Parenting Challenges: Sexualization of Children

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Has anyone read the latest articles in the Deseret News by Sara Lenz and Lois Collins?

The end of innocence: the cost of sexualization of our kids

Sexualizing kids: No Child Left Behind - and Fighting Back

These two articles stem from a two-decade long research, study, and report. Even the American Psychological Association has published a recent report on how this affects young women and men.

For the longest time, Latter-day Saint Prophets and Apostles have discussed with the members of the church the importance of Parents instilling good values, morality, and even modest dress and attire. Today we see the evidence of the decadence of our society as we spiral out of control. In an overtly sexualized culture, how do we as parents keep our children safe? How do we teach them the importance of personal values and modest in a world that is driven by "Sex Appeal and Sexuality"?

My own article discusses the epidemic and reality of this poison being thrust upon our children: Courageous Parenting - Combating Sexualization of our children

[RMGuy]

STS,

Excellent articles thanks for sharing. I think what you say is important. I also think it is important that we not only teach good principles but that we think about how we teach them. Talking to little children about modest dress in certain ways can start them down the road to thinking of themselves as sexual beings. Talking to adults about the fact that little children need to be covered a certain way can instill a belief in those adults that these little children are sexual beings. There is no way that anyone should be looking at a 2 year old in a tank top as a sexual being. Period.

To in someway say that allowing the child to wear a tank top sexualizes the child has it backward IMHO. The person that looks at the 2 year old in a tank top as a sexual object is the one with the problem.

-RM

[Guest gopecon]

I don't think that responsible adults (read: non pedophiles) are going to think of a 2 year old in a tank top as a sexual being - even if they have been told that children should dress modestly.

As a parent I can tell you that the reason we teach children modesty at a young age has nothing to do with them being sexual beings at 2, 3, or 4, but that is an age when we can instill positive values and habits that will hopefully last a lifetime. If we reason that a child can wear tank tops (or other immodest clothing) because they are not yet sexual beings, it can be hard to find an appropriate time to start teaching and enforcing modest standards. Girls worry about fashion before they hit puberty. If some items of clothing are never allowed in your home, then there will never be a need to sit down and reevaluate your children's wardrobe (which will likely come with a fair amount of resistance from the child who has always loved sleeveless dresses and tank tops).

[RMGuy]

That's an interesting thought Gopecon.

At our house we have ongoing conversations about what is appropriate and acceptable behavior based on the individual. For example, kids can't have or attend sleepovers until certain ages, we may or may not allow them to attend a sleepover based on how well we know the family. Movies that our teens can watch, our smaller children may not be able to. Just because a movie has a certain rating does not neccesarily mean that is expressly allowed or forbiden. There are a number of factors considered. Etc. We tend to base clothing they same way (while emphasizing the principle of modesty), but what we might let our three year old wear might be different than our 13 year old. Similarly where they can wear various clothing also depends on the circumstance. No shorts to church for example. We tend to base decisions on common sense as opposed to absolute laws.

-RM

[Guest gopecon]

I understand what you are saying about some activities being age appropriate (movies, sleepovers, etc.), as opposed to absolute prohibitions. I agree with you. We have a couple children who get bad ideas from Disney Channel shows, and these shows have been banned for them for practical more than moral reasons. We based this on our family needs, not a law handed down from Salt Lake.

The problem is that those examples (movies, sleepovers, etc.) are ones where freedom expands as you get older. Allowing preschoolers to dress less modestly than junior high school age kids is the opposite, with more restrictions as you age. No the preschoolers are not dressing a certain way to be "sexy", but if they learn early the lessons are more likely to stick.

[RMGuy]

Gopecon,

Good point on the disney shows. It sounds like we have many of the same standards. There are a few things that we would have thought are ok and then were not. Sad really.

