaults on other children by children, and sexualised play.  (Ed’s note: See the news story on Sophie Mirabella’s call for tougher advertising restrictions here.

It should have been in all the papers.

But in an ironic juxtaposition, the Right 2 Childhood Conference in Sydney was held on the day of the Royal Wedding – when a modern “princess” married her handsome prince in a real-life version of the fairytales that used to be a staple of childhood.

Sadly, the staples of childhood today are often explicit video clips, violent video games, and exposure to adult sexuality at every turn.

“Parents should be more responsible” is the standard disclaimer, but it is no longer as easy as simply turning off the TV.

The billboard that has a scantily clad woman in a sexually suggestive pose advertising the very adult “Sexpo” is difficult to explain to a nine year old who doesn’t have the cognitive ability or life experience to actually make sense of the messages she gets from both the image and the words.  Nor is it avoidable if it’s on the school route.
Ditto for the magazine at the newsagent or supermarket displayed at the eye-level of a 4 year old.  Same goes for the highly suggestive TV promo that blares between goals when you’re watching a footy game on the weekend with the kids.  Or the near-pornographic video clip that plays at the local bowling alley or shopping centre.

Even the most diligent parent cannot completely avoid the increasingly risqué “sex sells” imagery that is part of our media and our public spaces. The reality is, children interpret this imagery in a very different way to adults.

Children are not small adults.  They are not our equal friends, they are our responsibility.

And our failure to tackle the issue of premature sexualisation represents a failure in our responsibility.

The American Psychological Association has stated that “ample evidence indicates that sexualisation has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality and beliefs.”

As a society we need to stop and take a close look at the growing medical opinion about the harmful effect that premature sexualisation has on our children.

How mortified would any parent be if a stranger approached their children in the park and started showing them pictures of half-naked men and women in suggestive poses?

The reality is that our children are subjected to these images on a daily basis in a range of public situations and we’ve become desensitised to it ourselves.

Perhaps the very first step in tackling this threat to our children’s wellbeing is to encourage public debate without fear of being labeled a “wowser”. 

Let’s see this Mothers Day as a call-to-arms to protect the innocence of childhood and to draw a line in the sand about the sorts of images we should allow our children to view, particularly those on public display which are difficult to avoid.

Let’s recognise that the carefully crafted images of Mums in fluffy dressing gowns are the marketer’s tool for but a few weeks of the year, and that the standard female image used in advertising is most often an impossible, highly sexualised fantasy.

Instead of another pair of fluffy slippers, let’s honour our mothers by calling for an end to the shallow, vacuous objectification of women that is so prevalent in the media, and which leads to the premature sexualisation of our children.

It might very well be the most important thing we can do for future generations.

For more information on the premature sexualisation of our children visit Collective Shout and and Kids Free 2B Kids, or Dr Joe Tucci’s contribution in Wednesday’s Punch.

72 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      08:17pm | 05/05/11

      Oh, has the 19th Century and its prudery passed away? So sad.

      Sex exists. Learn to deal with it.

    • Secondmouse says:

      08:38pm | 05/05/11

      Not when you have small children, it doesn’t.

    • Allan says:

      08:43pm | 05/05/11

      The issue isn’t to do with sex per se as it is with normalising loose behaviour and the imagery of hypersexualisation that is rampant in all aspects of the media- including news.com.au with non-stories related to sex for the sake of titillation- to the point where kids are sexting/ engaging in extremely casual sexual behaviour and everyone is into porn. It is a symptom of the dehumanising of intimate relationships that also brings mindless violence as Saturday night sport and other risky behaviours that is degrading society. I am not a prude, and I work inthe Health Industry where I see the physical, mental and emotional effects of this phenomenon.

    • Samantha says:

      09:07pm | 05/05/11

      Allan, you are spot on. Let’s keep sex to the adults and let kids be kids. You would not say such things if you are or ever will be a caring parent. Watch what you say and do when you are young, childless and not wise.

    • davidl says:

      09:42pm | 05/05/11

      Have to agree with you Erick..though could we say ‘its not what you do its the way that you do it’. Sex not only exists, its pretty much hard coded into our dna. The range of its expression is from downright degrading to the heights of connected bliss… accepting our sexuality is just the beginning. Learning how to enjoy it without harming others ? Is that too much to ask for ?

    • Richard says:

      11:04pm | 05/05/11

      Now come on, Erick is right. It was common place in Ancient Greece for grown men to take young boys under their wings, then casually bugger and sodomise them without any sense of shame or community damnation whatsoever. Now I’m not suggesting that we allow the same thing to happen in our modern day society, but I don’t think its accurate to say that young children are over exposed to sex, which is a natural bodily function for all animal species on the planet afterall.

