The oversexualization of children

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not a parent (yet), but I thought it would go here since it does involve it in some way.

Lately, it's come to my attention that little kids (most especially little girls) are exposed to sexy things younger and younger. As a result, we're seeing these happen:
- Pole dancing classes for kids
- A lineup of lingerie for kids 4-10
- Little girls wearing midriff-baring tops

And the list goes on. What is next, I wonder, little girls lifting up their tops a la Girls Gone Wild? Let us hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does....... *barf*

So go ahead, sound off.

Yes, here is a good recent example:

http://www.dennisprager.com/blog/g/32f9 ... 67e4791e4b

And, consistent with the inconsistency of the liberals, here is a story of a student being punished for being "sexual":

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000 ... oy-lawyers

Bert and Ernie have absolutely nothing to do with the OPs original post.nor does the article referenced in the above conservative blog.


This has nothing to do with the original post either. The original topic is about sexualizing children, not about what does and does not constitute bona fide harrassment in a school environment.

Political ideology is irrelevant. Any feminist (and undeniably liberal) website I have ever been on has been against objectifying children in a sexual way. Businesses sell what they think there is a market for. It is really that simple.

Back to the original topic: Children have wanted to be more like adults for as long as I can remember. So they will emulate adult behavior when given a chance. I really do not know what to say about parents who would sign their kids up for pole dancing. I guess it is the parents I don't get. Belly shirts don't bother me because little girl upper bodies don't look like women's anyway. I don't think just showing tummy is intrinsically sexual. Lingerie is something I would put more into the camp with pole dancing.

Although the media will highlight a lot of this stuff. I don't actually know anyone who buys this kind of stuff for their girls, so I don't actually know how popular it is or in what kind of circles it is worn. I have a little boy, and the schools here are all uniform requiring schools, so we never saw any of this in school. The few social activities we have gone to that included girls did not have anyone wearing anything that looked like sexualizing clothing.

Portraying Bert and Ernie as homosexual has nothing to do with the sexualization of children? Gosh, am I supposed to believe that Bert and Ernie really created for adults? And a boy likely not old enough to know what sexual harassment is being charged with that offense isn't being sexualized? How are you going to explain to this kid what he did "wrong" without sexualizing him?

The sexualization of children isn't a political issue? Am I supposed to believe the Christian Coalition and the Tea Parties have been sexualizing children? As far as feminists go, the less said the better. They are completely responsible for abortion, and obviously much prefer it to children. Are we talking about that group that think women need men like fish need bicycles? The feminists who glorify sluttiness? Feminism is a death cult.

Really. You're going to have to do better than this.

Thelibrarian, you are beyond off-topic, and I really don't want to hijack.

The conservative talk show blog you cited was a reference to a New Yorker article and their own accompanying art. Bert and Ernie on Sesame Street are not sexualized.

A child caught-up in ridiculous school policies is not being sexualized and objectified. He is a victim of over-zealous, zero-tolerance nonsense. How can you not tell the difference between that and being depicted as a sex object?

I am not going to get caught up in commenting on the Christian Coalition or the Tea Party. This is not a political thread, or an especially political part of Wrong Planet and I don't want to offend other members who hold different political beliefs than I do. I also do not have to defend feminism, but I can do it without ad hominem attacks against groups I do not agree with.

I don't think I need to do better. I am doing just fine, thanks.

Back to the regularly scheduled topic.

(To everyone else: I will stop hijacking, now, I promise--I just could not bring myself to let those two posts pass without comment.)

There have been chivalrous men and bad men since Cain and Able. Same goes for women.
The thing I wonder is why does feminism exist? To tell the men what ladies demand?
If feminism is a necessity, why is chivalry not considered one by all feminists, when
chivalry was indoctrinated for the sole protection of women and children?
How is feminism and chivalry different (not in the opinion of only feminists)?

I don't think The Librarian was starting a flame war of the genders,
so attacking him wasn't the answer.

