Framed as being ‘hot’, ‘mature’, and ‘sexy’, media representations of children have been critiqued in recent times, yet again. The issue of portraying children, more so, young girls, as sexualized images has been brought to the forefront, with the current petition addressed against the DailyMail and Mail Online portals, both of which have been accused of ‘have[ing] a sinister track record of presenting underage girls in a deeply inappropriate and sexualised manner’. Needless to say, this petition, which has already acquired more than 30,000 signatures in a short tenure, reflects the thin line differentiating the aspects of commercialisation from those narratives which are otherwise viewed as non consensual, thereby intrusive.
The approach to deliver news stories with a desperate attempt to enhance its visual attribute, often qualifies as conceptualising bodies of young girls as fair game for objectification. Much worse is when such stories involve children and young girls, irrespective of their age, which then goes on to venture into a realm of violation of one’s right to privacy and the concept of choice to disapprove of such descriptions. It is not a new fact to state that since an early age, children are exposed to partial expressions and images of sexualization through various forms of media. Television advertisements featuring children; video games and the much critiqued child beauty pageants have gone on to normalize expectations of a ‘certain kind of appearance’ which ultimately builds a sexualized image of them without the child protagonist even realizing the intent behind such advertising.
Moreover, other forms of violation, especially as per the standards and protocols of the NSPCC and similar agencies, are committed by a certain category known best as ‘paedorazzi’, who target non consensual coverage of children from celebrity families. When press images of children are taken without consent, they are clearly intrusive – and provide a cultural context in which non-consensual images and, by extension, other non-consensual behaviour, are more acceptable. Let us trace such press coverage, most of which are discovered as non consensual:
Kylie Jenner sixteen years old.
“The 14-year-old took to Instagram to share a photograph of her Halloween outfit and wasn’t afraid to flaunt her curves for the camera…Although it covered up her chest area and thighs, the design featured a high split which allowed her to pop her leg out of the side. When she turned around, flesh was on show as the cut-out material scooped to just above her derriere and featured clasps which fastened at the centre of her neck.”
Elle Fanning (described in the news titled “Lady Liberty! Teenager Elle Fanning shows off her womanly curves as she pays homage to New York statue”) was 14 years old when this was reported.
In 2010 the Mail reported that the ‘four-year-old was spotted snuggling up in her pink ‘blankie’, observing that: ‘the comforter has been a constant feature in little Suri’s A-list jetset life, and it seems that she isn’t quite ready to give it up’. If this seems ‘cute’ to you, imagine this sort of obsessive media scrutiny applied to you or your child at the same age. No wonder that in 2008 the Mail could report that: “Suri Cruise may be only two years old but it seems the toddler has already developed a dislike for photographers”.
“Rather risqué for a 14-year-old? Kick Ass star Chloe Moretz sports a sheer blouse and short leather skirt at film premiere…But it seems her rising as a Hollywood star might have caused 14-year-old Chloe Moretz to grow up a little too fast. The young actress stepped out on the red carpet at the Toronto Film Festival last night wearing a rather risqué outfit…Chloe confidently posed for photographers in the outfit, which consisted of a sheer black polka dot blouse by Valentino, which appeared to show a type of bustier underneath” – Eleanor Gower, 12 September 2011
Keeping such media news narratives in consideration, we can well understand the significance of the present day petition filed by activist Owen Jones on Change.org, alongwith numerous other campaigns in the US, UK and across the globe to question and stop any form of representation of children that reflect forms of intrusiveness and cruelty against them. From non consensual child shots, to overtly sexualization of the content describing them, there is a strict necessity for both creators and receivers of such content to distinguish between the processes of sexuality from that of sexualization.
Sexuality can be a healthy curiosity for children so they can lean about their bodies. Getting sexualized on the other hand, is problematic, and is to be viewed as a deliberate attempt by a third person, in sync with the interest of the latter and not the person being described, often without notice or consent and as such falls within one of the categories of sexual objectification (being regarded as a thing/object); the meaning of which should not be overlapped with the exploratory nature of a child’s understanding of one’s sexuality.
While such violations occur in tabloids, and online portals – facilitating the maximum circulation of a similar news story in any branch of media, the contestation and disapproval for the same should germinate from within the same module, and we should be using the same media to create an awareness base on the larger consequences of such an act of irresponsibility.
About the Author