    • Little Ole Me says:

      04:14am | 06/05/11

      Well done Sophie. I agree 100% and am thoroughly disgusted at some of the comments here. This isn’t about taking away freedom, this about having an appropriate society - one that caters to the needs of all it’s members, not just some. Children as young as 5 can read some of the dirty slogans that people love to paste everywhere and don’t necessarily have to be at home to see a dirty and inappropriate video clip. The last we saw one was at Dick Smith @ a shopping centre. It was fun explaining to my 7 year old why the girls danced/dressed the way they did. After trying to come up with something reasonable and non derogatory to say, I gave up and said quite honestly ‘It’s because they are are idiots. They are cheap and only have their body to show’. I am fed up on trying to protect stupidity, piss poor decision making and being politically correct in my opinion (so as to not hurt the feelings of the wh*re next door). No more! I implore all parents to do the same - Make it known that the exception is to behave that way, definitely not the norm. Be honest about what you think and it will catch on.

      It’s not too much to ask for basic rules regarding sexual content in advertising and viewing.

      Sex does exist Erick - No one is denying that. Like everything else in life though, there is a time and place. A 12yo learning about sex ed in school is appropriate, a 7yo reading a sleazy slogan THAT WAS ORIGINALLY AIMED AT ADULTS is not appropriate. I think that even someone with your intelligence would be able to see that.

    • Mumof5 says:

      08:36am | 06/05/11

      Yes, Erick, sex exists but I don’t have to have it shoved into the face of my kids every day the way it is.

      We don’t watch TV at home other than ABC or DVDs because of the inappropriate content in ads for example. At 3pm they happily air ads for the evening program which contain either sexually explicit behaviour or clips of violence from M rated programs. If there’s a good program, I tape it and we watch it later without ads.  I also don’t have any fashion magazines sitting around at home because of the imagery in them (besides that they’re really a waste of money in the first place) since kids are bound to pick them up and browse out of interest.

      And I’m not over protective here. My kids come up to me occasionally with questions about sex and we always talk freely about it. But age-appropriately. I remember from my childhood (on one of the fortnightly visits) coming across an inappropriate magazine that belonged to my father and the image stayed with me for a very, very long time, and quite honestly, it wasn’t in the positive way. I was eight then and it was not the kind of magazines you’d want an eight year old exposed to.

      So, yes, sex is a part of life - adult-life. Let’s keep it in that realm and stop shoving it down our children’s throats left, right and centre.

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:53am | 06/05/11

      I suppose it’s too much to ask parents to do their job and “parent” their children by explaining the context of certain advertising or turning off the TV.

      I know Sophie glibly passed over this point by saying “it’s not easy”. Funny how I remember all of these things from my childhood. I can find advertising from the 30s with women in lingerie and I don’t see people complaining too much back then.

      The real problem is how little time parents spend doing their job of parenting. They’d rather dump their kids in a daycare centre and go to work to pay for the SUV and McMansion. When their kids are left to their own devices it’s no wonder they run off the rails.

    • Parent says:

      10:41am | 06/05/11

      @ Tubesteak: On the contrary. A lot of us are taking their job very seriously but we also refuse to hole ourselves up at home because society has decided to shove their adult world down everybody’s throat if they want it shoved there or not.

      Just the other day I walked into a shop on Saturday, mid-morning, to ask them to take their clearly M-rated movie with lots of violence and sex (one of the latest James Bond ones) off their large flatscreen TV that was displayed at the entrance, blaring out into the centre. When I asked the employee if he was aware what they were actually running there, he had to admit he didn’t but that he was convinced it was something G-rated.

      I told him that it was highly inappropriate to publicly screen an M-rated movie on a Saturday when the mall is full of kids just so they can advertise their wonderful flat screen TV. He only agreed to change the DVD after I threatened that I was going to complain with centre management.

      So, you see, we are doing our jobs. We should be able to take our kids to the shops with us and not have to find a babysitter because the normal shopping mall has turned into an adult only location.

    • Markus says:

      11:54am | 06/05/11

      “The billboard ... advertising the very adult “Sexpo” is difficult to explain to a nine year old who doesn’t have the cognitive ability or life experience to actually make sense of the messages…”

      I conclude that the author has never been a nine year old.

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:28pm | 06/05/11

      Parent
      If that’s the sort of thing you’re worried about then it is all very tame. I remember asking what that red stuff was in that movie when I was a toddler and my parents told me it was tomato sauce. I believed them. I didn’t get traumatised by it. No harm done.

      My parents didn’t feel the need to go and berate everyone else and make them act in a way that suited them, unlike you.

    • Little Ole Me says:

      03:37pm | 06/05/11

      “I suppose it’s too much to ask parents to do their job and “parent” their children by explaining the context of certain advertising or turning off the TV.”

      @Tubespeak, we don’t own a TV. So your point means nothing. While I’m here, I’ll also mention that I was formerly (first 6 years) a stay at home mother and we do not own a mcmansion. Stereotype much?

      Explaining content is fine but don’t expect any of us (or at least me) to be nice about it. If a girl is acting like a whore on TV or anywhere, I will tell my child so. The problem with this generation is we have so (stupidly) become politically correct and afraid of saying what we really think for fear of hurting our neighbour. Being PC is fine when trying to make world peace but it is not fine when trying to keep your child a child, in what has become a highly sexualized world.

      I will add that I’m not a prude & I’m only in my late 20’s. I’m also an atheist so this is not only a problem that right wing Christians have only. I very much enjoy having sex with my hubby and anything that comes along with it. But as I have rules for myself, I also have rules for my daughter. My 7 year old should not be thinking about dressing up in a slutty fashion or pole dancing around boys. She should not think that is appropriate behaviour for a person of her age. She should be thinking of playing with her dolls, catching butterflies and other innocent stuff. I’ve managed to keep a tab on all of this as I deliberately did not work to be a SAHM for the first 6 years, threw our TV out, don’t bring magazines into the house, don’t listen to certain types of music (dirty talk, rhi rhi S&M being good examples) and talk about the process of procreation as part of life (and in a factual way) rather than sex being an entity upon itself. When my daughter has a partner in adulthood and higher emotional maturity then she is free to do as she pleases, but for now - GET THE GOD DAMN SEX OUT OF MY CHILD’S LIFE. 

      I’m doing my part (99%) to try and raise a sensible, hard working future citizen and it’s not much to ask that society help out a little by doing their 1% and not promoting sex everywhere.

    • John says:

      08:24pm | 05/05/11

      Just remember it was the leftist socialist who banned ppl like fat cat and humpry as they were not real. look at what tv networks put on tv in the morning, just news and news no programes for children.

    • john says:

      08:34pm | 05/05/11

      from memory they banned humphry bbear because he wasn’t wearing any pants, not because he was not real. They stated it was soft porn, with a twist of plush fetish.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey_B._Bear

    • Macy says:

      12:48pm | 06/05/11

      Leftist socialist? Um, you’re close…only it was the conservative right who put up the stink.

    • Septimus says:

      08:30pm | 05/05/11

      ...and we adreess this issue by displaying a phot of half naked children!  Great work The Punch!

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      09:56pm | 05/05/11

      Are you serious? I chose the pic, did not even think that anyone would see any problem with it at all. I thought it was just a kooky pic of some kids who kind of look like they’re having fun in a weird situation.

      Argh now you’ve made me feel like I should take it down except I really, really don’t think there is anything at all suggestive about it.

    • bella starkey says:

      10:35pm | 05/05/11

      There is nothing wrong with that photo. It’s cute and a bit kooky. If people have a problem with an image like they have a problem, not you Tory.

    • Adam says:

      10:35pm | 05/05/11

      @ Troy - Yeah, that’s a tricky one. When I saw the pic the first thing I thought of was what happened to that photographer Bill Henson.

    • CD says:

      11:17pm | 05/05/11

      Tory…..there is nothing wring with this picture at all.
      I suggest Septimus stop being septic. It’s all in his or her mind.

      Sheesh!

    • Grant says:

      12:28am | 06/05/11

      Septimus,

      That photo is of children having fun.

      Nothing more nothing less.  If you personally perceive that image anymore than that, then I find that troubling.  Basically, you should not project your adult perception onto a innocent image.

    • Jason Todd says:

      07:50am | 06/05/11

      This I think demonstrates the problems core of the debate. There is no one definition of what a person finds sexually suggestive or innapropriate to children. What is viewed as perfectly harmless to one person can be viewed as near-pornography to another. I personally have no problem with the image used, but does that mean that my view is correct and Septimus is wrong to be concerned?

      My worry about the “Protect the children from the horrors of advertising\sexualisation” is who is it that makes the decisions about what is considered sexually suggestive and what isn’t? I can sit and watch videoclips on Saturday morning TV and not find them sexually suggestive, but I can understand that that may be difficult to explain to a child. At the end of the day, EVERYONE projects their own perceptions onto the things that we take in. Whether we find it sexualised or not is a matter of interpretation, and that is where this issue gets muddy.