I think we are probably pretty close to the same place here actually, and I clearly see your point about this becomenig more restrictive as the child ages. Yet I can see other things that are the same way as well. For example, our youngest is VERY affectionate always wants to hug and kiss everyone, climb on their lap etc. This is cute and acceptable perhaps when you are 2 but NOT when you are 12. We just have a hard time with the concept that certain clothes are not appropriate (immodest) on a 2-4 year old. I think that is because I have seen the modesty thing carried to extremes. Babies that can't be in a onesie etc. So for us the line is probably a little farther than it is in your house, which is cool.

For me too, modesty is more than the clothes that are being worn. I would rather have my son or daughter in a shorter pair of shorts and not acting in a suggestive manner because they understand the principle than the reverse. Ideally, I'd like both! For us, it is part of "teach them correct principles." In that I think we are on the same page. Perhaps our application is slightly different, but I think both of our families kids are getting a consistent message.

Just a question for you too, and I am interested in your opinion. If you have boys do you require them to wear a t-shirt while swimming? We were having this conversation the other night. If we don't require the YM to cover there tummies at church swim activities scout camps etc. Then why do we require the YW to cover their tummies at GC, assuming of course that the two piece is otherwise modest. The point that was made was that there are some 2 peice girls suits that are more modest "with the exception of the tummies" IE the the cut lines, than many 1 peice suits that we would allow. This was a conversation in our HC meeting, and I was personally torn. I could see both sides of the coin, so I am curious as to your throughs gopecon and any others that would weigh in.

-RM

[Jennarator]

I don't think that responsible adults (read: non pedophiles) are going to think of a 2 year old in a tank top as a sexual being - even if they have been told that children should dress modestly.

As a parent I can tell you that the reason we teach children modesty at a young age has nothing to do with them being sexual beings at 2, 3, or 4, but that is an age when we can instill positive values and habits that will hopefully last a lifetime. If we reason that a child can wear tank tops (or other immodest clothing) because they are not yet sexual beings, it can be hard to find an appropriate time to start teaching and enforcing modest standards. Girls worry about fashion before they hit puberty. If some items of clothing are never allowed in your home, then there will never be a need to sit down and reevaluate your children's wardrobe (which will likely come with a fair amount of resistance from the child who has always loved sleeveless dresses and tank tops).

I agree with this. Recently my SIL has been dressing her 3 year old in sun dresses, string tanks and such. I think they are cute, (And would only be sexuale to a perv.) however I never let my (now) 11 year old daughter wear these things at all, ever. Simply for the reason that it is a habit and can make her comfortable in immodest clothing. Now, my daughter has learned to dress, cute, in style, and modest. I have never had to tell her that she is now too old (or "developed' too much) to wear certian things, because she never wore them. I also never had to have an awkward conversation with her explaining why something that was ok, now isn't.

I know she still might go thru some rebelion at some point, (I did). But since her dress is conservitive enough I hope it will be as simple as rolling up her shorts to mid thigh rather than at the knee where she wears them now. If she started with them at the mid thigh, then her rebelion stage make prompt her to get to school then put on daisy dukes.

I was raised the same way. This was exactly how my rebelious stage was. I simply rolled my knee shorts to the mid thigh. Granted, my mother would have been upset, had she known, and we hope our children don't rebel, but if they are already comfortable in daisy dukes, and all, I don't even want to think about what they will do to rebell.

[Guest gopecon]

RMGuy - I've always got an opinion LOL...You asked about boys and shirts while swimming. I don't necessarily have a logical explanation, but our boys do go topless while swimming, while our girls wear one piece suits. There are definitely some two piece suits that are more modest than some one piece suits. Our girls are still young enough that this (choosing very revealing 1 piece suit) is not a problem. I guess it's just a cultural thing - guys going topless is not viewed the same way as girls who reveal a lot of skin up top. Maybe it should be, but we've not chosen to be male modesty pioneers in that regard.

[Jennarator]

Gopecon,

Good point on the disney shows. It sounds like we have many of the same standards. There are a few things that we would have thought are ok and then were not. Sad really.

I think we are probably pretty close to the same place here actually, and I clearly see your point about this becomenig more restrictive as the child ages. Yet I can see other things that are the same way as well. For example, our youngest is VERY affectionate always wants to hug and kiss everyone, climb on their lap etc. This is cute and acceptable perhaps when you are 2 but NOT when you are 12. We just have a hard time with the concept that certain clothes are not appropriate (immodest) on a 2-4 year old. I think that is because I have seen the modesty thing carried to extremes. Babies that can't be in a onesie etc. So for us the line is probably a little farther than it is in your house, which is cool.

For me too, modesty is more than the clothes that are being worn. I would rather have my son or daughter in a shorter pair of shorts and not acting in a suggestive manner because they understand the principle than the reverse. Ideally, I'd like both! For us, it is part of "teach them correct principles." In that I think we are on the same page. Perhaps our application is slightly different, but I think both of our families kids are getting a consistent message.

Just a question for you too, and I am interested in your opinion. If you have boys do you require them to wear a t-shirt while swimming? We were having this conversation the other night. If we don't require the YM to cover there tummies at church swim activities scout camps etc. Then why do we require the YW to cover their tummies at GC, assuming of course that the two piece is otherwise modest. The point that was made was that there are some 2 peice girls suits that are more modest "with the exception of the tummies" IE the the cut lines, than many 1 peice suits that we would allow. This was a conversation in our HC meeting, and I was personally torn. I could see both sides of the coin, so I am curious as to your throughs gopecon and any others that would weigh in.

-RM

I feel the same about this. My mother is a director in a company and has a lot of employees. Recently she had a problem with an LDS girl. She dressed ok, but was so nieve (spelling?) that she unknowingly got wat tooo close to a boy. She didn't "like him" but she would sit too close, hug play with his hands, all sorts of things, let him on. This lead to him litterally stocking her and make him change his plans for college to go close to her, and she didn't want that. He followed her to her car, things like that and he thought he was going to "get lucky" cuz she didn't act apporprately around him......

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

All of these are good ideas of what to do. However, the sexualization is not merely an issue of whether one is teaching their daughter to dress modestly or not.

The American Psychological Association Task Force published a work on the Sexualization of Girls. This is what the APA describes this issue:

1) a person's value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exlusion of other characteristics;

2) a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

3) a person is sexually objectified - that is, made into a thing for others' sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity fro independent action and decision making; and/or

4) sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

Here is an example of sexualization - Gender confusion. A mother decides to dress her one year old son in girl clothes instead of boy clothes with the statement that "as he gets older he can choose whether or not he wants to be a girl or a boy".

Another example of sexualization comes from So Sexy So Soon by Diane E. Levine and Jean Kilbourne:

"A four-year-old girl, in the dramatic play area of her preschool, begins swaying her hips and singing, "Baby, I'm your slave. I'll let you whip me if I misbehave." When her teacher goes over to talk to her about it, she volunteers that she learned the song from her eight year old sister. After doing a bit of research, the teacher discovers that the words are from a highly popular Justin Timberlake song."

Sexualization of our children is all around us. From the Fashion industry (Abrocombie and Fitch produced the padded bikini top for pubescent and pre-pubescent girls). Halloween costumes are becoming more and more risque, not for adults, but for little girls (Newsweek Magazine: Eye Candy - Little Girls' Halloween costumes are looking more like they were designed by Victoria's Secret every year. Are we prudes or is this practically kiddie porn?).

Even toy manufactures are catering to the exploitation that because "Sex sells" they tailor their toys to reach younger and younger children that have immodest clothing. The bratz dolls, are a prime example - all info according to the APA.

There is a difference between healthy sexual identity and healthy sexual perspectives that we parents must teach our children. However, because of the innundated messages from the outside world, it is truly an uphill battle. Girls are viewed as "Sexual beings and sex objects". Children are having premarital sex - not in their adolescent ages, but in pre-pubecient ages. What a 17 year old Girl used to worry about 20 years ago, a five year old is worrying about today. Whether she is skinny enough, wearing less than revealing clothing. Turn on Tiarra's and pageants and you will see how these young girls are being dolled up to be mini-Adult women.

