For the avoidance of doubt

[shewhomust]

The government proposes action to combat the sexualisation of children and every news story I hear about this makes me crosser. So, speaking as someone who is not a parent:

• while I am irritated by the ubiquity of (a certain air-brushed and commercialised variety of) sexual imagery, it doesn't bother me half as much as the ubiquity of piped music



• and that if the government plans to reduce on-street advertising containing sexualised imagery near schools, it might also clamp down on the advertising of products which do objective, quantifiable harm to students (and yes, high-sugar cereals advertised on bus shelters, I am looking at you).



• Could we, in short, stop pretending that parents who are determined to prevent their young children watching pop videos and wearing 'future porn star' t-shirts cannot already do so, and admit that this is about imposing the same standards on parents who find these things acceptable?

After all, the government believes that children of 10 can tell right from wrong, doesn't it?

Comments

[martyn44.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a parent, it is (was) my job to make sure my kids 'consumed' only what I believed was good for them. I think I did a fair to middling job in that none of them mug old ladies, take class A drugs or vote Tory. How does all this cant square with 'choice for parents' - as long as you choose what 'we' want? We're all free, free to agree with Papa Dave.

I don't think so.

And how about some official response to the media's obsession with Pippa Middleton's arse?

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

We're all free, free to agree with Papa Dave.

Yes, that sums it up very neatly. Only, please do not confuse this with the 'nanny state', which is, of course, a Bad Thing.