    • Lucy says:

      08:18am | 06/05/11

      i was just thinking it is a shame that we in our society make girls of that age feel embarrased about tehir bodies by making them wear “bras”. by doing that arent we sexualising them by instantly making 1) them aware they are different and have to behave different to boys and 2) making them seem more “grown up” by puttingthem in something that is traditionally adult.

      Great pic Tory.

    • Michael says:

      10:32am | 06/05/11

      It’s a photo from Japan, where preschool kids sometimes exercise topless in the hot humid weather.  There is nothing wrong with the photo.

    • Septimus says:

      10:44am | 06/05/11

      Thanks to The Punch for not printing my reply.  Freedom of Speech only if it satisfies The Punch.  Is the site based in China?

    • Anne71 says:

      12:21pm | 06/05/11

      All I’m seeing in that photo is a bunch of kids running around together and having fun.

    • Mark McKinlay says:

      08:37pm | 05/05/11

      You wonder why our values are going down? Just look what the gay lobby’s next stated agenda is: It makes me worry when NSW Socialist Alliance Leader and Green Left weekly editor (@grrrach follows hugo chavez and is followed by @sydney_greens on twitter) Rachel Evan’s project with CAAH (Community Action Against Homophobia - organizes “equal marriage” rallies with the Greens) runs a website called beatproject.org.au. One of the stated missions on this website is to call for decriminalized public gay sex (revised recently after criticism to be only at night). The right of homosexuals to do public sex in so called ‘beat’ zones draws it’s justification because the gay lobby in Amsterdam that’s busy criticizing Australia in the UN Human Rights Committee for not respecting gay power enough got their way and got the law enacted there. The website says any police officer enforcing the edicts on public sex (i.e. possibly in front of children) should be taken to the special gay court - aka the NSW anti-discrimination board which gays themselves are exempt from appearing before as a respondent because the word heterosexual doesn’t even feature in the act (link provided on other comment re exempting church from the scope of the ADB). It’s against Article 7 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to have minority groups (like whites in South Africa or gays in Australia) licensed to discriminate with impunity. 
      How dare the punch go against the gay power lobby by putting children rights above gay rights to decriminalized public sex in front of all ages! sarcasm intended! Google 60C NSW Crimes for a dichotomy of gay power in Australia or see my radio interview on 2SER’s only gay radio show even with gay radio hosts joining me in condemnation of this movement that seeks to pervert our youth. http://www.mediafire.com/?y6btaa2zyzoioks

    • St. Michael says:

      09:13pm | 05/05/11

      The debate’s about sexualising children, not Adam and Steve banners, you right wing moron.

    • You have to wonder says:

      09:52pm | 05/05/11

      So you bring homosexuals into this? How sad that people like you still exist, I bet all you think about is homosexuals having sex? It’s right wing conservatives like you that support your capitalist economic rationalist governments that are whores to consumerism (not to mention hate filled human beings like this lady that is in parliament - what a joke). So blame yourself for societies downfall buddy.

    • David says:

      10:20pm | 05/05/11

      Agreed. Equal rights does not mean that exposed, uninhibited gay sex should be allowed on any ‘beat’, no more than hetrosexual sex acts should be allowed in any public place.

      This is freedom of speech and political correctness gone nuts. For God’s sake, the people who are pushing this barrow could not possibly have young children, or if they do I would be questioning their motives.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      08:53pm | 05/05/11

      Oh dear, and here is poor Sophie who loves jailing refugees babies, loves bombing other nations to bits when the majority of the populations are kids and yet has a whine about sexualising little children here.

      9 million kids a year die of starvation, but hey, they can’t wear skimpy clothes here.

      If being sexualised is the only problem they face they are doing rather well.

      The mind numbingly stupidity of Australian’s is driving me crazy.

    • Barry says:

      09:05am | 06/05/11

      Was your comment meant to be an example of the mind numbing stupidity of Australian’s?  If so, you did well.

    • jf says:

      01:25pm | 06/05/11

      “The mind numbingly stupidity of Australian’s is driving me crazy.”

      Marilyn fail english? Unpossible!

    • Dave C says:

      07:04pm | 06/05/11

      Marilyn Shepherd

      I bet if a Labour politician wrote the same article word for word you would either a) Agree or b) treat it as a non issue.

      Oh and trust you and only you to bring Asylum seekers into this only you could do this.

    • anthropology 101 says:

      09:35pm | 05/05/11

      Absolute crap. For a start humans have only been wearing clothes for a very short period of our evolutionary history. In most warm climates people went around naked or near naked until very recently. So children have evolved to cope with naked bodies.
       
      The average child in at tribal setting would have seen and heard sexual acts from early childhood because privacy was non-existent. It was impossible for parents to keep their sex lives private in a one room hut.

      For most of human history virtually all boys and girls became sexually active at puberty. The age of consent for girls was 12 in England until 1875 when it was raised to 13. In 1885 it was raised to 16. This was only to stop girls being sold into brothels. The age of consent is still only 13 in Spain.

      In ancient Greece “platonic” love meant men having sex with young boys not a non-sexual relaltionship between a man and a woman.

    • Not an Australopithecus says:

      09:18am | 06/05/11

      That’s gotta be one of the most BS arguments of all time. The wearing of clothes coincided with a) higher intelligence and b) community structures. Your argument can be summed up as “what would cave-man do?”.

    • anthropology 101 says:

      03:42pm | 06/05/11

      Why don’t you do some actual reading before making such a silly comment?
      For a start an Australopithicus was an early ape like hominid not a direct ancestor of modern humans.

      Our ancient ancestors of 20,000 years ago were taller, healthier, vastly fitter and had much larger brains than modern humans. They were probably considerably more intelligent than the average modern human. They needed to be because they had to use their intelligence to survive.

      The ancient Egyptians and Aztecs who had very advanced civilizations wore minimal clothing because they lived in hot climates. Clothes wearing northern Europeans were backward savages who borrowed technology from other more advanced cultures

    • iansand says:

      09:46pm | 05/05/11

      Quite right.  Politicians should not appear in Lycra or nylon.

    • anthropology 101 says:

      09:51pm | 05/05/11

      The picture chosen is extremely ironic. Japan is arguably the nation that sexualises children more than any other. Japan manga comics frequently depict sexual activities involving very young children and incest themes. Japanese newsstands also sell magazines with pre-pubescent lingerie and swimsuit models. In Japan it is relatively common for high school girls to work in massage parlours or as escorts. Police even discovered a escort service set up by a group of 12-13 year junior high school girls a couple of years ago.

    • brian m says:

      09:54pm | 05/05/11

      No Sophie, the first step is not ‘to engage in public debate” The first step is to stop it.That’s why you were elected; so forget the gabfest and just do it. Talk is cheap.

    • stephen says:

      10:01pm | 05/05/11

      Children don’t need machines to play with, like computers in primary school.
      They don’t need to learn about software discrimination, or pornography, or how a car works, ( can they yet drive ?) or anything adults should want to know.
      Sex is for adults, and if they kept it a more discreet and graceful act and not a Freudian disposal, like, ‘if you don’t do it often, you’ll go mad’ then so many people - youth or otherwise - wouldn’t believe that sex is necessarily good for our mental health.
      It isn’t.
      And schoolchildren don’t need technology in the classroom.
      English and maths learning structures a brain. It wires it. All the other subjects add knowledge. (PE is seperate, and probably more important for mental health than anything else learnt at school.)
      It is in certain people’s interests in this country that education standards are not too high. Just right. Aussie right, for if we produced a generation of clever and really talented kids, then no-one would like us.
      We assume that Asians think we’re super-duper, and that the Yanks have a sneaking respect for us and the Poms will flex their moes when we are a republic ; bullshit.
      We are on no-one’s radar.
      We are dopey and we are producing a tribe of dopey kids because we try too hard to be liked.
      No-one likes a smart-arse, right ?
      (Are you sure about that ?)
      Isn’t this one of our myths : we think we are egalitarian, but we are really fearful of the responsibility of being really excellent.
      I mean if you excell, you’re on your own, right ?
      Right.
      And this is where we should be. Looking after our own at school, whether they are Aussie born or new arrivals or temporary residents.
      We should be the best. We deserve it.

    • dale says:

      08:03am | 06/05/11

      I dont know about you but i do believe that sex does wonders for mental health.

      If you dont have any as a male in a while you start to get a short fuse and lose the plot

      Sex helps relaxing before sleep and generally makes me a much nicer person to be around

    • stephen says:

      12:01pm | 06/05/11

      Think yer right there bro.
      Got a root once in ‘85 and since then me life’s been hunky-dory.
      (Waitin fer me second, cause i sure wanna short plot and lose the fuse and get ter sleep early. I wanna be nice ter be around wif too.)
      Whew,
      and I though sex was only for the few.

    • Lateral Thinker says:

      10:06pm | 05/05/11

      The best thing to do would be to teach mothers to stop dressing their daughters up like cheap hookers !

    • kap says:

      10:26pm | 05/05/11

      My little girl is 4, we have (we thought, brought her up just like her older brother the same way, strictly and properly, he, by the way, has NEVER done this) and yet, the other day, she came out and pulled down her pants and showed us her brown “eye”.  GO FIGURE !!!  Where does this come from ?????  We told her off appropriately, and she hasn’t done it since.  Same question again, where does this come from ????  School, parents and tv I am guessing.