(although burt and ernie are a little friendly, I think looking into it that way just makes it worse)
(and the school thing: If a boy does something wrong in that kind of way, it doesn't matter what
he has to be told to stop, as long as it keeps him on the right path. Becoming more of a
kind and genuine man to women then, is a lot better than being a horses arse in the future)

The OP, you are right, and thank you for brining this up.

Apple, feminism is premised upon the belief that history--with the exeption of some vague, mythical, pre-patriarchal era per Marija Gimbutas--has been a vast conspiracy by all men to hold all women down. Feminism is furthermore premised upon the belief that women are identical to men, and even the lumps, bumps, and curves are mass optical delusions (in much the same way that racialized liberalism is all about racial oppression while denying the very existence of race).

Therefore, it should not be surprising when a liberal feminist denies the sexualization of Bert and Ernie--or having to explain to a pre-pubescent boy what sexual harassment is--are not part and parcel of the sexualization of children, her strident and peremptory dismissals notwithstanding.

Hey, I do what I can.

And an another note, people, let's get back on track here. We've veered far from my original point here.

Every time I walk through a store that has little girl clothing, I am glad I only have boys. Just the products that are on the market it would be hard, I think, to find girl clothes that aren't sexualized. My friend is dreading the move from the toddler section to the little girl section that's coming soon with her very tall almost 4 year old.

People want to think that pedophiles are going to be obvious and scuzzy looking, but most of them look clean cut and nice, and come with great resumes and recommendations. Of course not a problem isolated to girls. I think during my (albeit short) tenure with child services, there were actually more pedophiles reported for abusing boys than girls, but why go advertising?

What possible purpose could writing on the butt of little girls' pants serve other than to make people look at their butts to read it? Writing is going to draw the eyes of every person who walks past her. Same for all the plunging necklines and sparkles and words that are focused only on their chests (as opposed to a pattern that is all over the shirt). I mean, I don't make a practice of dressing my boys in clothes with writing on the crotch. In fact, I think people would throw a fit if some clothing company decided to make clothing that basically had giant neon signs pointing toward boys' crotches.

It's like the Hawkeye Initiative. Think about the equivalent for boys and then think how well people would take it if people were to aim that treatment at boys. If people would throw an outraged fit on behalf of a boy, then why is it acceptable to treat a girl that way?

http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/ Definitely not safe for work due to comic book images of women and poor, poor Hawkeye put into all the same ridiculous poses and outfit styles.

Children don't understand what sexy means, they only know that is "fashionable" and, so, they emulate it. Right now, fashion is highly overly-sexualized.

Thankfully, I have a daughter who couldn't care less about fashion.

I think that when the adult fad starts to reverse itself, so will the children's. Meantime, I have no trouble telling my daughter what she cannot wear. Not that she usually disagrees with me Anyway. We've talked about it, how there are weird people who get attracted to kids, and sexy clothes are only going to make it worse, potentially issuing non-verbal cue invitations to men that you don't want to receive them. All the parents in her social circle send the same message.

But not all parents see it as an issue. They're too caught up in the fashion of it themselves, and it is just darn "cute." In their eyes. I hear it all the time.

As for the Bert and Ernie sidetrack - ridiculous. They have a relationship appropriate for very young boys, even if they aren't actually very young boys, simply because that is what very young boys can relate to. Is anyone really thinking they should tell 4 year olds they can't hug, cuddle and otherwise act like 4 year olds? There is nothing sexual in the way very young children react with each other; it is still based on that innocence of physical contact they are used to in their families. And apparently one artist might have chosen to portray them as something else - well, its just one artist.

PS - I've never tried it or witnessed a class for kids, but, honestly, pole dancing sounds like fun. If you can separate the activity from the strip club history, and remove some of the more sexualized moves. Ultimately, it is just a pole to whirl around. Still, I think parents have a duty to let kids know exactly what the connotations can be, and why what they are doing is considered different.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 08 Oct 2013, 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

To me, beauty pageants for little girls = bad, but sports leagues for young boys = good.

All I can say is only in america

It's not the existence of pageants themselves. I think little local things like small town festivals, county fairs, small rodeos, etc, where girls (and boys) can dress up a little bit and the prize is something like a piece of candy for the kid and little plastic crown and the "See how cute my kid is" bragging rights for the parents can be fun and cute. Where it gets creepy is when people take it like a profession and that is their LIVES, with babies wearing more makeup than an 80's hair band, and dresses that cost an average month's salary, and prizes that the whole family lives on. That's where it's insane.


I feel the same way for sports for boys (and girls). Local games for fun is a great exercise. Many kids even enjoy local games for competition assuming their team doesn't lose /every/ game. When they get into that level like my neighbors were a few years ago where they were traveling across three states to take 6 and 8 year old children (who are small for their age and not even particularly athletic) to wrestling matches, because their dad is just utterly desperate for them to be super sports stars (sorry I've seen these boys playing, professional athlete is not in their future, more like borderline to qualify for PT and OT). That's where it's insane.

I guess, basically I wish parents would quit being crazy trying to force their kids to be the feminine/masculine ideal and just let them be kids.

I cannot fully agree into this. Sure you had fun "playing" grown ups, but it was not meant earnest. So it was fun being allowed to do "Make Up" from now and then or styling, but around Kindergarten and Groundschool age I wouldnt know of any of my classmates, that would have had thoughts on "not being right", when not wearing Make up. Just like it was far more important, what kind of motives the cloths had, instead of the cloths being elegant, figure-sexy. "Feminism is a death cult." Come on, dont get yourself into that poltical feminism bashing. Feminism itself is simply about equal rights, and there is in itself nothing bad about it. But just like every topic, it can be used by fanatics, that misuse it for their psychical problems. Some lunatic crazy "christians" dont make the whole christian idea a "death cult", and some crazy "feminists" trying to terrorize people as much as "the enemy" they think to fight, dont make feminism a "death cult".

"The thing I wonder is why does feminism exist?" - As example to fight for laws, that give you the right to vote, the right to be no ownage of your husband that he can rape without getting sued, to have the right to own money, to have the right to go to work, ... these are all things, that woman 50-100 years ago did not have. Feminists are single beings like everyone, so you dont have to agree to every feminists idea. Some ideas are good, and some are not. Support the good ones, and negate the ones, that are bad in your oppinion. Its not a cult with an chosen holy leader, that you have to 100% agree in everything. ^^

Back to the topic again, I think that little girls get that ideas to be "fashionable = sexy" instinctive from lots of their media surrounding, that is more and more sexualised whyever. Barbie is already a bit on that way, so its a lot about cloths and fashion on a grown up doll, but I still dont see it totally that bad. So they are still focusing much on typical nice little girl dreams, like that fairytale and mermaid and princess barbie stuff, and thats in general not that unusual for girls that age. While I do have probs with lots of the television-series and the according toy, that were released the last decade. Super-super thin fairy beings, with super-super long legs, wearing sexualised cloths and having really extreme and obvious eye and face make up in television series that are focused on ground schoolers. O_o I dont know about the US area, but as a kid, the protagonists started to look like that in series that were focused on teenagers, while in series that were produced for groundschool kids, the protagonists were more about being "cute" not "cool and sexy".

Its not that I see the end of the world or whatever, but I see simply a wonderful careless time for kids ruined, that was in my childhood simply about "Do I like today to wear my "ALF" or my "Knight Rider" T-Shirt.", instead of "Am I looking good enough with that cloths according to others, and is my Mascara well done so that my class-comerades think I look good?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... 70735.html - The pole dancing classes for kids.

http://fashionista.com/2011/08/new-fren ... -the-line/ - The, uh, lingerie for kids. Here's my proof of what I said in my first post.

The lingerie by itself would be fine, but the idea that it could worn solo? And to have real kids modeling the line? I thought children's lingerie was always photographed solo, no model. You know, because of the whole pedophile thing, not to mention children being too young to make informed consent to their images being used in that way.