Some points to consider

- we have changed our criteria for what constitutes a child (esp. in terms of sex), but biology and our bodies and brains didn't get the message. Teens and pre-teens are interested in sex and always have been, but the demarcation line for when sex and intimacy is age-appropriate has moved upward quickly.

- 'chick flicks' objectify and degrade men by presenting ideal men whose characteristics can't be met by the average guy, setting up both sexes for disappointment when reality rears its ugly head. More tasteful than the ever-present 'facial' perhaps, but no less damaging to relations between the sexes.

- People who are raised with to have self-confidence and a measure of self-esteem won't submit to being degraded. Parents can and should play a much bigger role in promoting healthy attitudes towards sex, but it remains a taboo for many.

Predictions:

Point one will have me accused of being a pedo. I'm not.

Point two will have me accused of being an asshole. It's possible

Point three is a no-brainer. I agree.

!

Are your premises so flimsy and insupportable that you require leading questions to support them?

"Do manufacturers even consider the implications of sexualizing children? Am I alone in thinking it gives pedophiles license when we normalize the notion of children in garments designed to inspire desire?"

I hate those clothes and I think parents are stupid for dressing their children in them, but I hate a facile argument even more. Raunchy clothing does not give a pedophile license ever. Come on! You can write a less sloppy argument than that without losing the passion. Why on earth would you deep-six your credibility by attaching such a blame-the-victim anchor on it?

"Does anyone but a pedophile disagree?"

Yeah. Some of us do. Why? Because it's a stupid leading question. Equating dissent with pedophilia means you aren't ready to listen to arguments. What are we to infer from that? That you lack so much confidence with your material that you can't defend it?

It's a pretty bad essay when you lose people who would probably support you if it weren't for the cheesy pronunciamentos.

"Sexualizing children is

"Sexualizing children is crossing the line. And exposing underage kids to graphic sexual imagery, as Butt magazine does, is sexualizing them.

Does anyone other than a pedophile disagree?"

I think you have this ass backwards. Who but a pedophile looks at a child and sees a sexual object. So the problem isn't that children are being sexualized, it's that adults are viewing children as sexual objects.

And this type of backwards thinking is indicative of the earlier similar backwards thinking that if you dress like a slut you deserve to get raped.

I don't care how trashy a kid dresses. If you see nothing more than a sexual object they you--not the child--are the problem.

Porn Glut

Wow! So "society" spends the last 30 years or so demanding their snivel rights to include anything they want to do, totally involved in their own myopic, selfish, uncontrolled, immoral, decadent, valueless "life style" and NOW you are going to worry about the RESULTS ?? Too late, this society has soiled itself. Too late to whine about it now. Look in the mirror for those responsible.

Save the children!

First of all, the idea that porn is as invasive and as damaging as smoking was(is).. Gimmie a break! Can't say I've had to worry too much about porn at my desk at work, in restaurants. Don't see too much porn on the streets either. What a horrible example.

You'd have to get some pretty nasty porn to affect little kids beyond extended grossed out laughing fits.

I remember being very young and hanging out at the library. There was a book about WWII; I was particularly fascinated by the gory photos of American soldiers and their tanks, which were adorned with the severed heads of their Japanese enemies.
Not generally the kind of thing one wants their little ones to see, nor the kind of thing that is 'in your face'. I found it anyway.

I actually agree with Goldstein, that much of porn is similar to a lot of mass media. It caters to the lowest common denominator and is vapid and boring.
I don't like the idea that anyone would be getting cues on how to behave from the fantasy of mainstream porn, but if you are worried about the children, there are a few zillion other things messing them up, a lot of those 'things' are real people in 'respected' positions, not the fantasy and dreamworld of TV and adverts.

What is this article about? Seems to rail against those who make a buck off exploiting children, and those 'taking a stand' against it. But I'm not sure just who those gilded child molesters are... American Apparel? youporn.com? Paris Hilton?
I thought it was supposed to be a book review.

underwear

if only our MILFy moms would make their tweeny daughters wear 17th century pantaloons instead of rhinestone-encrusted thongs like mommy wears, they would grow up to be prim and proper ladies and our society could be saved.
yeah, right.
people doing the things they do and make the choices they make because they want to.

the little darlings

We have achieved a state where kids do what they feel like, and Parents are scared to interfere.
Hence the problem that others influence what the kids wear.

Is it appropriate to see little girls showing off their navels in the middle of winter, wearing jeans that barely conceals the skimpy underwear?

I doubt that any parent is happy about it, but I also know the kind of pleading and protest the kids give you, so I understand.