    • HappyCynic says:

      08:39am | 06/05/11

      Or your child (like ALL children under the age of 5) is learning about socially acceptable behaviour.  Kids test the boundaries of acceptable behaviour by acting out, since every child is unique they act out in different ways.  After the age of 5 they don’t really go through this phase again until their teenage years where they test out the boundaries of acceptable adult behaviour.

      Amateur - you still have much to learn about having kids and how they behave.

    • BA Media & Culture/BA Sociology says:

      10:34pm | 05/05/11

      Sophie, this is a fantastic article. You’ve hit the nail on the head and made several poignant remarks.
      My question now is, is the Liberal Party capable of creating a policy which acts to limit the power of advertisers, recalibrating the level/definition of industry standards?
      And secondly, do you care about the issue enough to offer such a policy to the Labor Party to see action taken (rather than sentiment expressed) in coming years; rather than waiting for the Coalitions eventual governance?

    • stephen says:

      12:04am | 06/05/11

      I don’t know how Sociology can be studied.
      It’s a very difficult subject and seems to be a middle point between argument and response : like, something that is in your mind before you have to put thought to word, and come up with history or Psychology, etc. But good luck.

    • kap says:

      10:34pm | 05/05/11

      Tory, there is nothing weird about it. It is only weird if adults have a weird problem with it, which is a MAJOR CONCERN (and usually are people who obviously have paedophilic tendencies). Normal adults just look at it the same way you do.  Kids having fun !!!

    • Branko Miletic says:

      10:58pm | 05/05/11

      Sophie Mirabella’s ideas are truly admirable- I never had much time for her in the past but with this article I am actually starting to warm to her. Although I doubt if her ideas in the article will go any further than just conversation- the advertising industry will pull all its collective lobbying might together and the spineless wonders that pass as our pollies will go to water- regardless of what party they are from.
      But I do agree with her 100%- as the father of a 6-year old girl, its almost a full time job trying to protect Little Miss from some of the more in-your-face sexually provocative ads out there.

    • Jack says:

      11:06pm | 05/05/11

      Mark, what the hell has this got to do with the sexualization of young children through the media? Totally irrelevant.

    • Mark McKinlay says:

      12:28am | 06/05/11

      Jack: it’s part of a broader spectrum. Every day the media bombards us with gay power infinitives. In today news let me see - NSW Police put out a press release for a man being jailed for criticizing openly homosexual leaders of Australia’s military forces and being labeled as a HATE CRIMINAL before his trial: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150171385426394 and a new push for federal laws and punishment for those who speak about against gay power by HEROC or the “human rights” commissionerhttp://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/media/news/2011/34_11.html flying the rainbow flag. Just look at Fredrick Toben being jailed in England for a crime not in England before Julian Assange got the same treatment, then being jailed here on request of the Australian Jewery before HEROC tribunal court case just for saying “I’m not a jew I don’t sue” on channel 7 local news when they asked him if he would seek damages for his hardship in the UK after he was acquitted there on returning home to South Australia.  Nobody apart from one heroic gay radio host is covering the story of Australia’s first Outlaw Motorcycle gang law that even Fred Niles voted for: 60c NSW Crimes Act. It’s worth noting Greens MP Lee Rhiannion said in the NSW 2002 Police and Other Law Enforcement Officers bill this law “provides a running cover for corrupt police”. The only known case of the countries first gang laws misuse is by a GLLO gay police officer. It’s the Greens policy to call for more than the existing 300 GLLO gay officers, after already laying down the benchmark of corrupt cop = police officer who uses 60c NSW crimes act to avoid private prosecution and jail. Lefties do you support the Greens against gang laws? (currently only used by GLLO gay police) No, once a special gay police officer a sign of gay executive power touches it you must be quiet for the shake of gay pride and muzzling gay shame. So you are you telling me I should be quiet about gay pride websites that calls for decriminalized public sex? Political websites are in the public interest as their policies affect EVERYBODY. That’s why The punch published my comments. More socialists against free speech except that of the singular socialists. Oh no it’s wrong to even talk of the socialist leader’s own websites! What may we talk about gay lord moderator of free speech and “the public interest”? Even the NSW Police is getting ashamed of gay power police and remo their “Hate Crime and/is Terrorism” Page (google “hate crime and terrorism site:secure.nsw.gov.au” to prove it existed) saying how special gay police fight terrorism and how it’s an act of terrorism to criticize gay power. If you google 60c nsw crimes act and click on the most controversial url you find I’m sure you can see what even NSW police media liaison under Acting Commissioner Burns censored - for the sake of mitigating gay lobby shame -take down their own content after my blogging. Here’s a direct link to content copyright of the NSW government I breech just be relinking! http://s695.photobucket.com/albums/vv315/hojuruku/?action=view&current=hatecrimeterror1.jpg http://s695.photobucket.com/albums/vv315/hojuruku/?action=view&current=hatecrimeterror1.jpg

    • malohi says:

      01:31am | 06/05/11

      Mark,
      Reverse discrimination can operate quite unfairly, especially as it is introduced by those with rose coloured glasses who never envisage there are many who will unfairly exploit or abuse their special rights within the chosen minority.

