This article asks serious questions about the social construction of childhood in relation to issues of paedophilia and the market place. The onus is on the reader to think about what makes a child.
Paedophilia – Let’s Get Real
Bunny Girl tops, padded bras (size 28A) to fit the not even underdeveloped breasts of our young, make up and stiletto’s; items found in many high street clothes shops. ‘Playboy’ is a huge selling brand that smacks us in the eyes with notions of ‘availability’ and ‘consent’. Do these commodities really denote ‘childhood’ in the eyes of the adults/parents buying them? Do they denote ‘childhood’ for the children wearing them? No - they are more to do with ideas of ‘celebrity’ and the wish to be like mum.
What on earth are we doing? What could be the consequences of this retail obsession to sexualize pre-pubescent young girls, in particular? The manufacture of false needs is where the profit is – but whose needs are we satisfying? Undeniably, young girls want the height of high street fashion. Girls as young as eight or nine have a good idea what should be worn and how to look older. This is nothing new – we have all wanted to be the elusive sixteen. Fifty years ago this wasn’t a problem – you dressed as your parents and that was that, a pretty staid look. Today, however, it’s not only the clothes that are important it’s the understanding that the wearing of these clothes signifies a sexual awareness – whether real or otherwise, on behalf of the youngsters, and this is where the problem lies.
The latest outcry over paedophile Sweeny has caused the usual gnashing of teeth and proportioning blame on the criminal justice system (CJS) and the paedophile himself. The CJS has a lot to answer for in this case and Sweeny and his ilk are abhorrent individuals that need handling with vigilance and care. However, we as a society need to take a ‘wide lens’ look at the whole issue of paedophilia and childhood and ask some hard, soul-searching questions.
As we know, paedophilia is not a recent phenomenon. Most communities have had experiences of incest (sex with children within a family/ extended family setting). Before the dismantling of our old Victorian mental institutions many women were incarcerated due to ‘loose morals’ – they had given birth to the father’s, brother’s and uncle’s children. Sex with children was hidden. There was a clear understanding of what a child should be and how a child should behave. This is the crux of the matter, there seems to be no establish construction of the ‘child’ at the beginning of the twenty first century. A contradiction seems to exist between what we believe childhood to be, precious, and what the actuality of childhood is – its sexualisation in the market place. It is all too easy to place blame, for the harm that is done to children, at the doors of individual paedophiles and institutions such as the CJS and welfare services. However, we need to address how our actions as a society can feed the dysfunctional pathologies of the paedophile. Maybe the time has come to form a new consensus concerning what a child is, what values should be attach to children and how childhood should be played out.
Bunny Girl tops, padded bras (size 28A) to fit the not even underdeveloped breasts of our young, make up and stiletto’s; items found in many high street clothes shops. ‘Playboy’ is a huge selling brand that smacks us in the eyes with notions of ‘availability’ and ‘consent’. Do these commodities really denote ‘childhood’ in the eyes of the adults/parents buying them? Do they denote ‘childhood’ for the children wearing them? No - they are more to do with ideas of ‘celebrity’ and the wish to be like mum.
What on earth are we doing? What could be the consequences of this retail obsession to sexualize pre-pubescent young girls, in particular? The manufacture of false needs is where the profit is – but whose needs are we satisfying? Undeniably, young girls want the height of high street fashion. Girls as young as eight or nine have a good idea what should be worn and how to look older. This is nothing new – we have all wanted to be the elusive sixteen. Fifty years ago this wasn’t a problem – you dressed as your parents and that was that, a pretty staid look. Today, however, it’s not only the clothes that are important it’s the understanding that the wearing of these clothes signifies a sexual awareness – whether real or otherwise, on behalf of the youngsters, and this is where the problem lies.
The latest outcry over paedophile Sweeny has caused the usual gnashing of teeth and proportioning blame on the criminal justice system (CJS) and the paedophile himself. The CJS has a lot to answer for in this case and Sweeny and his ilk are abhorrent individuals that need handling with vigilance and care. However, we as a society need to take a ‘wide lens’ look at the whole issue of paedophilia and childhood and ask some hard, soul-searching questions.
As we know, paedophilia is not a recent phenomenon. Most communities have had experiences of incest (sex with children within a family/ extended family setting). Before the dismantling of our old Victorian mental institutions many women were incarcerated due to ‘loose morals’ – they had given birth to the father’s, brother’s and uncle’s children. Sex with children was hidden. There was a clear understanding of what a child should be and how a child should behave. This is the crux of the matter, there seems to be no establish construction of the ‘child’ at the beginning of the twenty first century. A contradiction seems to exist between what we believe childhood to be, precious, and what the actuality of childhood is – its sexualisation in the market place. It is all too easy to place blame, for the harm that is done to children, at the doors of individual paedophiles and institutions such as the CJS and welfare services. However, we need to address how our actions as a society can feed the dysfunctional pathologies of the paedophile. Maybe the time has come to form a new consensus concerning what a child is, what values should be attach to children and how childhood should be played out.
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following comment
Reading between the lines
15.08.2006 14:58
Dr Mel is obviously a nonce wanting to try to give some 'intellectual' justification to his/her desire to rape children, wrapped up in liberal cant.
Will you please remove this fucking article and in future if Indymedia or anyonelse want to promote paedophilia could they put their home address on their article so people can come around and kick the shit out of them.
Dr Mel or what ever your real name is I genuinely hope you die before you get the chance to harm another child
A victim