If anyone should write a book about it, why not challenge the parents to put up a united front?

The way things go, one could question who is the head of the households.

Beauty Queens

Remember when a small girl was murdered in Colorado? It was a famous case, partly because the 3- or 4-year-old child-victim was a 'Beauty Queen", so-called.

A flurry of documentaries at the time revealed the lives of these wretched kids who were, in my opinion, being groomed, readied and marketed for the flesh trades. It was awful to watch.

The parents, managers, promoters and showmen seemed to think these Beauty Pageants were an "industry" whose full-time workers included little children. And that this was perfectly OK.

The Beauty Pageant industry seemed to function like Hollywood, with make-up artists and hairdressers, lessons, expensive costumes, big competitive shows with winners and losers, cash purses ... and fans. It was a well understood public spectacle.

I wonder if those events are still going on? And if so, what terrible hypocrisy to be discussing the legitimacy of pornography!

ME2 and Patrick McEvoy

McEvoy's words encouraged this course of action for a person subjected to a "maternal scold": "F**K the *B*TCH" any way you choose"... or words virtually the same, with clearly the same meaning (I didn't keep them).

That's playing very loosely with encouraging rape. I censored the prescription for that action. Not the swear words. And if you say it was a joke, that will not change my decision in the least. It was a terribly sexist joke.

Our commenter guidelines say sexist remarks are not allowed on our threads. If you choose not to abide by the rules, please feel free to comment on other sites that consider exhortations to rape, and other sexist comments, perfectly fine. We don't.

Everything Old is New Again

What many call porn is misogyny and socializing women to a status somewhere between 2nd class citizens (at best) or objects (at worse). Many sexist eras have existed in the past. Recent progress in equality however is no guarantee that we can't return to those unjust practices.

What could be driving the commodification and sexualization of women? ( and, yes, children too). Some basic sociology sheds much light on the issue. US media is dominated by four corporate entities, who together make up a classic oligopoly. They are supporters of the US military, US foreign policy, neoconservative tax reductions and any form of democratic restraint on business. All oppose social justice reforms. Canadian "mainstream" media isn't much better.

Beholden to their "advertisers" who believe that sex sells, our media is overflowing with images of women objectified and sexualized.

The era where corporate conduct is self regulated is long since passed. We are experiencing a time where "anything goes", except restraint, ethical conduct, and public input into industrial behaviour.

These are classic symptoms that many fascist regimes first develop. Not all such cultures will result in full blown fascism, but many will. Complicated times we live in. As Obama said, if we don't stand up and do something, no-one else will.

Great coverage of a really pivotal issue.

Shannon Rupp

I may be in the minority here but I liked the article. Doesn't mean I agree with every sentence but I get the gist of what you're trying to get across and I mostly agree with it.

Instead of being citizens we became "workers", then "consumers", then "investors" etc. And now we're allowing ourselves to be degraded and we're calling it progress.

Healthy and open attitudes about sex are a good thing, no one wants to go back to Victorian times. But using sex to sell everything from cars to soap for decades has a price and we're just starting to pay it.

sideways

this thread has taken on a bit of a censorship tack and veered somewhat away from the original "society is awash in porn and we are doomed" topic.

anyway, i want just to reply to the mention above of the pre-school "beauty queen" murder.

correlation is not causation, and circumstantial evidence and idle speculation do not add up to anything which approaches proof.

murders of children are as old as humans ourselves.
ending pageants for kids (ridiculous and vexatious as they may be), or women would no more prevent murders than ending dog shows would prevent animal abuse.

Early puberty is the norm now

Stump

“we have changed our criteria for what constitutes a child (esp. in terms of sex), but biology and our bodies and brains didn't get the message.”

The point no one is raising is how young kids are hitting puberty today. My moniker (dave49) is based on my age when I signed up. When I was growing up, girls were starting puberty at age twelve, thirteen, fourteen. Having a young son in school and afterschool activities I’ve noticed more that a few girls developing at a very early age. The big question is, do these ten-year olds have the emotional maturity to deal with the mainstreaming of porn and the widespread sexualization of almost everyone (young sluts, MILFs, GILFs, Goth porn, etc.).

The other big question is why the early physical maturity? Better diet? Too much refined sugar? (see the writings of Dr. John Yudkin) Hormone residues in our foods?

The latter cause is interesting because of this story. One of the staff in my wife’s office had immigrated from South America. Apparently, new immigrants are assigned a doctor who can help them with health issues and our health care system. This woman found she was consistently gaining weight in spite of a similar diet and level of physical activity. Her immigration doctor told her it was because of the hormone residues in Canadian food. What is the story in the USA, then? They allow more hormone use in their farming practices.

