We all know that sex sells. Some of the earliest tobacco advertising featured stylised drawings of starlets inserted in cigarette packs.

Sexy images of women are used to sell everything, from cars to spring water to internet access.Many such ads are targeted at men, but ads for products aimed at women are often similar.

Not only are sexually provocative images of women used to advertise, but they are routinely featured on television, music video clips, movies and even toys.  While adults are better equipped to deal with the bombardment of sexualised content, we need to stop to consider the impact it has on children.

I’m not talking simply of the obvious objectionable examples like lingerie for pre-teen girls or baby t-shirts with suggestive slogans on them.

Children are consuming sexualised images of women and girls on a daily basis. Parents are often alarmed when they see the sort of music video clips on TV every Saturday morning, screened in programs clearly aimed at children and teenagers.

These clips show scantily clad woman gyrating and being provocative while often the male singer is fully clothed – an example is David Guetta and Akon’s recent hit ‘Sexy Bitch’ which has been a YouTube sensation with its’ poolside bikini antics.

The popularity of web sites and the growth of mobiles and ipods for teenagers has markedly increased easy access to concerning content.

It is common sense that the age and developmental stage of a child will determine how they react to the stream of sexualised material they are exposed to. This has an effect on how both girls and boys develop their identity and view gender roles. 

Studies suggest that girls and teenagers who have more exposure to mass media that sexually objectify girls and women are more likely to view themselves as sexual objects.

It is also not surprising those boys’ attitudes to how they see girls and women are effected by this content. 

The report by the American Psychological Association suggested that exposure to this material affect girls’ physical and mental health, including an increase in low self esteem, body dissatisfaction, anxiety about their appearance and depression.

Research conduced by two Adelaide based researchers showed that it only takes 15 minutes of watching music video clips that objectify women for the participants to start feeling more conscious about their body and more depressed.

Of tremendous concern is the disturbing trend that younger and younger children are being targeted by advertisers who are convincing them they need to be sexy. Take the magazines that target pre-teens, which instruct girls on how to wear make-up or the Bratz dolls wearing fish nets and bras – marketed to four to eight year olds.

Only last week I was stunned to see in a celebrity magazine, the section “Who Wore It Better” compared photos of Suri Cruise (aged three) with Apple Martin (aged five). The public could vote on which of these two children wore their outfit better. 

Surely this is an example of how we have gone too far where we now objectify even children.

How to tackle the sexualisation of women and girls, and associated negative effects, is complex and difficult but must be addressed.

Some advocates in this area have called on industry to become more responsible in where and when they show this content, while others have called for government regulation. 

We also need to educate and help parents to counter the messages so persuasive throughout our mass media.

One thing we can’t do is push this issue under the carpet. We need to do our best to ensure that the next generation of women grow up confident, self assured, and not determine success or fulfilment by whether they qualify as a ‘sexy bitch’.

Get The Punch on Facebook

184 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:06am | 29/01/10

      Yet when Tony Abbott suggests that his daughters shouldn’t think of themselves as sex objects, The Punch goes nuclear.

      Go figure.

    • AFR says:

      07:25am | 29/01/10

      Mountain. Molehill.

    • JAG says:

      10:22am | 29/01/10

      I’m a parent of pre teen children. We don’t let our children watch Saturday or Sunday morning music videos because of the some of the content. When we were younger there was MTV on a Friday night where the raunchy film clips were played, why can’t these sort of things be classifed and then aired at a more age appropriate time. It sounds like the complainers on here are worried they’re going to lose their porn/sexually explicit content on the internet/tv… I don’t think that is what is being advocted here, just keep it away from G rated programs & time slots and as for the internet it does require parental control. I don’t listen to commercial radio in the morning or when I have the children with me, because I don’t want to have to find an explaination to premature ejaculation to my 7 yr old son, when he is 14 sure, but not 7!

    • Dylan says:

      08:41am | 29/01/10

      Did you actually read Tony Abbott’s comments, Eric?  He pretty clearly implied that his daughters’ virginity was the greatest “gift” any of them could give a man.  I’d call that the ultimate in sexual objectification.

    • E says:

      09:21am | 29/01/10

      Nicole says:09:56am | 29/01/10

      Sorry Nicole, rape is about sex. This idea that sex somehow has nothing to do with rape is ridiculous rot that only an arts student could swallow. Read John Pinker and get back to me.

    • Nicole says:

      03:22pm | 29/01/10

      Oh in that case I take back what I said about rape not being about sex. Hang on. That’s not what I said at all! How clever of you, E. How about you re-read my comment and… don’t bother getting back to me. Just think about what a strawman you just tried to pull smile

    • Bill says:

      09:26pm | 30/01/10

      Meow!

    • Vicki PS says:

      05:29pm | 30/01/10

      I’m struggling to see your point here, Eric.  You’re a bit too inscrutable today, mate.

    • Bill says:

      05:20am | 29/01/10

      The majority aren’t affected.  Most children don’t understand the concept and see it as ‘sexualisation’.  You’re placing your values and your interpretations on the issue.  If you have well rounded, attentive and nurturing parents who provide the right environment, then this isn’t an issue.

    • Phil says:

      07:42am | 29/01/10

      Paris Hilton a role model…thanks for making me laugh.  Shot your own argument down!

    • E says:

      09:11am | 29/01/10

      HUH?! I was refering to her status as a symptom of the problem, in that it is ridiculous and frightening that someone as vacuous, talentless and of such low moral fibre could have more control over some young peoples behavior than all the doctors, scientists and teachers in the world combined.

    • Your name:kelly says:

      09:27am | 29/01/10

      Bill, sorry mate there is a whole stack of research that says you’re wrong. Sure, they can’t articulate “oh this is sexualisation and that is objectification” actually the fact that they can’t recognise this *is* a problem, but media literacy isn’t the only answer. We need to ask ourselves, why do we have to equip children to interpret all this harmful stuff, why can’t corporations just stop sexualising and objectifying women and children? The values, attitudes and beliefs that children pick up from the hyper-sexualised environment around them are destructive to children’s self esteem and body image.

      Well rounded, attentive and nurturing parents are the best Bill, but it really is an uphill battle for parents to try and curb the effect of every other influence they are exposed to daily. It’s incredibly unfair to blame parents when the rest of society seems to undermine what parents try to impart to their children.

    • Oh, this discussion AGAIN.?. says:

      06:05am | 29/01/10

      Yes, ‘sexy’ videos exist… porn exists too. That doesn’t mean that kids are or should be watching it. If, as a parent, you are not acting in a responsible manner and watching and discussing these things with your children (or *GASP* doing something aside from watching TV and surfing the internet!), then you cannot ‘blame’ external producers of ‘sexy’ clips and ads.

      Humans are by nature, sexual creatures. Parents and caregivers need to be educating our young people on sexualisation as a tool to sell and talking about the true elements of self-worth so “being sexy” is viewed for what it is. If your child isn’t ready for it, limit the liklihood of them being exposed to it. If they see something you think is going to affect them, discuss it.

      I think it’s fairly simple.

    • FS says:

      10:43am | 29/01/10

      Ever been Rick Rolled? That funny old film clip from the 80s doesn’t have girls dancing in g-strings and it’s lyrics aren’t about the girl being a sexy bitch. Yeah my folks had to do a bit of censoring back in those heady days of big hair and acid wash, but not as much as I’m going to have to do to with my 6 month old this decade and beyond. Porn was a hellava lot harder to find back then too.

      It’s hadrd to keep the good messages coming when everything in pop culture is telling my daughter her only worth comes from her looks. Don’t you worry - I’ll be trying as hard as I can, but it would be nice if society valued the innocence of our chilren too.

    • Brad Coward says:

      12:36pm | 29/01/10

      Amanda, stick to being known as the woman who sits behind Kevin Rudd in parliament, nodding at his his every reverential utterance.  I don’t need a nanny to tell me what to eat , drink and watch.  I exercise common sense and allow it to guide my moral adgenda.

      Now why don’t you run off somewhere and bitch about Tony Abbott and how he want’s to inflict his “wicked” moral standards upon women.  Being from the ALP you know all about standards….especially double standards.

    • Brad Coward says:

      12:58pm | 29/01/10

      Before I’m corrected….I mispelled AGENDA.  I’m slapping myself on the wrist as I type !  Thank goodness for the Education Revolution.  My spelling will improve !

      PS Why are responses to comments not attached to the comment being responded to ?  They are all over the place.  Makes it difficult to stay with the program when you have to search for the comment that inspired the retort !

    • T.Chong says:

      06:24am | 29/01/10

      Amanda: a lot of female sexploitation is perpetrated by females.
      All the women in the featured video are there by choice. It is mostly mothers who buy the Bratz outfits for their kids.
      Converts to “decency” (for want of better word) like Ms Mia were quite willing to promote sexualised imagary and articles, when she ran varios mags.
      A solution would be to educate women that there is more to life than a hot bods 15minutes of fame , and many mothers should stop projecting their sexuality via their daughters (bratz lingerie etc).
      Maybe this is an issue where many women need to face up to been just as much part of the problem,instead of being the victim.

    • BMJ says:

      06:53am | 29/01/10

      I think people like you are the problem. Our grandparents had to live through war and hardship while you’re trying to shield kids from a stupid video clip. If I ever caught my kid watching’ this video clip what do suggest? 2 year of counseling?

    • Liz says:

      06:57am | 29/01/10

      Too right Amanda, couldn’t agree more.Good to see you writing for The Punch,hope it’s a regular thing.

    • Ron says:

      07:11am | 29/01/10

      wowser

    • Lisa says:

      10:28am | 29/01/10

      I’d like to see lots of sexy images of men in music videos, Ron. Britney’s last vid, when she was stroked by several sexy hard-bodied men, was very entertaining. But mostly, the music video media is about women dancing in bikinis. Men are usually dressed, and, yes, if they are the ‘talent’ they might stroke them proprietorially and call them ‘bitch’.

      There is no doubt that sexuality, as served up to the masses in media, is almost 100 per cent fantasy for men, by men.
      That discrepancy, the aggressive use of women as masturbatory content for and by men, is really the problem.

      Even in 2010, a naked woman is shorthand for sex, for both sexes. Why? It’s not innate for me to identify naked women with available sex, because I am a hetero woman.

      This is not a ‘wowser’ issue, as much as it’s a ‘mental space’ issue. I doubt you would enjoy seeing men objectified in the media, Ron. Take it from me, sometimes it feels very oppressive, particularly when it feeds into the attitudes of your other-sex companions.