And there is a link between this "Sexualization" of children, child abuse, and the rise in pedophilia acts:

"Child sexual abuse occurs at an alarming rate. According to the most reliable studies, as many as one in three girls and one in seven boys will be sexually abused at some point during their childhood. Almost 90 percent of the time, the abuser is someone known ... The sexualization of childhood encourages these dangerous attitudes and makes it seem normal to look upon children as sex objects. While child sexual abuse is beyond the scope of this book, the sexualized climate we describe most likely contributes to it."

It is much more than simply teaching our children modesty, and modest behaivor. It is far more deeper than teaching young men how to properly treat women, view women, and how to not "lust after" women in a desires manner. The depth of this issue delves right into the issue of how the message is being presented to younger and younger people. Boys grow up today thinking that it is okay to treat women as objects of sexual satisfaction by "scoring". This is beyond the idea of whether or not a young man is still a virgin. It is about how many girls a young boy has slept with.

What contributes to these?

1) desentization to the reality of what is healthy and unhealthy sexuality and sexual behavior

2) An aggressive move to continue to promote unsatisfaction with a person's natural body and personality, to sacrifice their esteem so that they can have larger breasts (yes, it is documented evidence that some parents have taken pre-pubescient girls into a doctors office to get Breast agumentation before they even have grown breasts).

3) Message to young men that women are there to look upon (thanks to the "its okay to look at porn" mentality) with a desire to "have her".

All of these contribute to many of the ills of our society today.

We are beyond the warning, we are now at war with Toy Manufacturers, Super Model's, Fashion Industries, et al.

[Martain]

Anyone else notice that children are maturing faster these days as well?

We've got a whole generation of kids who are walking around in adult bodies.

I wonder how many people are aware of the issue regarding the growth hormone rBGH in milk.

Personally I feel that milk consumption is the leading cause for why children are physically maturing and hitting puberty so much quicker.

I think that if you want to help reduce the effects of sexualization of society, at least give your children, specifically your daughters, organic or rBGH-free milk and cheese.

"Is it possible to do a controlled scientific study testing this theory? Such a study was actually performed on an entire nation. There is one country where milk consumption was unknown before 1946. In Japan, in every year since 1946, 20,000 persons from 6,100 households have been interviewed and their diets carefully analyzed along with their weights and heights and other factors such as cancer rates and age of puberty (the last measured by the onset of menstruation in young girls). The results of the study were published in Preventive Medicine by Kagawa in 1978.

Japan had been devastated by losing a war and was occupied by American troops. Americanization included dietary changes. Milk and dairy products were becoming a significant part of the Japanese diet. According to this study, the per-capita yearly dietary intake of dairy products in 1950 was only 5.5 pounds. Twenty- five years later, the average Japanese ate 117.4 pounds of milk and dairy products.

In 1950, the average twelve-year old Japanese girl was 4'6" tall and weighed 71 pounds. By 1975, the average Japanese girl, after changing her diet to include milk and dairy products containing 59 different bioactive hormones, had grown an average of 4 1/2 inches and gained 19 pounds. In 1950, the average Japanese girl had her first menstrual cycle at the age of 15.2 years. Twenty five years later, after a daily intake of estrogen and progesterone from milk, the average Japanese girl was ovulating at the age of 12.2 years, three years younger. Never before had such a dramatic dietary change been seen in such a unique population study." (Health101.org, Early Sexual Maturity and Milk Hormones)

Edited October 3, 2011 by Martain

[RMGuy]

Anyone else notice that children are maturing faster these days as well?

We've got a whole generation of kids who are walking around in adult bodies.

Actually, I look at children as children, full stop.

-RM

[Vort]

We've got a whole generation of kids who are walking around in adult bodies.

Yes, and some of them are well into their thirties.