A few years ago, I mentioned to an acquaintance I read a study that recommended young boys not be fed large quantities of soy products because the phyto-estrogens (plant-produced estrogens) could interfere with their development. She replied that she knew a family who were vegetarians and one daughter drank huge amounts of soy milk. This girl went through puberty at nine, and went into depression because at nine, she was no longer a child.

Is it reasonable to expect nine and tens year-olds to navigate our society’s porn glut? I think not.

American Apparel and Porn

I think what really bothers many parents about American Apparel, is that their kids actually find empowerment in the clothing. To a certain extent, through the clothing, kids become inaccessible to their parents, feel more independent from them, and become part of the glaring street army that truly can buttress predators' attention, and march its way on into adulthood.

Yes, this is no ideal. I don't much like the uniform, "socialist," style. But many kids feel power in the "black" mass, the collective, aggressive sexuality, the sparseness and sureness of style, and this should be respected.

As for porn. If the 80s and on had amounted to a continuation and expansion of Jim Henson, the Bee Gees, Jimmy Carter, of innocent fun, porn these days wouldn't be so much about "feel the shame/pain!" We talk about 9/11, and about what this age of uncertainty is doing to our kids. But the turn around occurred much earlier. And so we have a large populace--at the very least, one whole generation--that turns to the Dark Knight, or dark porn, or dark comics, cause they see reflected there-in, a recognizable world they see relevance in. (Maybe they hope to find answers there . . .)

If turning (our attention) to our kids, amounts to what is has been, a further turning *on* them, what might they do when they intuit, there no longer is any escape? The usual answer, is that they throw themselves onto one sacrificial battlefield or another. (Afghanistan is looming . . . Or maybe they'll just start shooting each other again? Make it even more a part of their daily routine.)

Finally, I genuinely like that the discussed author enjoyed watching amateur couples do "the nasty" so affectionately and funly. It would be nice if there was a lot more of that on the web--something adolescents interested in sexuality/sex could find easy access to. (I imagine there are a more than a few lesbian writers who find this author's preferred tastes, more than a bit staid and oppressive, though.)

cheers,
patrick mcevoy-halston

WHAT - IF ANYTHING - COULD THIS BE ABOUT?

"McEvoy's words encouraged this course of action for a person subjected to a "maternal scold": "F**K the *B*TCH" any way you choose"... or words virtually the same, with clearly the same meaning (I didn't keep them)."

I have tried to substitute the suggested phrase {"F**K the *B*TCH" any way you choose"} back into the original McEvoy post and (not surprisingly) I end up with nothing.

That appears to be the continuing theme here. An article about nothing followed by comments about nothing. Jerry Seinfeld, perhaps?

In my opinion it's one of the easier articles for a slow news day to do another empty rant about porn, and then to give it some fake traction by linking the rant to a particular commercial brand name, in this case a youth/pop clothing chain. This handy crowd pleaser/arouser has been going on, and on, for about 30 or so years and was championed principally by Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon, two psuedo-Marxist American popular "intellectuals" whose chosen market niche was radical feminist writings.

In BC it's principal achievement was to provide the ideological underpinnings for angry demonstrations at XXX video shops in the early 1980s, along with (no kidding) demands that swimsuit issues of Sports Illustrated be treated by all retailers as pornography and hidden from view. Note once again the basic US-style tactic of focussing on a particular corporation with a recognizable brand name. In the hands of more seriously deluded people it became grounds for fire-bombing some of the shops.

The game is still going on, it seems, and everyone needs a piece of the action. If it's not your game to generate some cash flow selling pictures of young people fucking, you can get your share of the take criticizing those who do. It's all just grist for the mill.

Yabbut....

Ok, I have a preteen daughter and I wonder how much pressure she's going to face to sexualize her appearance. Juvenile skankwear is a fact, just like the prevalence of dirty videos and that aesthetic.

But...

Isn't the culture that spawned Paris Hilton also the best so far for the protection of women's rights? An instructive comparison is Victorian England. Women may not have been allowed to show any leg in the 1800s, but there were no laws against domestic violence, the income disparities allowed any nob to turn a poor woman (or man) into a prostitute, and as far as symbolic dehumanization goes, magazines like Butt can't possibly be more gross and damaging than the sight of public floggings, hangings, gibbetting etc.