    • Morgan says:

      10:40am | 29/01/10

      @YouMissThePoint

      Actually, I think you have missed the point.

      It doesn’t matter when my kids are watching television (sometimes they wake up at 4 in the morning), I am going to ensure they are watching something appropriate. Personally I would rather they watch a bit of harmless “poolside bikini antics” than the 6 o clock news which depicts violence, horror and death. But hey, that’s my choice as a parent, I am not about to advocate the banning or censorship of the news because I as a parent object to my children viewing it.

      Additionally, not sure if you have Foxtel or stream video content online, but the notion of “appropriate timeslot” is now pretty much antiquated.

    • brett says:

      07:11am | 29/01/10

      The most likely politician to do something about this would be Abbott and so he should.
      It’s not so much the amount of flesh but its the suggestive behaviour and lyrics that that really should be classified as adult themed.
      It’s not about being wowsers, it’s about children growing up in a respectful society, where don’t call women prostitutes, or have women pressing their backside into a man’s crutch.

    • pete says:

      07:15am | 29/01/10

      oooh hang on, I see whats coming, today internet censorship tomorrow TV, crikey, are you guys planning to shut down SBS

      By the way, did the government think to check if their internet filter places them in breach of the 1951 UN HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER to which Australia is a signatory. One of the articles in that ,clearly states that humans have the right to freedom of access to information regardless of media. Your filter is in direct violation of those rights.  Although the Australian constitution does not guarantee the right to freedom of speech the same UN charter of human rights does. so when are you moving on that?

      Or is all of this just a ploy to put Australia in sync with it’s biggest customer?

    • THE WRONG MESSAGE says:

      08:38am | 29/01/10

      HA PETE,
      The Human Rights Charter is one thing and protecting our children is another.  Censorship has its place here when the ‘sex-sell’ charter goes over board. 
      Perhaps we need more attention to the ad.s etc and the message that is put out there.  Raunchy, sexy is not compatible with teaching our children to be responsible AND SEX IS IT.  The sex message tells our children about sex and everything is connected to that.  NOT GOOD I SAY. 
      Alternatively we could dress all our woman up from head to toe like the mussies do?  OOOOO YUK!!!!!!!

    • E says:

      09:13am | 29/01/10

      thats a good comment. I think that there needs to be a classification system for music clips, and I dont think ‘family’ programming should be spiked with sexual themes. But I am against madatory internet censorship.

    • Rob says:

      12:03pm | 29/01/10

      Mate, whatever you say about tv teaching your kids yadayada, YOU as a parent are responsible for what they watch/do/learn.  If you want censorship, emmigrate to China or Iran.

    • Davido says:

      01:03pm | 29/01/10

      Pete, I am against censorship. And most definitely against government sponsored censorship/filtering.

      But you have to agree that:
      1. children are targets for corporations and others; and
      2. children have neither the experience or judgment to process information the way adults can.

      We need to look at this and find a pragmatic solution that does not limit our rights to information.

      And as a side note you might be interested to know the following. Although, the executive (the PM and the government etc) can sign conventions and the like on behalf of Australia they have no power to bind the Parliament. That is a treaty only has meaning when it is emodied within Australian legislation. This is by contrast to the likes of the USA where a treaty signed by the federal government becomes federal law.

    • E says:

      07:25am | 29/01/10

      Good call Amanda,
      To throw my 2 cents in, its clearly got something to do with the neo-feminist ideal of ‘girl power’ i.e. a primitive trade of food and clothing in return for sexual favors, which passes itself off as emancipation right now. What are ‘sexy bitches’ supposed to do when they hit 40? Maybe we could invent some kind of legally binding agreement which ensures the responsibility of the male to keep feeding his dependent ‘SB’ when she is no longer ‘S’?
      Obviously I’m being facetious, seems like we have come a long way backwards in the whole ‘women as people’ arena, when you consider that Paris Hilton is essentially a role model.
      To those who say that its up to parents I agree, but parents have to realise that they cant trust the mainstream media to avoid sexually explicit content in childrens programming. Turn off the tv, unplug the arial, download torrents and you will give them their just deserts and protect your children.
      To those who say ‘it doesnt effect them’, I think you are missing the point that children essentially learn to be adults by copying other adult ‘role models’, and while parents are part of this children aspire to those who are most celebrated in society. Part of our current culture says that whoever is on tv is somehow to be celebrated, hence children will grow to emulate the SB’s as long as that type of role model is exaggerated in their media diet at the expense of the more nutritional ‘woman with self esteem and a respectable job’.

    • Bill says:

      07:44am | 29/01/10

      ‘To those who say ‘it doesnt effect them’, I think you are missing the point that children essentially learn to be adults by copying other adult ‘role models’, and while parents are part of this children aspire to those who are most celebrated in society.’

      Yes because I often see bump and grind at my local pool.  Happens all the time, learned behaviour, I understand.

    • Lawrence E. Calcutt says:

      10:42pm | 01/02/10

      @ E

      Have read most of the for and against comments posted in the blog and I find yours to one of the most down to earth senceable I have read this far. To be honest I am only 25% of the way through the comments but honestly yours is one of the best.
      Your comments make more cents that that an American 64 cent dollar bill.
      I´ll wager your children are happy with their bodies and respect them and know how to live with what you instilled in them with your love and caring in those first 5 or 6 years of their life
      I will look for more, ¨Wisdom from E¨, as I read more of this BLOG.

      Larry From Canada

    • Chris Gee says:

      07:26am | 29/01/10

      Well Said

    • Chris Gee says:

      07:57am | 29/01/10

      I mean to erics comment, not the article

    • Danish says:

      07:29am | 29/01/10

      Sounds like were getting a nanny country, typical Australia

    • Arran says:

      07:42am | 29/01/10

      The problem is when you are watching something with your kids you would think is fairly safe like the tennis at 2pm on the weekend and Channel 7 puts up an ad for Desperate Housewives with the line about ‘banging’ someone else’s wife.  Then you have to answer the question to the five year old ‘what does banging mean?’

      People who say just don’t let your kids watch don’t realise that when sexualisation permeates every part of our culture you can’t escape it.

      Good on you Amanda for being willing to bring this issue into the public arena.

    • Isaac says:

      07:43am | 29/01/10

      Good call Bill. The family environment is where kids are impacted to the most significant degree.

    • Bill says:

      07:46am | 29/01/10

      Am I the only one concerned by the thoughts and values of our politicians these past few days and these are supposed to be the leaders guiding our nation?

    • fox says:

      07:53am | 29/01/10

      Its a far bigger issue than just music videos and could include many other forms of media including magazines aimed at teens and even womens magazines to tourism commercials.

    • Bateman says:

      07:57am | 29/01/10

      Maybe instyead of parking the kid in front of the TV you tell them to go outside and play or give them a colouring book and something constructive to do.

      Parking them in front of the TV to raise them is poor parenting. Stop trying to blame others for your poor choices.

    • Paul says:

      07:58am | 29/01/10

      Danish, Australia is hardly a nanny country. Have you tried living in Singapore?

    • Eleanor says:

      08:05am | 29/01/10

      It’s called a TV remote. It can be used by parents to change the channel. Problem solved.

    • Glen H. says:

      08:07am | 29/01/10

      Amanda, you should get your mate Stephen Conroy to instigate an inquisition into Australia media, routing out all the “filth” from television to print. Everything the Labor party and its various tied Christian Fundamentalist lobby groups that Conroy and Rudd has morning teas with, everything they think is bad can just be vaporised. We can have book burnings in the Adelaide parklands where depressed overweight women can throw issues of New Idea and Womens Weekly into the fire. We can line South Road with thousands of boxes of unsold Bratz dolls and steamroll them into oblivion all because of those depressed girls who are being “sexualised” . We can censor the internet in an attempt to protect the childre- oh, were already doing that one. Well at least then your party can block all the harmful David Guetta videos on Youtube then Amanda. God (and Stephen Conroy) forbid that we expect parents to be well, parents and monitor and nurture their children and teach them about life values, common sense, and safety(including safety on the internet, sheesh). But I guess we can’t expect that of them so it’s probably best the government just regulate for those irresponsible parents and punish the rest of the majority of responsible Australian citizens. Im sure a little rib nudging from the Christian lobby groups Conroy briefs will also help. You’ve already started with the internet, why not just go media wide. Might as well just “Orwell” out on the entire Australia and censor everything that is deemed “harmful” for children.

    • SEX SELLS says:

      05:41pm | 29/01/10

      GLEN son,

      Loosen up there.  I have my grand-kids looking and wandering how there fit in the world of video clips.  They also try to act out what they see.  Parents/grandparent all work together to explain to them that this is not so. 
      This is just one issue that parents complain about.  Another is the huge billboard avertising sex aid for premature xxxxxx (you now what).  Again the little ones want to know. 
      This is only just the tip of the ice-burg of the wrong message going out as far as our kids are….

    • Glen H. says:

      08:28am | 01/02/10

      The country I live in should not have to revolve its policies around protecting your children. I am a reponsible Australian citizen and do not want my country turning into an Ultra Nanny State to reinforce the moral panic of “Protecting the Children!” If you do a good enough job as a granparent, parent or caregiver then this shouldnt be an issue. People who complain about such things are only lazy layabouts who dont want to make the effort to communicate with their children. It has to be approached with education, sensibility and safety. Dont turn my country into an extended territory of Syria just because you think Video Hits is the work of the devil. The human body and sex is a beautiful thing and if parents actually talked to kids about it you get more headway that way. The only wrong messages going out to kids is that there is an agenda right now to based on a moral panic and that our freedoms are going to be lost because of Christian lobby groups and the Labor party.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:09am | 29/01/10

      Amanda,
      Perhaps you should start the ball rolling by telling us why females allow themselves to be “exploited” in this manner.

      Children could not be exposed to what did not exist, could they?

    • James says:

      11:00am | 29/01/10

      That is pretty simple John.  Women allow that because they get paid a lot of money for it.

    • Brad Coward says:

      01:10pm | 29/01/10

      But, Amanda apparently didn’t know it, James !  I’m with John A Neve on this issue.  Amanda….other than “for money”, why do women allow themselves to be exploited like this ?  They have the ultimate power to end it.  Balls in Amanda’s court, now !

    • Julia Kendrick says:

      08:12am | 29/01/10

      To those who think this issue doesn’t matter. Next time you turn the news on and gasp at the 16 yr old boys who gang raped or the 14 yr old displaying her “goods” on utube. And you wonder how did it come to this. KNOW YOU KNOW. Stop sticking your heads in the sand and claiming your free speech/ rights to view whatever you want. And grow up and realise we all have a responsibility to the children of this world. Sex is not meant to be displayed on billboards or t.vs. It should be a private thing between 2 adults.