      But it is clear that you still equate homosexuality with some sort of sexual perversion or deviency.
      Your implication being that exposure to homosexuality is exposure to sexuality itself. I do not agree with this point.

    • Daniel says:

      11:57pm | 05/05/11

      Move to America if you want puritanical “sex is evil” prudish crap.

    • jf says:

      01:34pm | 06/05/11

      We don’t want to sexualise kids therefore we think “sex is evil”?

      You are either stupid or a pervert.

    • Grant says:

      12:16am | 06/05/11

      Sometimes I wonder.

      Sophie,

      In the 1600s, the age of marriage was at the onset of fertility, and the minimum legal age for marriage in England was 12, (just an example).

      Since then, across westernized civilization,  the treatment and well being of children has improved dramatically.  Our children are the safest and healthiest they have ever been. 

      For example: teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in Australia are 1/3 of what they were in 1970. 

      If anything, you should be writing the opposite; society (especially for children) is safer, better, healthier, wealthier and happier. 

      But you know…

      Rather than write factually correct articles; just write information that is blatantly incorrect and inflammatory.  Why do you disregard the peer reviewed research, historical information, and evidence that is readily available that contravenes everything you have written in this piece.

      * @ Moderator, I have noticed a few times that my comments have not been posted (even though they fall within your guidelines).  Please post this comment, as I usually spend a bit of time researching before I comment *

    • Mitch says:

      12:16pm | 06/05/11

      @Grant: So because we are doing better than they were in the 17th century we can drop the ball?

      “Why do you disregard the peer reviewed research, historical information, and evidence that is readily available that contravenes everything you have written in this piece.” Maybe because anyone with two eyes in their head can plainly see the evidence. Of course we are sexualising children (actually we are sexualising pretty much everything), of course it is getting progressively worse and of course it can’t be good.

    • Shifter says:

      03:58pm | 06/05/11

      @Grant - there’s other factors in play here. In the 1600s there would be little expectation for girls to do anything else besides raise a family.

      Since then civilisation has become more complex, and single educated child is more prized than several uneducated future labourers (in the first world). Hence a greater importance placed on learning rather than sex could turn into a cultural influence that sex, and associated thought is bad for children.

      I think what Sophie fears is a return to teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in of 1970 as constant imagery overcomes education teaching abstinence until some acceptable period.

    • Pete says:

      07:41am | 06/05/11

      I knew if I waited long enough Sophie would write something that i agree with,  the images one sees today in the mass media are even confronting for adults and I am not a prude, religious or a wouser.  I do feel sad that kids these days dont appear to have a childhood. i must disagree on fairytails however, violent to the extreme

    • HappyCynic says:

      08:49am | 06/05/11

      About these kids engaging in sexual behaviour at such a young age, are there any other extenuating factors behind this behaviour?  Most kids wouldn’t behave in such a way unless someone was secretly “fiddling” with them.  And the last article that was written on this subject on this site a few days ago mentioned that most kids referred to therapy because of over-sexualised behaviour are being reffered primarily due to sexual assault.

      I wouldn’t blame sexualised media until all the facts are out in the open.  But of course this doesn’t suit the prudes…

    • Silver says:

      09:42am | 06/05/11

      “20-fold increase in the number of children being referred to the Australian Childhood Foundation”

      I keep seeing statistics like this thrown about without anything to back them up.  Can we please get a link to something from the AFP, ABS or even DEEWR that demonstrates this is an actual trend over the last 20 years and exists even after controlled for greater awareness leading to greater reporting.

    • Peta says:

      11:18am | 06/05/11

      I am a 24 year old woman with no children who is far from a Prude ( i worked as a stripper for most of last year) and watching Channel V makes ME uncomfortable, the Rap clips are a good example.
      I am always first to jump on the “harden up breeders band wagon” but things ARE getting out of hand, Music stars are the worst in my opinion watch a spice girls clip from a decade ago and now watch a rap clip or katy perry california girls, they just keep trying to be the most outrageous.