I'm not arguing in favour of Bratz and other trampish garbage but it's not like things are getting worse. Really.

deeby

"Do manufacturers even consider the implications of sexualizing children? Am I alone in thinking it gives pedophiles license when we normalize the notion of children in garments designed to inspire desire?"

Um, people have fought this battle before:

http://www.commercialexploitation.org/

See the link near the bottom about the letter-writing campaign which forced Scholastic Books to stop marketing Bratz products in US elementary schools.

I don't know

There's no question that this is a double edged sword - women WERE objectified and robbed of their agency and identity by prudish attitudes and male hegemony; at the same time they were the major victims of violent men generally and back alley abortionists to boot. And those things are not that far in the past either. Nor is nightbloom's observation without merit on the other side of the coin,,,

At the same time, it's not hard to see where Ms Campbell is coming from when she says: (porn)...is something you should have to go to yourself. It should not come to you. You should not have it in your face."

And yet, she took her young child into the American Apparel store - presumably to purchase clothes ...so there has to be an element of buyer beware here too.

I happened to hear Kevin Scott being interviewed about the book on CBC 690 (11 am - 11:30) this morning while I was in the car. The podcast should be up tomorrow, here:
http://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/pastpodcasts.html?42#ref42

He had a lot of interesting things to say - I kind of think maybe Shannon would have learned something too if she'd been listening.

You certainly could say his approach was a 'rant'.

Whoops!

That should be:

You certainly COULDN'T say his approach was a rant...

Sex and the City revisited

Good grief. Did I say that Beauty Pageants lead to murder? No, and I'm sorry if anybody got that impression.

I was trying to say that it seems terribly wrong to falsify, cheapen, sensationalize and commercialize a small child as a caricature of an adult slut ... something the public only learned a lot more about, because of the Jon-Benet murder.

Why is it that I fully expect to be misunderstood.

Well, I remember, a while back, saying how much I enjoy SEX AND THE CITY because of its healthy frankness about sex from a woman's p.o.v. Adult women. Adult women interacting with adult men.

I remember how misunderstood those Tyee comments were. Guys thought SATC was about buying clothes, or shoes, or getting kids to buy clothes and/or silly shoes or smoking cigarettes or something.

No, it's about those 4 adult women speaking and behaving easily, naturally, and with complete acceptance of their sexual selves.

By contrast -- and our discussion here about PORN is a complete contrast -- a 3-year-old in full slut-make-up, sequins and a slutty wardrobe being taught how to swivel her hips and to strut for the leering mob has imo already had something of herself murdered ...

But Mary SATC is also about

But Mary SATC is also about buying shoes. Admittedly, I've only watched one episode, and between the "complete acceptance of their sexual lives" (something I'd also dispute based on the sexual subject matter of that episode) there was an incredible fixation on material acquisition.

Of course we likely get respectively different things from the show.

I suspect the same would likely be said by those who enter their children in those "beauty" competitions. All though, for the life of me, I can't see anything remotely redeemable in them.

BC Mary

I think you've characterized Sex and the City quite well. I liked that the show explored women's relationships, the pleasures you can have from being in the city--including exploring the adventure that lovingly crafted clothing affords--with little inhibition. (And even if it was just about the clothing--which it most certainly wasn't--I don't see how that would by necessity make it a bad thing. Project Runway is about that, and that' a pretty great show. [Tyee attracts its share of metrosexuals, doesn't it?])

Take that way of looking at Sex and the City, and imagine adolescents feeling the same way about (or at least similarly empowered) their adventures with American Apparel, and you'll have avoided the ostensibly inevitable fate of getting old. If for you it's all about kids being marketed to and abused, you're not making the effort to appreciate why kids are drawn to it that you didn't need to with Sex and the City, because it so readily "talked" to you.

(Also, Did you read that the owner of American Apparel masturbates while reporters interview him [Shannon's article link]. He does this only if they agree, and because he thinks it helps him feel less shameful, more honest, and less hypocritical. I kinda like that. No doubt it's a lot about aggression too, but it does sound like something Samantha might do, n'est pas?)

DIDN'T KNOW THAT

Also, Did you read that the owner of American Apparel masturbates while reporters interview him

I have to say I didn't know that.

Sounds a bit like LBJ having reporters interviewing him while he was having a bowel movement. Which was one of his practices.

Rod, Patrick

I'd heard the story before...and assumed it was apocryphal.

I can't imagine he gets many takers.

Kids and porno don't mix - I understand West Van Police have charged the store for having porn displayed in public view.

I just heard Ms Campbell on the radio - she says she had no idea that American Apparel were selling anything but clothes...so I'll retract my statement from yesterday - I do think retailers have some obligation to warn or advise customers and passers-by that they aren't just in the business of marketing clothes.

You can't display ads for cigarettes in public places either - either restrict access to those under 19 or put the smut behind the counter.

Wilde Manners

My background is literature studies. I've read a lot of Wilde's work. And my comparison between the two came pretty naturally to me, so I trust it. But speaking of artists: every true artist, everyone who would or values dissent, should shudder upon learning that Obama will have us put childish things behind us. Must be all now be alert to show how we serve the new nation?

My experience in post-colonial/feminist/queer studies, is that manners and respectful behavior are not just being problematized, but set-up as the primary mechanism in keeping unequal power-relationships in place. (Did you hear how that unwashed, drugged-up, bohemian addressed me? Learn your manners young man, or don't expect to be listened to!)

Good things can always be turned to evil purposes

Literature studies would also inform the context for Obama’s words – that is, that ‘it's time to stop making excuses - and generally grow up’. But he’s talking about adults: And part of growing up is recognizing the impact of what we do on others. [Whether he really means it, or is just making a rhetorical flourish is a question we don't yet know the answer to.]

I'd expect, if we were going to construct a society where more or less everyone had the chance to develop into well rounded adults, that certain prerequisites would amount to givens for us all.

And that would include not shoving anyone's philosophy (or sexuality) or forms of 'art' (I'll even reluctantly grant it is 'art'), or religion, down anyone else's throat.

And, for the life of me, I cannot see any way in which providing a public atmosphere where none of those things are anything but matters of choice - for adults - restricts anyone's rights.

Furthermore, and with respect, I’d say the reporter’s reaction to Charney’s perversion is entirely redundant to this discussion….

I've got to add...

"My visit to American Apparel":

http://venturehacks.com/

Oh, for more of that.

I'm hardly for porn and children, but by some accounts, this lady, whose daughter is a teenager, ignored questionable advertising coming into the store, rifled a display, reacted hotly (haha) to what was obviously coming and then stole or even bought (?) the magazine, to complain outside about what shouldn't be in her face. Only in Canada, as others said.
Definitely, exploitation of her own daugher is the issue skirted around here.
Give her a book, but she might not read it.

I'm not suggesting this man is sexually healthy, either, even if most of the accusations are false. But he is not a pedophile and the only way he "makes a buck" is when someone buys something...in his store.

Snoop Dog a professional pornographer? Your digs are so subtle!
When is sexual exploitation acceptable or fashionable, when it's in The White House?
While many are desensitized, not everybody is dumb. As The Game sings "I'm sick of blow jobs, bitch leave me alone"

kids and death

" I don't believe that kids are naturally drawn to dark things"

I very much disagree. Who can't remember poking roadkill with a stick in morbid fascination as a child?
The ideas of mortality, death, and evil fascinate children, in part because of our attitudes towards them (as a society) and also because they represent aspects of power and control which are absent (for the most part) from their toolbox of skills with which to deal with the world outside their control. Also, doing bad things gains one attention, for the ignored child, dark things offer an avenue to be noticed.

That's my impression as a former child and current parent.

Stump

I hear you Stump, and respect that your opinion is based on your experience. For me, when I started poking roadkill in morbid fascination rather than just fascination, it was when I was beginning to wonder if life was just going to be about defeat. Alice Munro has written a story (to a certain extent) about what *a* kid makes of roadkill. Feel free to check out a paper I wrote on it, if you like: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3822999/Greedy-for-Your-Hurt-March-2003-Word.)

Ka-ching Ka-ching Sex

The last century has been one that has perfected the art of marketing.. so no surprise that sex, too, has been marketed in a whatever-sells-mass-market kind of world.

Sex appeal is equated more and more with what one buys, "the look"....the brand of car, the kind of lipstick, even a floor mop is "sexualized" these days.

It is the marketplace that now tells us what will make us sexy....the catch-22 is we won't have to feel a thing. In fact, the suspension of real feeling is paramount to the success of the ruse.

That is the real pornography....the disconnection of sex from our bodies and our feelings. And that we are now attempting to get children to buy into this perversion: the degradation of sex through the selling of our own dispassionate superficiality.

Lucky is the child who grows up under the warm glow of parents who share a deep and resounding sexual intimacy.

Lucky child not to be so easily fooled by the tinny hollow sounds of so-called sexuality being proffered today.

That is the real protective gift one can give to children against all the present commercialized crassness when it comes to sex: that they recognize and feel in their bones, in their muscle and sinew.... in their hearts, the grand deception at work....and what is being lost to them.