Right: Schoolchildren in the 1950s, when many girls left school at 14 or 15 to take up full-time jobs, sometimes marrying at 16 or 17. Today's teenagers are seen by some commentators as living an extended childhood, rather than "growing up too fast".Arguments suggesting that Australia is doing sufficient to counter the sexualisation of children
1. Young people need to be allowed to mature There are those who claim that we need to be wary of infantilising young people. According to this line of argument, economically and legally our society treats young people as less than adults for longer than has historically been the case. This does not mean, however, that we should deny their growing social or sexual maturity.Those who hold this view argue that we must be careful not to stifle young people while trying to protect them.
These points have been made by Professor Catherine Lumby. Professor Lumby, an activist on issues of sexual violence against women and children, has argued, 'We live in an era when most teenagers leave school at 18, not 14. A few decades back, many working-class girls were getting married at 16, and a few decades before that they were in domestic service or working on farms at 12. We have extended childhood and that's also why we need to ensure that we are not treating 14-year-olds as six-year-olds.
Many well-intentioned adults want to protect young people. But we also need to be wary of sending teenagers the message that adults are in control of their (teenagers') bodies...
Protecting children and young teenagers involves respecting their difference from adults. It means allowing them a space in which to explore their emerging selves free of the demand to always be seen in relation to adulthood - as either pure or entirely knowing. It means involving them in the debate rather than always speaking on their behalf.'
A similar point has been made by former Democrat senator, Andrew Bartlett. Commenting on the 2008 Senate committee's report into the sexualisation of children, Senator Bartlett stated, 'The report rightly notes the wisdom of a precautionary approach in trying to shield children from harm. But harm can come from restricting access to things, as well as in being exposed to things. The sexuality of children might not be as developed as an adult, but it doesn't help to act as though young teenagers have no sexuality at all until the moment they turn 16.'
Those who hold these views claim that much of what is seen as an inappropriate sexualisation of children is merely a recognition that they are reaching toward maturity.
2. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that exposure to advertising and magazines is harmful to children
It has been claimed that there is no solid evidence that exposure to certain images in advertising or magazines is harmful to children. This point has been made by Democrat's Senator Andrew Bartlett. After the Senate Committee released its report on the sexualisation of children, Senator Bartlett noted, 'In the absence of more specific evidence about the harmfulness of specific types of advertisements or magazines aimed at young teenagers, I would have been concerned if proposals had been adopted to too tightly restrict or regulate what can and can't be done.'
It has further been noted that harmful behaviours like eating disorders in children may be caused by factors other than images shown in advertisements or magazines.
The Senate report stated, 'The evidence from practitioners ... does show that some young people, particularly girls, have difficulties with their body image and this may lead in extreme cases to clinical problems such as eating disorders. However, what cannot be said with any certainty is what the significant influences in causing these problems are. A child may internalise parental anxieties or dietary habits long before any 'sexualising' influence from the media has an impact.'
The Senate Committee was cautious in its assumptions about cause and effect. It noted, 'Many of the submissions to the committee relied on anecdotal evidence derived from individual experience and assume that, for example, because an adult is angered, offended or embarrassed by a billboard advertising a lap dancing club or 'male sexual dysfunction services', then the child interprets the material in the same way and is harmed by it.' The committee did not automatically accept such assumptions.
3. Australia has a regulatory system to protect children against inappropriate advertising content
It has been repeatedly claimed that Australia's system of self-regulation is effective in protecting children against exposure to unsuitable advertising.
Australia 's advertising self-regulatory system is managed by the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB), which is funded voluntarily by the industry through the Australian Advertising Standards Council.
Self-regulation of the advertising industry has been achieved by establishing a set of rules and principles of best practice to which the industry voluntarily agrees to be bound. These rules are expressed in a number of Codes and have been drawn up in accord with the belief that advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful, prepared with a sense of social responsibility to the consumer and society as a whole and with due respect to the rules of fair competition.
It has been claimed that a self-regulatory system is quite rigorous enough to be effective. The Senate Commission included the following judgement, 'The consequences of a complaint being upheld is a request to the advertiser or marketer to modify or discontinue the advertisement. The ASB [has noted] ... that there has been only one case of an advertiser refusing to comply with such a request. Generally, given the costs involved in producing, for example, a television advertising campaign, the prompt compliance with ASB requests for advertisements to be removed suggests that self-regulation is taken seriously by the industry.'
4. The principal responsibility for preventing the sexualisation of children rests with their parents
It has been claimed that it should not be a responsibility of government to ensure that children are not prematurely sexualised. According to this line of argument, the development of children is primarily the responsibility of their parents. Dr Amanda Gordon, President of the Australian Psychological Society has made this point. Dr Gordon has stated, 'I tell parents "don't buy sexy clothes for your children". There's nothing smart about having a 4 yr old in a little bra. It's time for adults to take a stand, for parents to take a stand and say "this is what we want for our children" - instead of children saying 'this is what I want for me"... [and] ... 'If the message is that you should be sexy and grown up, instead of being a kid - then kids aren't practising and learning how to be whole human beings that will actually make them into great adults. They are instead only imitating adult behaviour, without understanding it - and that's very dangerous for their development.'
Though the Senate Committee acknowledged that parents needed support, it also stated, 'Throughout this report the committee has made a number of recommendations and suggestions whose object is to assist parents in managing the influences to which their children are exposed, to assist children in dealing with these influences. It is ... the primary responsibility of parents to make decisions about what their children see, hear, read or purchase. These parental decisions can have a significant impact on the market for sexualising products and services.' This judgement stresses the power of parents to shape the market to which their children are exposed. Its implication is that, as consumers, parents can influence what is presented for sale to them and their children.
In summary, the Senate Committee stated, 'It must be recognised that ... individual and parental choice, expressed through consumer decisions, are ultimately the factors that dictate corporate behaviour and commercial standards:
One of the commercial realities of magazines, television and radio in the commercial sphere is that they rely on ratings to sell advertising. If people do not watch it, they will not keep that programming on. Voting with the remote is the best way to change commercial programming.'
5. Video clips, television programs and magazine content in Australia are generally age-appropriate
It has been claimed that Australian children are not generally exposed to inappropriate material in television programs, video clips and magazines.
Australian television material is classified to indicate its suitability for children. On the basis of these classification systems, ratings are provided for television programs, films and some advertising and other publications. The familiar classifications of G, PG , M, et cetera are provided as a guide to the public as to the content of the material and its suitability for various age groups. These ratings are supplemented by consumer advice which gives more detailed descriptions of the content; and the use of time zones in broadcast media to restrict access by children to programs designed for adults.
Where video clips are approved for showing during G rated time zones, the coarse language is 'bleeped' or edited out but ... Free TV Australia advised the Senate committee on the sexualisation of children that all music video clips are subject to classification, and subsequently are monitored.
If the material is considered unsuitable for the relevant time zone (usually G or PG), then the video is edited before broadcast or else is it not included in the respective program.
For G classified programs networks take extra steps to ensure the videos are very mild in impact and safe for children to watch without adult supervision as required under the Code. For a PG show, the networks apply the Code at the lower end of the PG classification requirements as they are mindful that younger viewers could be watching these programs.
Publishers of children's magazines claimed that they are overwhelmingly positive in terms of the influence they have on their young readers. The publishers of Girlfriend magazine described the magazine as containing carefully selected age-appropriate material that sought to interest, inform and empower young girls.10
Mrs Nicole Sheffield, Publisher, Pacific Magazines, observed, 'We understand the role that the information and entertainment we provide...[children] with has. We take that role seriously. In no way do we support the sexualisation of children and never have done.'