    • Markus says:

      08:36am | 29/01/10

      Julia you’re the one with your head up your proverbial if you honestly think that a music video is the reason a group of 16yo boys would gang rape a girl.
      Bad things have been happening forever. There has always been a small minority that do things that disturb the majority, like girls who become sexually active way too young, or people molesting children (often family members).
      The only difference in this day and age is that because of mass media, not only are you suddenly aware of it, but it is all you hear about!

      No one is saying these areas are not an issue, most of us just aren’t naive enough to think that taking ads off TV will suddenly solve all of society’s problems.

    • br says:

      09:28am | 29/01/10

      here here

    • Jake says:

      11:29am | 29/01/10

      I have a 5 years old kid. I dont let him watch music videos. I make sure that everything he watches is ok for kids and I also ask him not to watch kissing scenes ....which he does by himself. We have been complimented about my son’s good manners at school and about him being very innocent compared to other kids. Well it’s very simple, we have to protect the innocence of our kids and let them be kids rather than little adults even if that cost us a bit of our freedom.

    • Cameron says:

      08:20am | 29/01/10

      I have to put up with these “sexy music videos” on the screen at the gym that I attend. It is not the semi naked women that I object to. It is the appalling music that accompanies their gyrations. I’m not sure that kids are adversely afffected by them, but my ears certainly are! If they were to disappear overnight, you would hear me cheering in New Zealand

    • DG says:

      11:13am | 29/01/10

      Businesses sell to children under 12 now (when they did not previously) because children now have a buying power. There was a time, not that long ago, where a child’s buying power was measured in cents, now there are a substantial number of children (including at least one 9 year old I know of) have a disposable income of $20-$50 a week to throw around. If you are a business, you want to get your hands on that money. After all, why does a 10 year old need $20?

    • Jack Thomas says:

      08:25am | 29/01/10

      Old grizzled men and avid younger male p0rn wacthers please step to the right and hold up your “Nanny State” and “Political Correctness gone mad!” placards please.

      Amanda, what these bitter, usually single, men are really saying (in between imparting their ‘wisdom’ on parenting) is “let me view more p*rn on the internet, and don’t you dare try to stop me you wowser”.

      These same muppets don’t know what to do except feel awkward once a year when they face what they thought was their cute little 10 ten year old niece dressed like a slapper and pole dancing, “Oh come on Mum, all the other kids watch it”. These old muppets watched Hey Hey on Saturday mornings, with its mild racism and same old jokes and familiar white faces, and would not know that Saturday morning music clips are raunchier than anything they saw for the first 50 years of their life.

      These same muppets will scream later on when the kids brought up on a diet of sexualised and violent images then go on to trash their community. Who’d have thunk it, ey?

    • 6clegs (now theres irony) says:

      11:59am | 29/01/10

      Shocking that I’m in complete agreeance with “Jack Thomas” ( i rarely do!)

      “E*” further up [or down depending how you view comments] summed up my own feelings - BTW another poster confused “E” with “eric” - they’re 2 entirely different contributors. 

      I tried and got flamed for pointing out how noble it was of Katie Price aka ‘Jordan’  to now be making her mega bucks [pounds/euros] by “clothing horse mad girls” on another site a while back—- seems some Nth American Moms didn’t like having their failure to see how their daughters are being sexualised, and found various reasons for buying into the crap to be quite A.O.K (I was actually sympathising with them how hard being a parent today is - but they chose not to read that bit)

      IMHO the majority of parents are so bomb-barded from every direction with this problem that I think that many of them just mentally give up and go with the flow, cos it’s easier….Newsflash! Parenting was *never* easy. If you want ‘easy’ do the rest of us [& ya unborn kids]  a favour, and don’t have any! “-)

    • Bill says:

      08:26am | 29/01/10

      Yes Julia,

      Gang rape has only been around since the invention of music clips, television, billboards and the internet.  Despite all the university studies which have clearly demonstrated that modern media are not the cause of sexual attacks.

      Tell me what are you doing as a parent that your 14 year old is displaying her ‘goods’ on the internet?

      How is it that you demand action that affects everyone else’s lives?

      The sky is falling the sky is falling.

    • Your name:Julia says:

      01:29pm | 29/01/10

      Your comment:I am not talking abourt my 14 yr old. I’m talking about the ones who are currrently on utube. How is it that some adults demand that their rights to see/do/say whatever they want and think that none of it is going to affect everybody elses lives ?
      My kids won’t be going on the internet, watching commercial t.v or listening to the radio. Thank you for making it so they have to live in such a sheltered world so you can have YOUR RIGHTS TO DO/SAY AND WATCH WHAT YOU WANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Glen H. says:

      08:28am | 29/01/10

      Thanks Julia Kendrick (9:12 am) I fully support your views on turning Australia into an extended territory of Syria.

    • Drew says:

      08:36am | 29/01/10

      Hah. If this editorial was posted by a Liberal MP (Tony Abbot, for example) word for word there would be a VAST raft of supportive responses.

      The thinly veiled Young Liberals who have taken control of the comments sections of News Ltd. media outlets are really having a field day with this one.

    • Vivian says:

      10:02am | 29/01/10

      Hah, hah.  When Tony Abbott spoke of the advice he would give his own daughters, he got torn to shreds by the Left feminist push led by Red Julia for supposedly “telling Australian women what to do”.

      Not much input from the Young Libs there, but it seems to be an obsession of the Left to tell everybody what they can and can’t do, such as this Rishworth article, and by imposing secret government internet censorship.

    • dave says:

      08:39am | 29/01/10

      heres an idea, why dont the parents BE PARENTS and stop trying to pass the responsibilty onto everyone else. if you are worried what your kid is watching on TV then watch it with them and turn it off when there is something you dont agree with. if you are worried about the sites on the internet, then sit down and surf the internet with you kids. show them what is good and make sure they stay away from whats bad. This blanket solution is rubbish and just a bunch of winges wanting someone else to raise their kids.

    • Dave says:

      02:04pm | 29/01/10

      Right On Kelly. 2nd comment is spot on.

    • E says:

      08:39am | 29/01/10

      I’m assuming that you are being ironic. Bill, your anecdotal ‘turning the blind eye’ does not stand up to common sense. While 10 year olds may not be ‘bumping and grinding’ i assure you that by 14 they are, in private. And they have been trained to consider this normal behavior partially through the media, and it is reinforced by the threat of social exclusion.

    • Samantha says:

      09:30am | 29/01/10

      14 year olds bumping and grinding in private is just teenagers experimenting sexually…it’s kind of what they do.  I’d hazard that this type of behaviour has been going on for a lot longer than Video Hits has been screening.  Maybe you should read Puberty Blues again.

      As for the original article, I think the author missed the point that nobody is objectifying Suri Cruise, the magazine in question was having a dig at the fact that her parents spend a small fortune on a wardrobe for a child.  And OMG these video clips today making sexual objects out of women.  Go back and watch “Girls on Film” by Duran Duran. 

      Maybe you should spend more time with your children so as to be a strong role model in their life instead of leaving that to tv and social media.  Women especially pass on their own attitudes and insecurities about body image and sexuality to their daughters.  Make some changes at home first before you start blaming the media.

    • Bill says:

      08:41am | 29/01/10

      E,

      Who on earth would claim that ‘Paris Hilton is essentially a role model’?  For who?

    • Stu says:

      08:41am | 29/01/10

      There is that wonderful little device that adorns every TV and computer (even remotes!) in the world today that every parent can use to solve the issue of children being exposed to whatever - the OFF button!

    • DG says:

      08:44am | 29/01/10

      If we are concerned about the members of the public voting on which child looked better we should really look at it in two parts - which sector of the community is it aimed at, and which sector of the community will vote in such a promotion because, ultimately, that sector has a lot to answer for.

    • Greg says:

      08:48am | 29/01/10

      Why is it that the “sexualisation” of females is what everyone gets up in arms about, yet an ad with a males without tops, or “sexualised” in any way if perfectly fine, and we treat it as if it is funny or artistic.  If women want to be respected and not treated like a sex object, they need to give the same repect back to man.  2 way street girls.

    • Ellis says:

      08:50am | 29/01/10

      Don’t like it don’t watch it. Stop complaining and move on.

    • Sarah says:

      08:51am | 29/01/10

      I think that if your kids spend their saturday mornings watching TV, then they are probably going to end up as fat drongos anyway.

      If their Saturday mornings are spent playing sport, playing games, going to the park or for a walk, helping with gardening or houeehold chores, reading a book, talking to each other on the phone, working a parttime job or paper run, talking to their family over brekky, etc…
      ... then they’re not sitting on their fat @rses watching rubbish or ridiculous clips for stupid music on TV, and they will be more successful in life anyway.

      (PS I love indie music, and can’t see anything beneficial from kids watching/hearing top40 manufactured pop anyway).

    • Nicole says:

      08:56am | 29/01/10

      Julia, the suggestion that rape occurs due to sexually provocative images in the media is ludicrous, unfounded and offensive. Sixteen year old boys don’t watch a sexy video clip and decide to gang rape a fourteen year old girl. Rape is about power and degradation, not the desire to emulate something you saw on TV. Do your research before you start pointing to the media as the instigator of all reprehensible acts in society.

    • Linda says:

      11:18am | 29/01/10

      Perhaps you should do your own research!  Ted Bundy himself said that if he hadn’t been exposed to porn at such a young age he possibly wouldn’t have grown up to be the monster he became.
      Having myself grown up in a house where my Father had enough porn and sexual material that would put “Sexyland” to shame, I can tell you that it did nothing for my self esteem as a daughter and a woman.  When upon asking my mother why he had all this stuff I was told “thats just what men do”.  Really, is that what we want to teach our future generation?

      Wake up!  When 5 year old boy tries to feel up his 5 year old friend(girl) in the girls toilet, TV is exactly where it is coming from, when an 11 year old girl is gang raped by 14 year old boys, TV and Daddy’s porn collection is exactly where it is coming from.  It’s not just seeing one video clip or one picture, its from saturating your mind with it day after day.  Somewhere enough is enough!

    • Nicole says:

      03:10pm | 29/01/10

      Linda, two pieces of anecdotal evidence - Ted Bundy watched porn and became a rapist, your dad watched porn and it made you feel inadequate - do not constitute ‘research’. Research involves the scientific method, and denies the assumption that correlation is causation. Maybe these people (Ted Bundy, your father) were attracted to sexually explicit material BECAUSE of a feature in their personalities that found satisfaction in such material?

      Your examples about ‘5 year old boy tries to feel up his 5 year old friend(girl) in the girls toilet… when an 11 year old girl is gang raped by 14 year old boys’ sound shocking and attention-grabbing, but that’s it. And solutions do not come from neat little sound bites like this. Nice try.

    • James Shaw says:

      08:59am | 29/01/10

      Was this article written 20 years ago??? Funny that almost every video clip I see with men in it, they are buffed and have their shirts off and are obviously desireable to women. I am sure you have a reason why when a women is scantly clad she is “exploited” yet when a man is scantly clad it is fine.

    • Uncle Doug says:

      09:07am | 29/01/10

      If Poeple cant see the relationship between street violence, drunkeness, our lack of respect for each other and the type of movies, video games etc our kids are sujected to, you’d have to be blind….Why is it so important to tell stories depicting violence, sexual depravity. graphic war scenes. I guess when the shit hits the fan, we will all be so desensitized, it wont hurt as much…..????
      Or we could do a bit of censorship…..???

    • Lawence Edward Calcutt says:

      07:52am | 02/02/10

      @ Uncle Doug

      Where did you aquire all the wisdom you have shown us in your powerfull but too brief posting above?

      Two or three million more like you in your country with intelligence like yours and there would not be any need for any kind of censorship. Perhaps we might not even need to be tantalized 24 7 on the TV or with song and singing about the need to show each other the sex act and the rituals that lead up to the mating of two of God´´s creation.
      I´m going to continue the reading of this BLOG or whatever its called hoping to find more good stuff like yours.
      Well said, well said.

    • Aaron says:

      09:08am | 29/01/10

      I won’t let my kids watch those videos… or listen to the night time radio count downs which are also full of sexual references!

    • Zeta says:

      09:14am | 29/01/10

      If I could choose between living in Howard’s fear factory; where we were afraid of terrorists, foreigners and aboriginies; or Rudd’s, where the threats are so existential, like ‘the sexualisation of children’, I think I would want Howard back. Terrorism was something you could reach out and touch. Something you could buy a selection of gas masks in preperation for. I just don’t feel scared or concerned about the sexualisation of children.

      Anyone ever notice, how the people who do the most carping and moaning about this spectre of sexualisation, are always the least sexual, and the most clearly uncomfortable with their own sexuality?

      I think it’s offencive to young women to suggest their minds are so malleable they can be twisted by 15 minutes of viewing a raunchy music video. I think that’s the kind of thing concoted by prude’s who aren’t comfortable with them selves. What are these ‘negative effects’ of sexualisation anyway? Do people grow up to have more sex? Is that what the Rudd Government is so afraid of? Rudd stumbled over the question yesterday regarding the population boom, maybe he’s worried a generation of tartlets will increase that further and his chances of impressing the League of Extraordinary Nations will be diminished if we’re consuming resources faster thanks to breeding.

      I shudder at the thought. The world come undone by Akon and Bratz Dolls. Viggo Mortensen wandering through a wasteland of endless night, lecturing his son on the dangers of unbridled sexuality, keeping two last bullets in the chamber for themselves in case they’re subjected to one of the world’s last, dog earred Dolly Magazines, fluttering through the scarred, post apocalyptic landscape.

      Lock up your daughters. It’s the end of the world as we know it. People are watching sexy things and having sex, dear Lord what have we done!

    • Ben says:

      07:20am | 05/02/10

      Fool - \Were not talking about young women, we’re talking about kids ...

    • E says:

      09:18am | 29/01/10

      Arran says:08:42am | 29/01/10

      Brings up a good point for all you ‘its called a remote’ people.
      Shouldnt advertising with ‘adult themes’ carry a warning so that careful parents can switch channels, espessially if the advert is playing during G rated programming?

      Bill, in describing Paris as a role model I am describing a symptom of the problem. I dont know why you think parents have some sort of infinite control over the thoughts and actions of their children, clearly you either dont have kids or they were able to fool you from a young age. Paris is a role model to millions of young people, and thats a problem.

    • cybacaT says:

      09:23am | 29/01/10

      Each generation has complained about the raunchiness of the music, lyrics and recently videos that kids are exposed to.  The lack of standards has slowly crept up on us, and now we’re at a point where there’s not much more that could be done to make the videos any raunchier.
      Next step the guys and girls will be naked…and soon thereafter music videos will be full-on porn.  There’s no other way it can go since they’re been allowed to continually push the limits in the name of free speech and each artist has to one-up the previous to make sales.
      It’s a sad situation, but some harder classifications on these things would be a good start.

    • Markus says:

      10:17am | 29/01/10

      cybacaT,
      Each generation since the days of ancient Greece has complained that the generation below them is destroying the moral fibre of society. Yet here we all are, still alive and kicking 3000 years later.
      “Next step the guys and girls will be naked…and soon thereafter music videos will be full-on porn”. You’ve missed that boat by over 2 decades, friend.
      As someone has already mentioned, go see Girls on Film by Duran Duran. A video verging on 30 years old now, and still more graphic than any video you could find today.

    • Ella says:

      09:24am | 29/01/10

      For all of you saying turn off the tv it’s not that simple at all. I’ve got friends who made the decision not to let their kids watch tv and were told by their childs preschool teacher that they were being abusive. Apparently their child was unable to socialise with the other children because most of the games they were playing were based on tv.

      Either out of ignorance or laziness most parents are letting their children be exposed to potentially harmful influences on a regular basis. Which leaves us with a question - is this is a problem that is going to affect us as a society? If it is then we need to act on it as a society instead of waiting for parents to do the right thing

    • AdamC says:

      09:28am | 29/01/10

      There are actually two kinds of messages being discussed here. The first type are entertainment and marketing messages directed towards men and including sexualised portrayals of women (e.g girls shaking it in a hip-hop video or a woman sprawled over a motor vehicle, etc); the second type are entertainment and marketing messages directed towards women and including sexualised portrayals of women. These latter messages are more problematic, as they are designed to influence women, often young women, and have been very successful.

      The problem with any policy response to this issue is that the use of women’s sexuality to sell to and entertain women works effectively. That is, women seem to prefer these messages to ones that do not use sexualised portrayals of women. So what do you do? Indeed, would government regulations or industry self-regulation make much of a difference?

    • &rew; says:

      09:29am | 29/01/10

      My (12 year old) daughter watches a lot TV music programming, up to a couple of hours a week, but doesn’t dress or act at all provocatively. I haven’t done a “study” on it, but I like to think it’s because of several open, constructive discussions we have had about how women are portrayed in various media, including music videos (and lyrics), but also movies, fashion magazines, etc., and how these fit with her own self-image.

      We talk about a lot of stuff. I’m her father. It’s my job. I remember when she was eight, following me around as I walked up and down, mowing the lawn, and talking about how some of the kids in her class were always making fun of one boy. The conversation covered bullying, diversity, tolerance, and racial, class, and gender equality. Of course, I know a lot of parents who use a TV, or computer, to keep their kids quiet and occupied so the grown up can get on with “more important things”. What could be more important than interacting with the child they brought into the world, answering their questions and helping them build the values system they will need to carry them through life?

      Now these parents need someone to blame for their children’s behaviour, and TV, along with the Internet, is an excellent scapegoat.

    • Miles says:

      09:32am | 29/01/10

      I just remember that Saturday mornings used to have cartoons on for kids.  Now it has just has video hits with film clips like the above.  Now I’m not against them in general, people make their own choices BUT they shouldn’t be shown in timeslots which are traditionally for kids viewing.

    • John in Alice says:

      09:36am | 29/01/10

      Well said Bill.  Now if someone can just point out to me some well rounded, attentive and nurturing parents, though I expect their numbers to be comparable to the number of honest politicians we have.
      Nicole - so why are we seeing children in elementary grades molesting other children, if not influenced by Daddy’s porn collection?  Why don’t you take your own advice and do the RESEARCH!  People like yourself will come up with ANY excuse to justify your own pathetic immoral lifestyle and we witness the growing influence of your narcistic views in the assaults, molestations and sinking academic performances every week on this site!

    • Nicole says:

      03:24pm | 29/01/10

      I don’t know, John in Alice, you’re the ones trying to get something banned so the onus is on YOU to produce the research that porn directly causes molestation and rape. Why haven’t you done that yet? Oh yeah, because you can. But by all means thank you for attacking me on the basis of my ‘pathetic immoral lifestyle’ and ‘narcissistic views’ when I’ve never watched porn in my life nor committed sexual assault. Cheers.

    • Ned says:

      09:36am | 29/01/10

      I would assume that these music clip shows would come with a rating of PG or M if they contain specific content, so maybe parents should follow those guidelines and watch the programs with the children to explain things, or switch to a different channel.

      I’m sick of people wanting to ban everything and anything for the sake of the children. It’s a pathetic and alarmist, raise your own kids and don’t expect the government and media to do it for you!

    • Adam Bowman says:

      09:41am | 29/01/10

      This issue is missing the target but hitting the tree. I think the much larger problem is the consumerisation of children. Don’t just focus on the ‘sex sells’ aspect of this. What should be looked at is why the hell it’s deemed appropriate that children are seen as a viable demographic to advertise to. There needs to be a vast change in the way we as a society views the rights of business.

    • Winston Smith says:

      09:43am | 29/01/10

      Seems Labor’s solution to everything is to ban anything that requires a bit of parental guidance and responsibility. They recently banned “toy like” cigarette lighters (despite there being no evidence of any incident causing injury or death) yet left the brightly coloured disposable lighters, which a child might view as a toy building block or even a lollie, alone. The message is clear: Labor thinks the majority of its constituents are dumb & morally bankrupt. Only by having Government imposed controls will we survive on this god forsaken planet. Because we can’t tell the difference between good and evil we need our role model PM, that’s the Pole Dancing, employee abusing Prime Minister and his Control Freaked minions to run our miserable lives. We should be grateful for the opportunity not to have to make decisions for ourselves. I’m ordering my daughter’s neck to knee swimwear as we speak!

    • toni says:

      09:44am | 29/01/10

      It should definately be banned.  On foxtel it is rated as MA and we block it so our daughters can’t watch it.  These provocative clips should not be on free to air.

    • Nathin says:

      09:47am | 29/01/10

      TV and media is already too far gone with it’s perversions, not just recently but for at least 25 years. I don’t plan to have TV as such (maybe I’ll have wiggles on DVD) in my home until my kids are well into their teens, although if it get’s any worse (if there is such a thing) TV etc. won’t get a look-in at my residence. I can still remember all the rotten images I saw when I was younger and wish I hadn’t seen them. Boys have a more intense imagination which leads to some of the things we see on the news, I saw an interview with Ted Bundy (serial rapist), he said that’s what happened to him. TV etc. needs an overhaul if we want to avoid today’s toddlers becoming tomorrows perverts.

    • Tim says:

      09:51am | 29/01/10

      I’m not defending males who rape, but when girls of a young age grow up watching the dribble on tv that sensationalizes skimpy dressed sexy girls/women as the norm,  it’s no wonder that they find them self’s in trouble when a boy/ man doesn’t understand when being lead on.  We all know girls play games.

    • Jason says:

      09:53am | 29/01/10

      Day of our Lives is way worse.  Parents should supervise their children’s viewing at all times anyway and government should stay out of it (with reasonable limits such as actual explicit porn and violence).  In any case, the women in that video are stunning!

    • Ben says:

      09:54am | 29/01/10

      We already ban and censor everything else in this Nanny State, why stop now.

    • Morgan says:

      09:54am | 29/01/10

      Are you MaudeFlanders?

      When will the wowsers in this country stop trying to ban and censor everything that might not be great for children?

      lets ban having sex because ones children kids might walk in
      lets ban pork crackling because kids are fat
      lets ban red cordial because its makes kids go crazy
      lets ban and censor everything that might offend or harm the kiddies!

      It is up to the parents to restrict, control and monitor what they interact with, not the government

    • cats says:

      10:08am | 29/01/10

      I think people who are against this sort of stuff need to take a stand against it, including parents of the children who watch this sort of stuff. I agree with what cybacaT says - it will keep going and won’t stop until someone takes a stand.

      I guess I am pretty concerned about how these things affect children. When I was a kid 10 years ago, everything depended on looks then too. The boys would judge the girls based on what they look like, then the girls would judge each other. Then the boys grew up to believe that girls are just here for their pleasure and to look at. And girls have low self esteem. Do you think overweight girls would have low self esteem if boys didn’t consider them gross? Sorry but its pretty obvious that men have created this type of society. Women are just being stupid to go along with it and its making it worse for us. I’m not an expert or anything, I know this because I grew up with it and watched it. I don’t know what else parents can do about it except take a stand against it together and hope that things change in the future.

    • Amy says:

      09:59am | 29/01/10

      Is it really that hard to supervise your children’s television viewing? Surely during school hours on weekdays children aged 6-15 will not be watching TV, and children under 6 require closer levels of supervision anyway. Both free to air and pay TV have channels “safe” for children. In my experience, children under 6 are only watch music channels when the parents are in the room.
      Censorship of this sort is just another way for people to absolve themselves of the “blame” if their child doesn’t turn into a picture-perfect specimen. Songs like “Sexy Bitch” disgust me, but I don’t blame the song for the way people are. BTW, the lyrics are just as bad as the clip, so where’s your ire for radio stations?

    • YouMissThePoint says:

      09:59am | 29/01/10

      It’s amazing that some people keep harping on with simplistic arguments such as “Use the remote…Parents should monitor their kids TV viewing…Send them out to play instead of watching TV”. They all miss the point by a country mile. The issue is that broadcasters are failing to ensure that their programs meet the defined guidelines for each time slot, and they’re being allowed to get away with it.

      By all means, let crass, chauvinistic videos like “Sexy bitch” be shown in the appropriate time slots - but don’t show them in time slots that are deemed to be child friendly. Parents every right to expect broadcasters to abide by the ACMA guidelines so that their kids are exposed to this sort of stuff, but it’s not happening.

    • DaveS says:

      10:06am | 29/01/10

      Won’t someone think of the children and send them outside to play in the sunshine and fresh air, and simply turn off the telly?

      Overt capitalism (selling everything at any cost) is just as destructive as overt communism was. It’s all about balance, folks. Let kids be kids. Instead of telling them that every adult is a sexual pervert, keep sex talk until they’re old enough to comprehend it. Instead of stigmatising it, allow young folks to embrace it and learn to integrate it into their lives constructively.

      The only thing worse than rape of the body, is rape of the mind.

    • Lawrence E. Calcutt says:

      08:29am | 02/02/10

      @ Dave S

      While reading your comment I though, how right Dave S.  is with his comment.
      Then I though, I should say something to him, but what, He is in Austrailia, I may have spelled it wrong, and I´m in Canada, HUMM

      Try this, I´ll rate his comment from my prospective.
      How about using a minus 10 to plus 10 stars visual… like…
      . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 8 .  , Oh damn this Spanish keyboard,
      where is that darn asterisk key, I did know the Askie code at one time..

      Well said,  Dave S.

      Larry from Canada

    • Jason says:

      10:05am | 29/01/10

      I think it’s a matter of teaching children about sexuality and its role within marketing from a young age. This occurs in some Scandinavian countries where it is not uncommon to see street performers in the nude and where nudity is allowed to be broadcast at all hours.

      Australia is generally more conservative society to some European nations where a lot of these music videos originate from. David Guetta, the producer of ‘Sexy Bitch’, I believe is from France. It’s mainly an issue of cultural difference and the consensus as to what breaches moral standards within Australian society compared to Europe where sexuality is more openly tolerated.

    • Nathin says:

      10:08am | 29/01/10

      Your ad hominum (red herring) won’t fly with the readers. The point has already been well stated: that harmful images and words (ie. the desperate housewives bit during the tennis at 2pm) are unavoidable in today’s media. The only escape seems to be going to live in a cave and eat bush tucker. Blokes used to go to the dark corners of the town, put on dark sunnies and a hat to get hold of the sorts of images Australians are exposed to today, even when driving their kids to school.

    • Bill says:

      10:18am | 29/01/10

      E,

      The fact the you think that Paris Hilton is a role model to millions of little girls shows that both you and your little girls spend too much time in front of the television and the computer.

      It’s everyone else’s fault, but your own.  You’re obviously an irresponsible parent who refuses to accept that you and you alone are responsible for how balanced your kids are in society.  I know the concept hurts, but the sooner you accept that it is you, the better chance you will have of rectifying the situation.  All of the empirical evidence supports this concept.

    • JAG says:

      10:22am | 29/01/10

      AFR, you don’t have children do you??

    • Terry says:

      10:30am | 29/01/10

      You don’t have to turn the media off you have to teach kids self worth so they can see it for what it is. If you daughters are imitating “overly sexualised females” then ask yourself why and what can you teach them to help them. It is a parents role to bring up their kids, you didn’t have them to let the media raise them. Teach them to believe in themselves and you’ll see a difference in all forms of media including the women’s mags run by women. They might even start writing articles in those magazine instead of filling them full of advertising and pictures of rich kids.

    • Glen H. says:

      10:35am | 29/01/10

      Zeta at 10:14. Brilliant post, absolutely brilliant.

    • wolf says:

      10:36am | 29/01/10

      I’ve got a great way to solve this one Amanda.
      I know it’s a tough call to expect parents to raise their children appropriately.  All you need to do is pass legislation to put an ‘filter’ switch for each TV channel in the minister for communucations office.  That way if some ‘unwanted’ content comes on TV comerade Conroy can hit the button and instead of all the video nasties the kiddies can see some healthy calisthenics instructional video, with the australian flag as the backdrop all set to “Advance Australia Fair”.
      It generates content, the kiddies get some healthy exercise and noone gets any funny ideas about sex.

    • Bill says:

      10:40am | 29/01/10

      Yes Lisa,

      Because the men in the above video are entirely well dressed.  Men are jsut as objectified in the media, ridiculed in advertising (the car breakdown service commercials from RACQ spring to mind), you just don’t here men whining on about it destroying their sense of self worth.  You only see it as one sided because it justifies your position, but it happens both ways, if you would only pay attention.

    • Jim says:

      10:46am | 29/01/10

      Amanda… you are a politician and you don’t like it and it seems a lot of people agree with you and they vote for you and you represent them…..so DO something about it!!

    • Bill says:

      10:50am | 29/01/10

      Very well written. This is a major social issue thats needs addressing.

      I wonder how all the feminists feel about their hard work back in the 60’s??

    • msT says:

      10:55am | 29/01/10

      Hmmm - touchy subject, clearly one that stirs a few possums.

      It’s one thing for all the commentators here to have the “freedom/right” to express their humble view on this topic.
      It’s quite another thing altogether for those with genuine knowledge, experience and both theoretical and practical (AKA life skill) awareness to enter a healthy debate to discuss this heated topic with a plan to bring about some kind of positive understanding and method for handling it.

      Rather than whine and complain for the sake of telling others their views, those who think they know all about sex-ploitation/sexualization and use forums like this to denegrate others ought to go back to class and get educated in sociology, psychology and the studies of human behaviour.

      Not just to become educated ie with a mainstream education system putting conservative information into your head, but to broaden the base of resources and knowledge from where you draw upon to put your humble opinions forth. 
      Personally and professionally, I do have an opinion - that sits more on Amanda’s side of the fence… and the complexity of this issue is clearly flying over the heads of some of you.

      I worked in the mental health services, and I can tell you the moral fibre of our western society is falling apart and the minds of our youngsters along with it.

      This is not my humble view, this is collectively what I heard from women, young men, and families who felt violated, pressured, vulnerable, and sexually demeaned on a regular basis because there was no escape from society’s implied message about sexual worth.

      Undoubtedly many of you will “poo-poo” my comments, too. However, let me leave you with some food for thought:
      With an average of 1 in 4 members of our society being sexually abused (not raped necessarily, but used and abused sexually in the home), that’s 25% of the population whose lives are pretty much screwed up because of sexual abuse/exploitation/overt sexualisation. Oh, and the average of 1 in 4 is just those that are reported and for the record, it is considered that the average is more likely 1 in 3.
      Look around. There is a fair chance that if there are 2 people standing next to you, 1 of them is or has been sexually abused. Go study the impact that has on the development of a child into adulthood, and then go figure on who puts together the content of our media-rich society.

    • James says:

      10:55am | 29/01/10

      Suri Cruise and Apple Martin?  So celebrities are bogans too now…

    • Bill says:

      11:07am | 29/01/10

      msT,

      The only flaw in your theory is that the media aren’t responsible for these sexual assaults and there hasn’t been any evidence to suggest that it is responsible.

    • Missteri says:

      11:14am | 29/01/10

      Hear, hear. You can’t escape the music videos - it seems like it’s the standard form of entertainment at ANY venue these days, but PLEASE just don’t turn the music up!!!

    • Nathin says:

      11:27am | 29/01/10

      Bill. Did you every watch the Ted Bundy interview? Go online and watch it.

    • msT says:

      11:29am | 29/01/10

      Thank you Bill, I didn’t mean to imply that the media is responsible. The issues are far too complex to lay “blame” at the feet of just one group in society. However, it would be fair to say that the media capitalizes on “pushing boundaries” and the younger population are eating it up, with little education to assist them in understanding the impact upon their own decision making, and on how their over sexual expression - in verbal and body language and pseudo-maturity - impacts on others.

    • S Skinner says:

      11:30am | 29/01/10

      It’s HEAR HEAR!!!! You are agreeing, not calling the person over to you!

    • Sarah says:

      11:43am | 29/01/10

      I don’t see how people can say that times have changed and the perception of females and their role is now more prominent. As the article depicts, sexy females, whether it be in moving media, animation or stills, have always been used to portray an image of attraction.
      In the 19th Century, posters of ads featuring a sexy female image were used to advertise garments and soap. In the 20th century, household appliances as well as cigarettes, and cosmetics made use of this campaign. Children are no different. They’re used for toy commercials, food… all giving the impression that they will be happy if they have that product.
      I’m all against the whole g-strings for 8 year olds and protein bars for boys, but advertising concepts have not really progressed over time. And to be honest, I’m not a fan of the constant scantily dressed females thrown in our faces in music videos, but music doesn’t sell based on the video, unless its a gimmick.
      I’ve grown up watching M-TV and having the internet for most of my life (due to having family involved in IT), but it’ hasn’t made me go out and dress like a Pussy Cat doll or a Spice Girl.
      My complaint would be its a tired and boring promotion if a product has to use sex to sell.

    • GeeJay says:

      11:44am | 29/01/10

      &rew;——A good blog mate,but i have a query. Where did you get such a quiet mower.?

    • Cynic says:

      11:45am | 29/01/10

      There’s topless men in that video. As for the bikini clad women, well what else would you wear to a pool party?

      Methinks union hack Amanda Rishworth is just jealous of all the good looking people and needs to raise her profile for the upcoming federal election. She couldn’t even get elected into the SA parliament in 2006 and then somehow got put up for a federal seat. But then, Labor is the party that brought us Nicole “I voted for John Howard” Cornes and Peter “No nukes” Garrett.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:46am | 29/01/10

      So you’re proposing the censorship of music videos on free to air TV, YouTube, ITunes, Mobile Phones? (all easily accessible sources of these types of video by children). Lots of luck on that one. Looks like the voters of Kingston are being ripped off.

    • Bill says:

      11:51am | 29/01/10

      Nathin,

      I am very familiar with Ted Bundy.  Tell me is it your assertion that a serial killer is a reliable source of information?

    • Bill says:

      11:54am | 29/01/10

      msT,

      Don’t you think that the greatest responsibility lies with the parents to educate their children on appropriate behaviour?

      The media have always pushed boundaries, these are old arguments though and since it occurred before media evolved there is little reliability on this as a causal effect.

    • No Wowsers says:

      12:09pm | 29/01/10

      Ok, so what you’re talking about in the article is fair enough, but why have you used that video as an example? It’s quite tame, bland really.

      “A few people in swimsuits? TO THE OUTRAGEMOBILE!”

    • Nathin says:

      12:09pm | 29/01/10

      Bill,

      The philosophy of laboratory testing will confirm that for you. Ted Bundy is the hypothesis of the theory if you like. He is a reproduceable result of the experiment of perverted images and inuendo. He is a living example of the where the logical conclusion of the slippery slope takes people who have been exposed to so much filth, he is what lives at the bottom of the slope. Bundy is a portrait of what we don’t want to happen, but, we may well see more like him. And we can do something about it, that’s the thing. But we don’t want to, which is a very strange thing to me.

    • Nicole says:

      03:17pm | 29/01/10

      A serial killer’s assertion that sexual material made him the sicko he is does not constitute ‘the philosophy of laboratory testing’ (which doesn’t even make sense, by the way). A living example = anecdote. Not science. ONE CASE. Now if you had an experiment that systematically exposed young children and adolescents to sexual imagery for prolonged periods of time, and then conducted a longitudinal study to see how their sexual/violent differed from that of their control peers, that would constitute ‘laboratory’ testing.

      Also, your assertion that ‘we may well see more like [Ted Bundy]’ is interesting. Funny, none of the male friends I have who watch porn have turned into rapists or serial killers yet, but I’ll keep an eye out.

    • Phlip Phlop says:

      12:12pm | 29/01/10

      Im sure if you take your family to the beach, you will see bikini clad women there as well. Should we ban the bikini for the sake of children at beaches?? I think what it comes down to is parental guidance. Plain and simple.

    • Clay says:

      12:18pm | 29/01/10

      Get a life Amanda, why don’t you just ban fun while your at it. What’ll be next on your socialist agenda, ban going to the beach or local pool as well because the costumes are a bit revealing

    • L Davison says:

      12:21pm | 29/01/10

      I enjoy listening to the music, and watcing the film clips, but some of the clips really shouldn’t be shown during a Saturday morning timeslot, and really shouldn’t be shown on a program marketed towards young kids. I say bring back the smurfs, snorks and gummy bears on a saturday mornig for young kids viewing grin

    • Dorothy says:

      12:25pm | 29/01/10

      Ahhh, the Labor Femnazi’s in full force. How about get out of our bedrooms, TV and internet. What about letting parents be parents. Labor’s femo wing have more in common with the conservatives they despise when it comes to issues of censorship.

    • James says:

      12:26pm | 29/01/10

      Well, if her mate conroy gets his way, the government can just (try) to block all of this stuff!

    • Joe Stephens says:

      12:27pm | 29/01/10

      I firmly agree with this article.. I am not responsible for the upbringing of my daughter, society is!

      Let the outrage begin!

    • Lawrence E. Calcutt says:

      08:47am | 02/02/10

      @ Joe Stephens

      re ¨¨ Let the outrage begin!¨¨

      Joe Joe Joe, the outrage is that you, or anyone would even consider that Society be responsible for the upbringing of a daughter, or son.
      Good greef, that´´s what THEY want to do,  NWO Elite and One World Government , raising your children for you.

      Is the world down under filled with 99ers like you, Oh God, I hope not.

    • Andrew says:

      12:32pm | 29/01/10

      How dare anyone decide what we can all watch based on their own personal superstitious beliefs.  It was the church that made sex out to be something bad - and these socialists who think we should all have to live by their extremist agenda are wrong.
      There is nothing wrong with sex or nudity, and we shouldn’t be making out that there is.  And despite the hysteria from religious nut cases - I’ve yet to encounter a child who thought of themselves as a sex object.  Those studies are so blatantly flawed it’s ridiculous.

    • Paul says:

      12:33pm | 29/01/10

      All the videos and the lyrics nowadays have sexual references in some form or another.
      It is quite sad but thats what sells and then along comes someone like Susan Boyle and outsells the lot of them. My kids listen to Susan Boyle and also a whole load of rap rubbish that Im sure people would find offensive but didnt we all at one stage. When I was growing up any noise was considered offensive unless it was Bing, Frank or John bloody Denver

    • More Music less Bitchin says:

      12:36pm | 29/01/10

      err hang on a minute, if you want to get an eyefull of your ‘freedom based content’ then you have oodles of it to access online, at the newsagent, and you could even get on a plane and go to Thailand to access an even more ‘liberated’ content of sexy video’s, porn and some underage take away..  This debate is not about stopping your access to ‘adult content’ media. It is about mediating the content that is available on the public television network (you remember we the people tv?) during day time hours when not just children but many other citizens are watching or listening. 

      Humans like any breeding species are sexual to some extent however, nothing esle on the planet takes that quality and eploits it beyond its natural intended boundaries.  Children arent born ‘sexy’ and ready to breed for a very good reason, they are not ready.  That is a faily simple concept to understand.  They are also not ready to smoke, drink alcohol and engage in sexual activity.  In our culture we recognise this as abuse. We recognise other cultures that permit this behaviour or do not prevent it from happening as being ‘third world’, ‘undeveloped’ and impoverished socially and morally.  Hence the enormous amount of resources from most of the countries in the world who can afford to offer education and assistance to those countries who cannot do so themselves.

      If you cannot see through the eyes of a child, because you are no longer a child or you are not caring for a child, then you are desensitized to what is now highly visible in our society and not just on TV and the internet.  I have children of my own and I speak as their carer and mother, but also for myself, I believe that the content that Amanda is referring to is inappropriate for daytime television, publically visible commericals and music videos on free to air day time television. I am not interested in the choices that the women appearing in them made that is not this issue, I am for freedom of speech, freedom of the internet and us managing the content we are able to from home. I am against public forms of media using explicit sexual content that is contexualised sexually for the purposes of commercialisation.  We must look at the context of the content. 
      Bikini at the beach Vs Bikinis on the SB in the video. 
      Dressing up dolls Vs Dressing up Bratz in Hookers working clothes.
      Kids learn by doing, make no mistake.
      If you dont like mediating our social content, esp when it affects minors, elderly, women, then move to Thailand, the liberal attitudes there may satisfy your visual requirements.
      And if this has offended you, then dig deep and really ask yourself why.

    • Bill says:

      12:38pm | 29/01/10

      Nathin,

      I am not sure whether you answered whether a serial killer is a reliable source of information?

      Have you read the research which demonstrated that Ted Bundy didn’t actuall believe that pornography caused him to become a serial killer.  Have you read the psychological reports from those that examined him that came to the clear conclusion that the blaming of pornography for his crimes was a diversion by him to negate the consequences of his actions?

      Pornography did not cause him to kill, that’s a fallacy, there is no slope, it has been proven time and time again.  Serial killers kill because they want to and no amount of ‘influence’ from any external source will control that in any fashion.  Ted Bundy has deceived you, but that’s probably because you want to be deceived.

    • Mitchell says:

      12:40pm | 29/01/10

      I loved every sexond of this clip. Its a Friday and I’m now def in the mood to go find some sexy bitches tonight!

      In all seriousness though the clip just reflects society. Yes kids are growing up sooner. Nothing we can do about it. We just need to adapt, bring them up with good morals and hope for the best.

    • Davido says:

      12:41pm | 29/01/10

      I agree.

