Comments on: Sexualisation of children

By: Niall

Niall — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:55:07 +0000

The confusion of paedophiles and ebophiles is a pet peeve. Calling individuals who have inappropriate sexual relations with pubescent and post-pubescent teens paedophiles just confuses the issue.

Immoral as it may be, there is nothing particularly unnatural about finding an individual capable of reproducing attractive, but this is not the case with young children and toddlers. I can’t imagine that there is a significant degree between those who find teens attractive and those who find young children attractive. In the case of those who find young children attractive, I can’t see that children wearing adult clothing would make any significant difference.

While no expert I’m not entirely certain that it is appropriate to label Bratz characters as prostitutes or dominatrixes. The style adopted by the brand seems inspired by Japanese culture, particularly Manga and must be viewed in that context. They also cater to the aspects of the market that do not want princess dolls, but want dolls that are rock stars and models. If Burkas were in fashion, then the kids would want dolls in burkas. I don’t think that children really see the sexual link that adults imagine to be in such products, so I can’t see that it makes them think of themselves as sexual creatures.

By: Debbie Ging

Debbie Ging — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:01:06 +0000

The point about paedophiles perceiving children as sexual irrespective of how they are dressed is very important. But I do wonder to what extent the paedophile is a stable and easily definable psychological identity. What about the ‘normal’ married men and teenage brothers who abuse children and siblings? Do all paedophiles share similar histories and psychological profiles?
The main point of the article was not to assert a direct causal link between
raunch culture and paedophile activity. However, it is worth bearing in mind
Kon and Riordan’s (1996) research in relation to Eastern Europe’s transition
from socialism to capitalism, whereby pornography’s overt commodification
of women’s bodies has contributed significantly to the reassertion of patriarchy and of a burgeoning sex industry.
What I am saying is that the sexualisation of children sends out deeply contradictory messages not only to children but to society at large. There is a confounding double-speak at work, whereby viewing paedophile images is a serious crime but using a paedophile aesthetic to sell make-up to children in not. Of course, there is an important distinction to be made between the production of images that involves the harming of children and that which does not. But in the paedophile imaginary – and again we need to interrogate what exactly such a concept entails – such images may coexist more closely than people would like to think.
Looking at the issue in this way could, of course, cause people to become
overcautious and fearful and might be used to justify a culture of surveillance, suspicion and even paranoia. This would be unproductive. If the problem is ever to be tacked successfully, it is crucial to develop an understanding of why apparently ‘normal’ people abuse children, including their own children. It is important to stop pushing the problem beyond society and beyond comprehension by acknowledging that paedophilia is not restricted to small circles of antisocial sex monsters. That is the essence of moral panic, which is intrinsically linked to scapegoating – a process which enables us to deny that the problem lies within, not beyond ‘normal’ society.
I don’t have quantitative data to support a direct causal link – these processes are by their very nature too widespread and too subtle to measure. But I do think it is confusing for young girls to grow up in a society which overtly demonises yet tacitly condones their sexualisation. Nearly all victims of abuse feel they are in some way to blame for being abused. If young girls are learning that women’s main raison d’etre is to attract sexual attention, then surely they are less well equipped to resist unwanted advances and more likely to feel that they are somehow at fault when it happens? And in that respect I believe that ‘girl power’ effectively disempowers girls by giving them a discourse of false feistiness (that is really about sexual submissiveness) rather than a genuinely strong sense of themselves as equal players in their social worlds.

By: Padraig O'Morain

Padraig O'Morain — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:32:35 +0000

I suspect paedophiles will target children regardless of how the latter are dressed. I recall some research in which paedophiles were shown pictures of children in a playground on a rainy day, wearing their raingear, and the frightening thing was they saw all the children has having a sexual intent. So their way of looking at childen is distorted by their own orientation.

The problem with the sexualisation of children, I think, is that it may attract the interest of those heterosexual men who are willing to exploit children sexually – and these in my opinion form the majority of child abusers. Perhaps it also puts the kids themselves under pressure to engage in sexual activity at too early an age.

By: frankp

frankp — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 01:22:40 +0000

Myself and a friend were in town (Cork) today and there was some event on in the City hall for young teenagers.

Loads of young girls – I’m not much good at telling ages, but I’m guessing 14-16, not older – were being collected by their parents who seemed quite happy that their kids were practically naked.

We discussed whether this is just us getting old, or whether the world is going mad.

Doesn’t every generation look at the next and say ‘t’was never like that in our day…’…?

Nonetheless, I was a bit disturbed. Am I getting old and prudish? I don’t think so, and my friend is 27 – hardly an old fogie.

These girls were wearing tight crop tops and skirts that barely reached what one would class as leg. Or skintight shorts of a similar length.

I posted previously about an artist who looked at MTV’s influence on young girls.

So anyway I don’t know about a direct link or not, but how can we be shocked by one and not examine the other?

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:05:18 +0000

dear me..

ok, here’s what I think..
Paedophiles believe children to be sexually aware completely, totally and irrespective of what they wear or how they behave.
However, I do wonder about the strength of the taboos which exist in all societies against certain things like incest and paedophilia. Taboos, while damaging in some ways, are hugely important in others in repressing certain behaviour.
I think that two things are perhaps contributing towards weakening the taboo. One is the internet. A person with paedophile urges might dwell on those and move to viewing images, then perhaps to chatting on line with like minded souls and perhaps then onto an act. For instance, many suggest that group therapy for paedophiles is a bad idea because it actually reinforces their beliefs rather than ease them. Pre-internet, the isolation of a person with paedophile urges might prevent them from progressing past their private musings. Obviously that doesn’t work completely, but you have to wonder if the new opportunities for paedophiles to contact each other has lead to their urges being developed rather than repressed.

I think the second one we have to consider is the sexualisation of children. Obviously tarting up a child does not necessarily make that child a specific target, but you have to wonder does it contribute towards the weakening of the taboo around their sexualisation. Encouraging young girls to mimick the clearly sexual behaviour of adults surely contributes to a general view that children are sexual.
The point is this – a 6 year old girl wearing animal print bra tops and high heels may not transform HER into a target, but does create an aura of sexualisation around children which we didn’t have before and which even people who are appalled by paedophilia are uncomfortably aware of. So if the ordinary person realises that the children are being sexualised, it MUST have some effect in helping to ease the taboo around sex and children for someone so inclined.
The other point is that when we were on holidays and my boys on occasion wanted to take their clothes off on the beach I was pretty anxious that they wear long t-shirts. Sunburn risk aside, the consciousness of paedophilia made me really uncomfortable about having them naked in public. And the thing is I have no idea if that awareness on my part is justified or whether I am simply victim of tabloid hysteria.
In any event, nothing will convince me that tarting up small girls to look like sluttish women is a good idea.

By: Gerry

Gerry — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:30:04 +0000

this article doesn’t make any sense. It conflating two different things. One a middle class distaste for dressing little girls up tartily, something I find odd too. And paedophilia. She makes the point in the article that 96% of it is perpetrated by relatives of known adults. Are we to suppose that this type of thing is increasing? It seemed to go on a lot in the past with kids dressed in rags. It’s predeliction and opportunity meeting; not putting an 8 y.o. in a mini skirt.

Sarah, I withdraw my previous compliment (on a different post). Posting this article shows a complete lack of judgement.

By: leon

leon — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:14:03 +0000

This is overstated and alarmist. Bratz are out, what is in now is Sylanian Families and some weird character based stationary. Typical old lady of d’olier street stuff 6 months behind the curve.

It is up to parents to decide how they want their children to dress. Arguably by allowing these clothes now you make them less appealing when the girls are adolescents. Lets face it I couldn’t care less if my 8 year old wears a G String, it’s my 18 year old I’d be concerned about (they’ll be wearing burqas).

The communion stuff is crap. My daughters class last year had the 2 demographics of whom one would expect to see fake tan, highlights and jewellery at the communion, that is the very rich and the benefit class; these were not in evidence and I was looking (having heard these sort of false claims). I don’t know definitively about leg waxing but as communion dresses are typically long and 8 year olds don’t have hair on their legs I suggest that it is unlikely.

By: omaniblog

omaniblog — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:13:17 +0000

Is it possible that mothers, in dressing their girls as sexually attractive objects, are dressing the child as they would like to look today, themselves?

By: aday

aday — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:22:59 +0000

I don’t think the article is saying parents are effectively responsible for the actions of paedophiles, more that the trend towards the sexualisation of young girls is an impediment to our efforts to deal with the scourge of paedophilia.

By: Malins

Malins — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:17:58 +0000

This article disturbs me. Does the article suggest that there is some kind of correlation between “raunch culture” and paedophile activity? I’d like to see some figures/studies on this. I am also confused by the inference that this “sexualization” of children possibly makes parents responsible for the actions of paedophiles.

Okay. i agree there may well be a problem with the way young girls in particular seem to become sexualized at a disturbingly young age. And Barbie/Bratz is pretty repulsive – even justin terms of gender-strereotyping. But what has all this got to do with adult paedophile activity? Not saying it’s completely innocuous, naturally – just saying: doesn’t the “giving a kid a barbie as a present = marking her out to be groomed by a predatory perv” equation smack a little of moral panic?

I favour banning all advertising to children, BTW.