So Sexy So Soon: Childhood sexualized
Cross-posted from Tracee Sioux at Empowering Girls: So Sioux Me.
“Kids close your eyes!”
How many times do you find yourself trying to protect your children from harmful and destructive images while watching family television?
Two years ago, while watching television, I was assaulted with an image of a woman wearing a see-through nightgown, nipples protruding and visible, erotic soft lighting, floating in a bathtub. It was intentionally erotic, except that she had been violently and bloodily murdered and this erotic woman was, in fact, dead.
“What the heck is going on?” I thought. “Why are my children and I being subjected to this kind of sexually violent imagery in a commercial?”
So, I wrote the FCC. The Federal Communications Commission used to be the people who governed our airwaves. They used to control when and what was allowed to air during times when children were expected to be viewing television. Remember when they wouldn’t let radio stations play George Michael’s, I Want Your Sex?
Many months later they wrote back.
“Each network or television station has control over what it airs during commercials. You’ll have to write each network to complain about every commercial you feel is inappropriate,” they informed me.
“What? Who made that stupid rule?” I wanted to know.
And now that I’ve read So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids, by Diane Levin, Ph.D, and Jean Kilbourne, Ed.D, I know who made that stupid rule.
As a point of fact and matter of record it was specifically: Ronald Reagan who got the “deregulation of the media” rolling. George H.W. Bush furthered the problem with the telecommunications act of 1996.
The euphemism for more sex and violence on TV is “deregulation of the media.”
Sounds innocuous doesn’t it?
Essentially, deregulation means fewer laws. Fewer laws governing what? What companies can sell and who they can sell it to, when they can run an ad, and what the ads’ message can contain.
The motive? To stimulate the economy allowing telecommunications companies more freedom to make more money.
To that end, deregulation has been a fantastic success.
Companies spend about $17 billion annually marketing to children, a staggering increase from the $100 million spent in 1983, according to Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.
Unfortunately, their freedom to make more money by advertising whatever they like in front of whichever audience they buy airtime for - is infringing on my freedom and my children’s freedom to not be subjected to sexualized violence and objectification of people on television.
This is especially upsetting to me in regards to commercials where I, and children who don’t know better, are a CAPTIVE AUDIENCE and there is no implied consent, as there is when choosing to watch a sexual or violent movie or TV show.
Did Ronald Reagan mean for deregulation of the telecommunication industry, including children’s television, to result in hyper-sexualized and all-too violent advertising for children? Was this his intention?
Was it the intent of the George H.W. Bush and Congress in Telecommunications Act of 1996 to further open the floodgates for marketers to legally target children, instead of targeting their ads at parents?
Who cares?
This is the result. This is where we’re at.
I know for a fact the religious conservatives who voted for them would not have been in favor of such legislation if they had understood the kinds of sexual and violent imagery which would be coming at children from every direction. But, again, who cares?
It is from here we have to make a choice. Do we want to allow this kind of thing and all its consequences on our culture, our children and our own minds to continue?
I was just reading in A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of “A Course in Miracles” by Marriage Williamson, this morning, the definition of one of the most beautiful miracles - Changing Our Mind.
The fundamental change will occur with the change of mind in the thinker.
We can change our minds.
Right now. There are numerous bills before Congress that would re-regulate our children’s media and make parents, as opposed to marketers the primary influence over our children’s minds. Visit Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood for direct links to find out about the bills and send letters directly to representatives.
Stay tuned to Empowering Girls: So Sioux Me as Tracee Sioux gets into the ideas presented in So Sexy So Soon and the practical steps to change our own minds, our schools, our culture and our media’s influence over the role of sex in our children’s lives.

September 30th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I think there’s a simple solution to this - require that commercial context be consistent with the ratings of the show it is playing in. I’m amazed when watching a show that isn’t TV14 that has what is obviously TV14 content. Not only would that ensure that commercial context would be, on some level, appropriate, it would also ensure that any existing V-CHIP or cable box blocks you’ve set wouldn’t be made useless by commercial content (or promos for other network shows).
September 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Thanks for the link Lisa.
There are lots of simple solutions but they don’t stop at television. The ratings are voluntary - girls Next Door was unrated and now it’s a TV-14, though it’s not appropriate for 14-ear-olds. Why? Cause that’s what E wanted to rate it.
Also commercials are under no rating system whatsoever allowing television shows and networks to feature the most graphic and shocking material to draw the viewer in.
We’re going to have to reregulate Derek. Self-monitoring has been detrimental to everyone.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Rating systems get cheapened over time, anyway - what makes for a PG-13 movie today would have easily been R back when PG-13 got started. Certainly ratings should be mandated and what constitutes a rating should be clear. And my basic point was that commercials should be rated as well and held to be consistent with the shows they run in.
Getting rid of all of it won’t happen - but what can happen is giving a chance for technology that’s already been developed to help deal with this a chance to work. But if ratings aren’t consistent (I agree they aren’t) and if anything goes for commercial content, then the technology solutions already implemented aren’t worth very much.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I’m all for age-appropriate ads during TV shows, but I’m struck by the difficulty of defining age-appropriate. I read a good letter to the editor in the StarTribune by a parent concerned about the ubiquitous Viagra ads during football games, particularly my own favorite side effect: “If you have an erection that lasts four hours, see your doctor.”
I don’t know how you explain that one to your 8-year-old, who might otherwise be enjoying the Twins victory over the White Sox. Oops, never mind.
Ban erectile dysfunction ads during sports games? Okay. What about all the obnoxious beer commercials during college and professional sports games? Banning them probably is not a bad idea (see Collins et al., Saturated in beer: Awareness of beer advertising in late childhood and adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health , 37[1] to get really depressed). But it ain’t going to happen, even during college games. Back in 2003, the alcohol industry spent a half BILLION dollars on sports-related alcohol advertising. Something tells me John McCain won’t be on that bandwagon.
And we’re talking G-rated ballgame telecasts, save for the constant athletic cup adjustments.
Hey, Tracee Sioux: My God, what in the world was that TV ad for?! Please tell me we’re not talking Comet cleanser.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
It seems like so many values are being shoved aside or even destroyed by the ruthless corporate need to make competitive profits. I don’t see any solution that does not involved regulation.