      Less TV and Internet for you kids might help limit their exposure to this rubbish.

    • Justin Marks says:

      01:09pm | 29/01/10

      Totally agree, and I’m no prude.
      The worst offenders are rap “performers” who refer to women as hoes, bitches etc.
      This SO wrong on SO many levels.
      Kids have enough to deal with, let alone figure out why it’s OK to show women being degraded

    • 6clegs says:

      01:15pm | 29/01/10

      I do see pre-pubescent girls girating and ‘dancing’ *in the street*. Happens every day - sometimes the neighbourhood girl children have “competitions’’ * on the street *.
      couldn’t help myself, I spoke to their Mums about it… dunno why i bothered. Neither could see any problem with what their daughters were doing… boy children, the youngest are toddlers, sit and clap - so yeah, I don’t see what some writers on this site are worried about Society is just fine n dandy with no discussions nessacary. . . the original eleven yo instigator of the ‘‘game’’ hasn’t had TV for 8 mths - her younger brother smashed it,  and neither family have computer/internet (Ogawd how I Wish they would sit in-side their own houses!!! * - peace, perfect peace lol)

      (Thanks Johnny for making it possible for these “mothers’‘-who-think-5grand-is-a-fortune, to breed like rabbits - can’t wait for these ‘real little aussies’ to grow up. oh the joy, Australia will be in such good hands)

      Can we Please have some sort of mass education to the parents on why they are doing their children No Favours?!
      Or would it be possible to teach, as a matter of course, Critical Thinking skills in public schools?

      PLEASE?

    • Jack Thomas says:

      02:23pm | 29/01/10

      Yup, add another one to the list of horrible things caused by John Howard - unwanted pregnancies and poor parenting. It must have been great under previous PM’s like Keating, ey?

      Methinks the reason the Mums you spoke to were nonplussed was because some old creepy guy was watching their daughters.

      Older creepy men seem to have strong views on why our TV and internet should be floodgates open for p0rn and other rubbish.

    • 6clegs says:

      04:40pm | 29/01/10

      ROFLMAO! Ya Goose!

      as blind and stoopid as these ‘‘mothers’’ are, even they can see I’m *all woman* - angelina jolie i mightn’t be, but am definately female, one that gets noticed, (¬ cause i’m fat, either) am not even a ‘‘creepy old woman’‘.  bit of a fail there, matey.
      Keating, i’m pretty damn sure, didn’t encourage morons to reproduce with financial payouts. ?
      ( and don’t get me started on the well-off new mothers that either bought ‘ordinary’ -but still as much as good 2nd hand car- sport horses, or brand new saddles with their ‘baby bonus’ - but that’s probably the sort of thing you would have done with yours while screaming “Nanny State’, ey? praps you need to go stand on the right with your placard, too wink
      IMO much of the “boom’’ was the middle class spending their various welfare cheques - but that’s waaaaay off topic.

      “Jack” - i see and know ‘working’  middle & upper ‘‘class’’ - lots of em, my view of the world extends well beyond my home office. grin
      This problem of targetting children for their parents dollars - and don’t be fooled that ‘‘sexualising-them-young’’ has nothing to do with making money- crosses all suburban/‘class’ boundaries. It’s been so sneakily done that many parents don’t even realise it’s happening.

    • 6clegs says:

      12:10am | 30/01/10

      @ “Jack Thomas”. ROFLMAO!

      mate, Iz all woman - not even a “creepy old’’ woman.
      and as for ‘‘watching their daughters’‘, sometimes trainwrecks just have to be observed.

    • Jason says:

      01:16pm | 29/01/10

      It’s an interesting contrast - on one hand you have Tony Abbott getting reamed for his comments about raising his daughters to believe they had something of value (themselves) which they should give carefully.  Women everywhere got their hackles up and claws out at the suggestion that someone (male) should impede or comment on female sexuality today.  Forget it’s his own daughters.  Couple days later and we are being told we should ban sexually oriented music videos to “protect our kids” (note - not Amanda’s kids).  Is it ok to be controlling and overbearing if you are a woman?  Is it ok to decide other people’s rights based upon your personal morals if you are a female but not male?  Serious question folks…how come this politician has a right to put forward a moral viewpoint, but a male politician cannot?

    • Criminologist says:

      01:31pm | 29/01/10

      Bill is correct.  There nas been extensive psychiatric and psychological study on Ted Bundy and the general assertion is that pornography had little effect on desire to kill.  He used this as one of many trial ploys to evade culpability.

    • Brad Coward says:

      01:36pm | 29/01/10

      Whilst I could see Paris Hilton as a possible role model for Amanda Rishworth…I couldn’t see Amanda Rishworth as a possible role model for Paris Hilton.

    • Eric says:

      01:37pm | 29/01/10

      A far bigger problem than sexualisation of women is demonisation of men. At least women are portrayed as desirable, but the media portrays men as foolish or evil.

      Yet politicians and journalists never worry about what effects the constant stream of anti-male propaganda has on boys.

    • Zeta says:

      02:08pm | 29/01/10

      Eric raises a fair point, just not the one I think he was trying to raise.

      If the law prohibiting me from breeding was ever lifted, and I had a son (since Zeta is greek for seven, let’s call him Eta for eight) I’d be damn disgusted if he ever started emulating those cheekboned creeps on the Disney Channel. If little Eta started gyrating to Zac Efron, or the Jonas Brothers, he’d be strapped Clockwork Orange style to the couch and forced to watch the entire filmography of Gregory Peck, Sam Peckingpah, John Wayne, and any other male role models whose names are euphemisms for penis. Then we’d move on to close quarters combat training, tobacco spitting, and card sharking. Because I’m a responsible parent, Eta wouldn’t learn how to shoot a .44 until he’s at least 9. By the time I’d be finished, he’d want to go back in time, find himself watching the Disney Channel, and head butt his old self in the face.

      Television, the Drug of the Nation is full of these anti-male role models. We put these limp freaks on a pedestal, while real men are sidelined and marginalised. I don’t have much contact with children, but I hope little boys still want to grow up and join the SAS, instead of wanting to grow up and join a non-threatening Disney Channel pop rock group.

    • cats says:

      04:18pm | 29/01/10

      Examples, Eric. Theres no use in making a statement like that and not defending your opinion.

      Maybe become a journalist then? You never have anything to offer here, apart from bringing up mens issues so why don’t you find out how you write articles on the Punch or different opinion websites and do something about it! All you ever do is sit and complain, but theres no action coming from you.

      If i was a parent, i would care a lot about what my son thinks of himself, just as much as my daughter. Most parents would.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      05:08pm | 29/01/10

      Bit harsh there Scott. Abbott has nothing to do with this and whats with calling his kids “dog ugly”? Take a pill mate!

    • Bill says:

      06:55pm | 29/01/10

      Interesting how Eric seems to be continuously attacked for merely providing the male perspective.  More interesting that the attacks come from women.

    • James says:

      09:59am | 01/02/10

      I am a male, and I do not agree with Eric.  I think that some males believe men are being devalued because we are being told that women are equal to men, and that this brings down a man’s value from when he was considered superior to women.  I am a young, with a partner and young daughter, and my partner does not see me as superfluous, or demonic, or anything but a wonderful father.  My daughter worships me.  TV has done nothing to stop this. 

      In my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience, most of the single mothers I know result from the father not being interested, rather than the female being a rabid feminist who thinks that men are unnecessary.  Nearly every single mother I know, if they were asked about feminism, would talk about burning bras, and working in strip clubs.  Eric is seeing conspiracies where in fact there is only ignorance.

    • Ben says:

      01:40pm | 29/01/10

      Here here Amanda!  Couldn’t agree more!

      Video hits on Saturday mornings is paramount to ‘grooming underage children for sex’.
      What’s more disgusting is being bombarded with those disgraceful mobile phone porno ads all night ...  I don’t want to see that on my tv EVER. I’m not a wowser just a mature adult and If I want tits and arse on my mobile I’ll go to a porno shop to buy it. Keep it out of my lounge!

    • Scott says:

      02:34pm | 29/01/10

      Ben let your fingers do the walking and turn it off! How will you protect your children all the time?

    • Much to Learn says:

      01:49pm | 29/01/10

      I’m a sex addict and one of millions. I have not participated in immoral activities for 12months. I agree with the things in this article 100%. I realise that my choice of environment, friends and activities and as a young child were the start of my problems. I did not learn how to have correct meaningful relationships with women because I was being taught sexualisation by society. Society teaches this so freely on TV and other medias so easily. I just wanted to have a relationship with the opposite sex. My relationship with my wife has suffered because of my behaviour as a young adult. My behaviour was triggered by my thoughts and my thoughts were triggered by my environment and feelings. Society teaches us to satisfy our feeling and take what we want because we have the rights. Go because the light is green. Who made the light green! No one has perfect parents. I don’t claim to be a perfect parent by any means. Parents can help but they are fighting a uphill battle unless we change societies squewed moral compass. One upon time gentleman behaviour protected a woman’s virtue. Now we expect the Government to control this out of control media.

    • Scott says:

      02:31pm | 29/01/10

      Take responsibility for your desires pal, wake up to yourself and stop making excuses. Sex addiction is a bunch of BS and too many celebs and people with no control over their opportunities and hormones hide behind it.

    • Bill says:

      01:57pm | 29/01/10

      ‘Video hits on Saturday mornings is paramount to ‘grooming underage children for sex’.’

      Defies belief.

    • ja says:

      03:13pm | 29/01/10

      censorship is no answer.  Values education is.  In an ideal world though a smaller and more connected community is the most healthy bedrock for a persons upbringing. 
      It’s sad that we live in a community where we all seem a bit too scared to challenge values, and good on this author for doing so.  As a result, anything becomes permissable, including immoral music clips (vicious youtube clips, sex and violence in primetime, etc.)  I feel sorry for parents because control over what your children are exposed to is well beyond your control, even if you choose to have no tv…

    • idrewthis says:

      02:03pm | 29/01/10

      Can I just say that I’m a parent and yes, I’m being a parent and I’m monitoring what my kids are exposed to online and on TV and I’m fine with that.
      When an MP raises an issue like this it subtly connotes that parents don’t want or can’t handle this responsibilty (and are therefore pleading with the government to do something about it): a dangerous and maligning assumption.
      I feel patronised and insulted that any politician of any persuasion thinks I’m incapable of exercising my discretion where my kids’ media consumption is concerned.
      Using a remote is relatively easy. Getting them to eat their vegetables… now there’s a challenge.