      When I feel uncomfortable watcing this stuff at the gym I can’t imagine whats going through a childs head. The problem is stars like katy Perry and Lady gaga are marketed to young girls, where as sexpo Billboards can be explained to children as adult things.
      There is a time for kids to grow up but at least give them a fighting chance of a few years of blissful innocence.
      Sex is fun sex is great but only when your old enough raspberry

    • Matt says:

      01:04pm | 06/05/11

      I remember seeing sexual content as a kid. I remember finding a porn magazine in a school bathroom, and another on the walk to my school. I remember a kid bringing one into school and us other kids in the class looking through it. I remember seeing sexual scenes in movies or topless women.

      I can tell you what goes through a kid’s head.

      BOOORRINNGG… (and is there a car chase scene soon?)

      Kids are just not interested in sex. You’re worried that a woman shaking her bottom on TV is going to jumpstart puberty or something, but it doesn’t work like that. They’ll continue to be more interested in handball until puberty starts on its own. And then, they’ll be intensely interested no matter what you do. They’ll have sex before their parents would like them to. They’ll explore and experiment and have their fun. Heck I did, why shouldn’t my kids? Teach em to be safe and responsible about it, bring them up to be respectful of others and don’t worry about Lady gaga so much…

      I read an article like this and just think of the reverend’s wife in the Simpsons - “Won’t someone think of the Children!”

    • Oh PLease! says:

      11:19am | 06/05/11

      It also finding it’s way in thru school. The sex ed classes that my daughter was given in a catholic year 5 class were way over the top! Having worksheets with ‘the clitoris may be touched for pleasure’. Having body parts written on cards & placed on the kids heads & they had to guess what they were ie: breast,penis,clitoris,anus etc, was just morally wrong. It sends the wrong message to the kids & is at all not respectful. The kids were horrified & they were not seperated into different classes to discuss individual body parts & functions. Year 5 kids ARE NOT MATURE EMOTIONALLY to comprehend & understand! I had already had discussions with my daughter re changes & periods, as she was starting to develope & I would rather she learn it from me, & to not be embrassed about it. But then the school did this course & totally destroyed it as they didn’t have the decency to inform us or permission of this course. It seems that parents have no choice in decideing what they want their kids to know, the school decides & bad luck if you disagree. We can’t just blame the media anymore, parents need to take a more active role in what the kids learn from their peer groups & also at school. Yes kids bodies are developing early but it doesnt mean their minds are! Too much is emphasised on treating them like adults, when they are still kids!!

    • Big Dixon says:

      12:30pm | 06/05/11

      Notice how every kid in the photo is Japanese? The Japanese don’t have a multicultural immigration program because they realize what the rest of world has just admitted too, that they largely don’t work.

    • mike j says:

      01:31pm | 06/05/11

      “calling for an end to the shallow, vacuous objectification of women that is so prevalent in the media, and which leads to the premature sexualisation of our children”

      I knew, as soon as I saw the title of this article, and the fact that it was written by a woman, that “violent and sexually explicit images in advertising and popular culture” would end up equating to the “objectification of women”.

      Pathetic. Here’s a topic that’s not even about gender (sexual objectification of men being, presumably, as dangerous to children as the objectification of women), yet here’s another Punch femmo crybaby representing all women as the victims of society.

      No pressure to look like this, guys:

      http://www.invisiblepr.com/interactive-online-detergent-marketing-campaign-by-morning-fresh-dirty-dish

    • Lauren says:

      12:57pm | 07/05/11

      I am so glad to see more articles on this topic.  It is extremely important. I would also like to reaffirm Allan’s point about sex-related stories being rampant on our national news website (News.com.au). Even The Daily Telegraph worships swimsuit models and never mentions one without a full length picture to boot. I’m a twenty year old female and this issue effects me deeply. I know my anxiety and stress is shared by so many other young people who are trying to understand how to live and love healthily in today’s society. The majority of my peers act, talk and think very sexually. How much further can this go? It’s not fair. It’s not right.

    • Andrew says:

      04:48pm | 30/08/11

      Premature sexualization? What..??

      Are you trying to imply that having a picture of a woman with her cleavage showing, will increase the likelihood of a 13 year old child having sex?

      This sounds suspiciously to me like feminist agenda masked under the guise of protecting children from images they do not yet even have the ability to understand, let alone imitate.

      Next time, make the subject of this article your obvious opinion towards the apparent objectification of women by the media.

      Not an otherwise crudely researched view regarding child psychology, and out-dated urge to hide children from the world they will one day have to face.

      Let children be children.

    • Bobbi24Clements says:

      02:41pm | 22/09/11

      Houses are quite expensive and not everyone is able to buy it. However, business loans was invented to help different people in such situations.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

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]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

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

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter