The Economist

46 International The EconomistJuly 21 st 2018

2 is linked to pornography. No one has ever

proved howpornographyrelatesto action

but children (more boys than girls) have

told pollsters from the NSPCC that it gave

them ideas about what to try. This high-

lights the need for good sex education if

only to inform children about real life.

A third sort would be if such material

encouraged paedophilia. Risa Yasojima of

M’s Pop Life says without citing evidence

that she reckons its products can help pae-

dophiles refrain from touching actual chil-

dren. But others fear that ubiquitous im-

ages of sexualised children and child

pornography foster the paedophile delu-

sion that sees ordinary spontaneous and

tactile children as flirtatious.

Not in front ofthe children

Efforts to tackle these dangers need to ac-

ceptthat in the internetage itmaybe possi-

ble to limit children’s exposure to sexual

images butnotto eliminate it. Better to pre-

pare them to be able to cope and to recog-

nise that the images themselves are a

symptom of a broader problem: how soci-

ety turns women into sexual objects.

In the past decade countries have start-

ed to act on worries about the over-sexual-

isation of children. The turning-point in

Britain was a 2010 report on the issue that

the government commissioned from Reg

Bailey then at Mothers’ Union a British

Christian charity and now a council mem-

ber at the Advertising Standards Authority

the industry’s self-regulatory body.

Published in 2011  his report made 14

recommendations such as keeping explic-

it magazines out of children’s sight. It also

advocated raising parents’ awareness of

sales techniques and developing codes of

practice among retailers covering goods

marketed to children. Since 2011 guidelines

about what can be shown on street bill-

boards and magazine displays have been

tightened. Internet-service providers offer

parental filters to limit what their children

may see. A new law coming into force this

year obliges pornography sites to require

evidence that users are over 18.

Other countries are following suit. In

2014  France outlawed beauty contests for

under- 13 s. La Paz the capital ofBolivia has

moved to do the same. Some Cubans are

fretting about a craze among girls as young

as five for quinceañeras  coming-of-age par-

ties intended for 15 - year-old girls in which

the girls often pose for photos dolled up

and looking sultry. Pressure groups and in-

dividual complaints also have an impact.

In 2006 Tesco a British supermarket chain

removed a children’s pole-dancing kit

from the toys section ofits website. In 2010

Primark an Irish clothing company with-

drew children’s bikinis with padded tops.

If driven by online vigilantism alone

however measures to prevent premature

sexualisation may infringe freedom of ex-

pression—or simplygo too far. In May after

a storm of online condemnation Sweaty

Betty a boutique British fitness-wear

brand withdrewfrom itswebsite an image

ofthree girlsaround 15 or 16 clad in tropical-

patterned leggings and crop-tops which

in hindsight looks fairlyinoffensive.

Criticism is almost always directed at

girls not at boys or the culture around

them. Girls are told not to wear short skirts

to school so as not to distract boys or even

teachers—yet not enough is done to teach

boys about consent. “I am a bit sick of the

simplistic ‘sexy-so-soon’ discourse out

there” says Ms Lamb the child psycholo-

gist. “A girl playing at being Beyoncé isn’t

harmful. But a society that only values her

forbeingBeyoncé is a problem.”

Research from places such as South Af-

rica and Sweden suggests children can be

better at dealing with sexualised advertis-

ing than adults realise. Ms Bhana the

South African academic says her research

suggests children are “highly sophisticated

consumers”. But children need help to

navigate the culture they grow up in. Mr

Baileysaystoo little isdone to develop chil-

dren’sresilience to the stuff theyinevitably

stumble across especiallypornography.

If parents and teachers were matter-of-

fact and honest about sex young people

would find it easier to talkabout their wor-

ries and less likely to let what they see

bother them. Research by the NSPCC sug-

gests parents tend not to be too concerned

by some things their children do—wearing

“sexy” clothes or make-up for example—

seeing children as wanting to grow up

quicker than they do. But they do worry

about them seeinghard-core pornography.

Britain’s Department forEducation is in

the process of updating its sex-and-rela-

tionships guidance for the first time since

2000. Martha Kirby of the NSPCCsays this

is long overdue. The government is to hold

consultations on new approaches such as

teaching primary-school children about

the idea of consent and those in second-

ary school about the laws on sexual abuse

and the dangers of online grooming by

paedophiles.

In many places even basic sex educa-

tion is lacking. Ms Bhana sees a danger in

the extreme positions of some lobbies es-

pecially religious ones and countries such

as Saudi Arabia that resist teaching chil-

dren aboutsexatall in the hope of keeping

them “pure”. Religious groups in America

such as the Abstinence Clearinghouse

also argue that sex education encourages

children to have sex. In Myanmar similar

concerns mean schools barely cover the

birds and the bees.

Better to accept that children will natu-

rally want to explore their desires and feel-

ings and equip them to do so safely with

factual information awareness of online

dangers access to contraception—and the

power to know what they want and to say

no to what theydon’t want.

Don’t worry be happy

Countries such as the Netherlands and

Denmark are closer to this healthier ap-

proach. They expect children to be well in-

formed about their bodies and see the

purpose of sex education as not just to

warn of the risks but to help prepare for a

happy sex life. This may be one reason

why according to Anna Sparrman a pro-

fessor ofchild studies at Linkoping Univer-

sity in Sweden Scandinavian countries

have not really seen premature-sexualisa-

tion panics. It is not because of an any-

thing-goes attitude; Sweden for example

bans all broadcast advertising aimed at

children under 12.

Justas important countries need to face

up to the cultural backdrop behind over-

sexualisation says Michelle Jongenelis a

researcher at Australia’s Curtin University.

That images of girls looking sexy are so

much more prevalent than those of boys

reflects sexism and the sexual objectifica-

tion ofwomen; so does the waymuch por-

nographyshows women beingtreated in a

degrading manner. Children assimilate

these norms through the images of their

peers and the products pushed at them—

including at the extreme pornography.

Happily this broader cultural context

does seem to be under scrutiny in some

parts of the world though the process is at

a very early stage. Basic ideas about gen-

der—such as shops labelling baby clothes

as “boys’” and “girls’”—are being chal-

lenged and more nuanced understanding

of the meaning of “consent” are gaining

ground. The #MeToo debate which has

pushed sexual assault to the fore leads Ms

Jongenelis to conclude that there is a shift

in norms about what is acceptable. If so

then children should be among the great-

est beneficiaries. 7