    • Jules says:

      02:16pm | 29/01/10

      Much to learn… How do you control your addiction of sexual behavior now after so many years, and living in todays society where sex is everywere?

    • Much to Learn says:

      02:34pm | 29/01/10

      Jules, Maybe for another forum but one of the first steps is to eliminate or sensor your controlled personal enviroment. That is why I agree with this article. Would make it a whole lot easier for people to do this in thier home if TV and internet was sensored already. I agree with another persons comment earlier. If people want it, let them go out and find it in a quite and away place.

    • Frank says:

      02:52pm | 29/01/10

      Have a look what is on tele on Saturday and Sunday morning kids from 4- 17 years of age have immeidate access to over sexualised images and people. on video hits

    • Jack Thomas says:

      03:14pm | 29/01/10

      Sounds harsh, but not such a stretch Bill.

      Little girls sit in front of the TV, clip after clip shows black rapper with his skanky Ho’s, his success path via puttin caps in someones ass, their success gained through pouting and gyrating.

      Your beliefs are clearly not the same as others.

    • Bill says:

      07:00pm | 29/01/10

      Yes Jack, that’s what happens to most girls in Australia.  So most black rappers only achieve success through shooting someone?  What comes after you have achieved ‘success’ by gyrating in a video clip?  Where doe the ‘stardom take you?

      Even worse than disbelief.

    • Nathin says:

      03:48pm | 29/01/10

      Zeta’s point (however interestingly made) is a good one for sure. Not sure what he meant by a law banning him from reproducing. But men not stepping up to the plate to be a real man may indeed be part of the problem. The concepts of gentlemen, character, virtue, seem to have dissappeared significantly - sports stars play the role models nowadays. The whole Tiger Woods issue comes into this perhaps. Hand in your man card Tiger!
      On another note: I thought “The dangerous book for Boys” is a great book to give your kids as a replacement for the TV. One good idea.

    • Scott Glennon says:

      04:14pm | 29/01/10

      I don’t get it… How is any of that film clip associated with sex? Breasts are covered… Other genitals are covered… The only difference between this film clip and a child going to a busy beach for 3.5 minutes is that the people in this clip are actually attractive.

      Mr Abbot, just because your kids are dog ugly and you think they should cover up. Don’t expect the rest of the nation to follow your lead. w@n|{er.

    • Brad Coward says:

      06:30pm | 29/01/10

      Scott Glennon…I suppose that you’re a bloody portrait in oils ?

    • Eric says:

      05:08pm | 29/01/10

      Cats, I’ll provide just two examples - I’m sure anyone interested in the issue could find many more.

      (1) “White Ribbon Day”, as featured on The Punch and many other media. This is pure misandrist propaganda, portraying men as wielders of violence against women, and attempting to guilt-trip all men for the actions of a tiny minority.

      (2) This road safety ad, making fun of men’s penises. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2nvAFOk7x0 A government-sponsored effort to shame men sexually.

      As for writing articles of my own, I don’t need to repeat what has been done by so many others. Google “men’s rights” and you’ll find plenty of information. I think it’s better just to spread the word and raise consciousness.

    • stevie says:

      01:18pm | 30/01/10

      Amanda stick to trying to fix things up for the poor workers in Lonsdale and Hackham. Your last foray into the world of book publishing and selling in Australia was nothing short of juvenile and a disgrace to the community in protecting a minority of your mates. Maybe go to the Big Day out in Adelaide.

    • Tyler Trenerry says:

      05:21pm | 30/01/10

      Seemingly television is the next step in the Rudd government’s new wave of censorship laws. Have we become so infantalised that we must rely on this socially conservative government to decide what is and isn’t appropriate?

    • Ben. says:

      01:27pm | 01/02/10

      Yes I think so.  As a parent I need assistance to prevent my children being exposed to this material before their minds and thoughts are sophisticated enough to interpret this material for what it really is. We simply cannot be everywhere at once and it is not unreasonable to expect this type material to be restricted to late night television.

    • Bill says:

      07:29pm | 31/01/10

      Kelly:

      ‘Bill, sorry mate there is a whole stack of research that says you’re wrong.’

      The old, ‘there is a whole stack of research’ routine.  Well quantified.

      ‘We need to ask ourselves, why do we have to equip children to interpret all this harmful stuff, why can’t corporations just stop sexualising and objectifying women and children? The values, attitudes and beliefs that children pick up from the hyper-sexualised environment around them are destructive to children’s self esteem and body image.’

      Um, your supposed to equip your children.  It’s called being a parent.  What happened before there were these ‘corporations’, did parents not equip their children to be prepared for the world?

      ‘sexualising and objectifying women and children?’

      No men are sexualised?  What about the shirtless men in the above clip?  How sexist, but as we have seen from Eric’s efforts, it’s acceptable to sexualise and discriminate against men, according to the women who post here.

      ‘Well rounded, attentive and nurturing parents are the best Bill, but it really is an uphill battle for parents to try and curb the effect of every other influence they are exposed to daily. It’s incredibly unfair to blame parents when the rest of society seems to undermine what parents try to impart to their children.’

      The rest of society are parents…take responsibilty for your actions, stop looking for excuses for your own lack of effort.

    • A psychiatrist says:

      11:33pm | 31/01/10

      As a card carrying member of the Labor Party I am embarrassed by this. All I see is another psychology major trying to remove the little freedom I still have in my own home in the name of a non-existent cause. If I don’t want my children to watch these videos I won’t let them. Apparently nodding away comically for several hours during question time behind KRudd isn’t enough to keep her public image alive. It seems she needs to find her name into a newspaper as well on a pissweak issue in an attempt to boost her profile. Hopefully that succeeds and this issue just disappears in a few days.

    • Ben says:

      01:35pm | 01/02/10

      Psych’ my ar&e….....  Think you can put that up there and be credible then come out with political diatribe…  You should be embarrased…..  Any real Psych would also have some training in sociology and would be well aware of the negative impact of such material on immature minds. Amanda never mentioned banning this material outright, only taking steps to ensure it is not easily accessible by minors.

    • Lawrenc E. Calcutt says:

      03:55pm | 02/02/10

      @ All

      Now that I’ve read the entire Blog of postings and replys by you all, I am deeply impressed by the comments of parents who obsuly love their children very much and cincerly want to make a better life for then.
      May I suggest a small change in the way you deal with the tommyrot your children watch.
      After every Show??? call it whatever, Turn off the TV and discuss the show they, he,she just view. Play 10 Question with them I’ll give you a few hints later.
      Take a whole half hour if you need it and find out what your kids are thinking right then.
      When you are finished turn on the TV, send them out to play, give them a bath, before bed, etc.but do this one last thing.
      Give them a “Huglove”, any age, by taking them in your arms and hold them so close that the natral rytmem of your body reaches out and syniks up with theirs and tell them how very very much you love and appreciate them helping you to
      raise them up to be….. you fill in the words… Years from now your will know how these little hugloves have change their lives.
      Now the sample Question.
      - what did you just watch?
      - did you like what you saw?
      - did it teach you anything new?
      - Was there anything is in the show you didn’t like?
      - Did you see anything that you feel you should not have seen?
      - What did that teach you?

      I’m not going to spell it out for you, You make your own Questions up.
      In the end you will learn what it is THEY have tought your children while
      your children watch what THEY wanted to teach YOUR children.
      By the way, I invented the name “Huglove”

      Now for the other postings, the ones from the side of the discussion who said in effect, “I want what I want and by God I’m not going to let anyone tell me I can’t have it, Sex and pleasure and Drugs Booze and Porn is what my little head, my clit and penis tell me is right for me and my big head on top of my shoulders agrees.
      To them I say, Pity your never grow up.

    • Ashley says:

      04:39pm | 03/02/10

      I’d just like to say I believe the sexual content of music clips and lyrics of songs are much to raunchy. These rappers don’t sing about how beautiful or how smart a girl is and feature her in a nice long dress, they go on about ‘how much junk is in her trunk’ and how they are ‘a tits and ass man’ or that they wished ‘the bitch would suck my 12 inch’. I don’t care what you jerk off too, but can you please not have it in my face on midday TV or blasting in my ears 24/7?? And don’t tell me to just ‘change the channel’ this has gone way to far.

    • zfk says:

      08:45am | 04/02/10

      Amazing how many people here can’t even understand what Rishworth is saying, let alone engage sensibly on the topic. I haven’t heard her suggest that these videos be banned so all of this anti-censorship talk is totally misplaced. She’s talking about kids, doing something about their exposure to this stuff! Not about banning your access to whatever garbage music cips you want to see. Pretty subtle distinction I know….. so is anyone seriously arguing against any censorship of material for children? Oh no of course not, don’t be ridiculous - except possibly the many people who seem to react to the idea of kids of ‘bad parents’ suffering with a sort of glee…..  It’s not just this site I admit, but the commentary I have seen on this topic is a perfect example of how disfunctional our politics is. God forbid actual dialogue! Nope all we get is torrents of political free association based on keywords like ‘censor’ or whatever. Just shout the loudest.

    • Martin says:

      11:11pm | 02/07/10

      That’s exactly right Amanda there’s no problem that can’t be solved (just before an election) by some neat little piece of boutique legislation that assumes we’re all fools who can’t run our own lives.  Hey great idea, I’ll just cede control of my life to the current gang of Labor Party franchise holders!!

    • Yu Dun Beache says:

      06:59pm | 06/07/11

      Because children don’t naturally develop their own sex drive. They are blank slates until the media tells them what they shall desire, and voila it’s exactly what’s being advertised and now they want it!

      You’re so right, Amanda Rishworth! If only people would listen to you, we could all learn something. Then maybe we wouldn’t live in this hyper-sexualized world. Instead, we’d live in a world where nobody was interested in sex. Because if there were no sexual advertisements, where would our sex drive come from?

      -YDB

    • TR says:

      09:06am | 04/11/11

      my 5 year old told me that one of the boys at school just told her to draw her sexy bra. Apparently the favourite word for some of the kids is now “sexy”. My 5 year old is starting to worry that she is not “cool”. 95% of the kindy kids listen to the top 40 and know ALL the words to even the most explicit songs, and quite a few will be watching the raunchy music videos. Many parents encourage this because its seen as cool and a sign of maturity. These are kindergarten kids who have not even cut their second teeth yet.  Some of the probably still wet the bed. I know that some people will see this as somehow normal, but this begs the question - where do they go from here and how do teens rebel if Lady Gaga and Chris Brown are for little kids?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #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