The oversexualisation of children by commercial entities

Amp34

Amp34

Amp34

Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13661543

Parents will be able to highlight examples of child sexualisation on a new website, the prime minister has said.

The measure is among the proposals in a review on the commercialisation and sexualisation of children, from Mothers' Union boss Reg Bailey.

David Cameron also backed Mr Bailey's calls to make blocking web and mobile-phone pornography easier.
Click to expand...

While part of me sees this as a good idea another part of me thinks this is more a return to the prudish Victorian values rather than the much more liberal continent that I think we should be emulating.

The comment at the bottom by the kidscape guy is quite pertinent I think. It's not necessarily about what kids see (although push up bras for 10 year olds and children walking around looking like prostitutes is odd in my current opinion) but how they see it. Growing up in a stable environment where sex and nudity is an open topic is far better in my mind than pushing it into the realms of awkwardness that it still is in British society.
 
Padded bras and children walking around looking like prostitutes is down to bad parents, more than over sexualisation of kids.
 
It is starting to make me nervous to be honest, I have no idea who Mother's Union are but they seem to be having an awful lot of say on what is going to be government policy. Any move towards greater censorship is worrying.
 
i think this is a good idea - its getting silly how much children are exposed to.

i certainly don't support any kind of censorship for adults though, thats different.
 
Like the posters above I'm on the fence. It has good principles behind it and at the same time introduces bad one.

I'm all for ending stupid societal prudishness but at the same time kids still do, irrelevant of how much actually takes effect, need protecting.

It's a bit crap though that government has to come in and in someway attempt to seal the holes created by rubbish parenting.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I'm not sure this is really censorship. It's just letting children not have the pressures of growing up too quickly.
Click to expand...

The method they seem to be looking to use though is via censorship, either direct or indirect. Putting limits on what can and cannot be seen/shown/sold.

It just worries me a little when governments start going on moralistic crusades. The Cons certainly have form when it comes to things like Section 28.
 
aardvark said:
i think this is a good idea - its getting silly how much children are exposed to.

i certainly don't support any kind of censorship for adults though, thats different.
Click to expand...

I think censorship for adults will likely get brought into this. Making it harder to access adult content etc.
 
The other week there was a Sex Education programme on over 4 nights called Don't Pimp Our Kids.
It consisted of a rather gorgeous woman presenter going into 4 major chains and holding up padded bra's and sexy knickers for kids and telling them off.
All well and good but surely the parents who buy this stuff are at fault.
 
dmpoole said:
The other week there was a Sex Education programme on over 4 nights called Don't Pimp Our Kids.
It consisted of a rather gorgeous woman presenter going into 4 major chains and holding up padded bra's and sexy knickers for kids and telling them off.
All well and good but surely the parents who buy this stuff are at fault.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, it seems far too many parents these days seem to have forgotten how to say the word "No, you can't have them."
 
RDM said:
Pretty much, it seems far too many parents these days seem to have forgotten how to say the word "No, you can't have them."
Click to expand...

But then isn't the first instance of a problem that the kids want them in the first place due to how much it is shoved in their faces (ooer!)?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Yes, but it's all well and good saying that; it's only shifting the blame rather than actually solving the problem.
Click to expand...

Not particularly.

If parents stop buying the tat and dressing their kids like that, then stores will no longer sell it.

Supply and demand.

As the parent, and the supplier to your child, it's immediately within your power to stop it.
 
krooton said:
But then isn't the first instance of a problem that the kids want them in the first place due to how much it is shoved in their faces (ooer!)?
Click to expand...

There is always going to be stuff out there that some parents find "inappropriate". Obviously the overt stuff like push up bra's and the like are pretty obvious ones but I worry about where the line will be drawn and what impact it will have.

Some adults see make up on kids as harmless otherwise do not like it, does that mean Lilly Kelly shoes with free makeup adverts should be banned or is it up to the parents to say "No, you are too young for makeup"?
 
Pestilence said:
Not particularly.

If parents stop buying the tat and dressing their kids like that, then stores will no longer sell it.

Supply and demand.

As the parent, and the supplier to your child, it's immediately within your power to stop it.
Click to expand...

Well that's worked well so far hasn't it :rolleyes: The reason we are having this discussion is due to the fact your plan hasn't worked.
 
Shock horror certain groups want to tackle this problem (and I'm not sure how widespread a problem it is in reality) rather than address the root cause of bad parenting.

However that is difficult and so we get the usual knee-jerk Government reactions and easy fixes that do no such thing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom