Shock: Sexualizing young girls might have adverse consequences
posted at 6:50 pm on February 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Three days after America’s most celebrated jailbait emerita flaked out of rehab and shaved her head, the American Psychological Association declares that “empowering” eight-year-olds by dressing them in “Porn Star” t-shirts might not be such a hot idea.
“The consequences of the sexualization of girls in media today are very real and are likely to be a negative influence on girls’ healthy development,” says Eileen L. Zurbriggen, PhD, chair of the APA Task Force. “We have ample evidence to conclude that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, and healthy sexual development.”
Research evidence shows that the sexualization of girls negatively affects girls and young women across a variety of health domains:
* Cognitive and Emotional Consequences: Sexualization and objectification undermine a person’s confidence in and comfort with her own body, leading to emotional and self-image problems, such as shame and anxiety.
* Mental and Physical Health: Research links sexualization with three of the most common mental health problems diagnosed in girls and women–eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression or depressed mood.
* Sexual Development: Research suggests that the sexualization of girls has negative consequences on girls’ ability to develop a healthy sexual self-image.
Singled out for criticism are Bratz dolls, which my beloved boss has been railing against for years.
Exit question, WaPo edition: Why does the APA fear child “sexual confidence”?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
In other news…putting your hand in a fire will get you burned.
mlong on February 20, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I tend to agree. Look what it did to Bobby Trendy.
JammieWearingFool on February 20, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I’m shocked by this recent data. Who could have possibly forseen the consequences of sexualizing grammar school girls?
PRCalDude on February 20, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Sexed up young girls have bad lives
Liberal Translation: Bushco Right Wingers hate free spirited young women
Radial Translation: **** those *******ing Republikkkans who use the APA to force women into ****ing second class ******citizenship
Actually I didn’t curse enough
Defector01 on February 20, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Wait until Amanda Marcotte hears about this. She knows it’s just a white boy patriarchal plot to deny young girls the freedom to choose.
darwin on February 20, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Sexualizing young girls can cause nothing but trouble, it’s almost as bad as referring to their mothers and fathers as “mom” and “dad”…
I guess I’d better return the leather bustier I got for my 9 year old niece, her “carers” might not appreciate now that we know these things are bad.
NTWR on February 20, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Gary Glitter: “No comment.”
.
GT on February 20, 2007 at 7:08 PM
WTF?! No way.
Cutting? Head shaving? Most likely a sublimated response to the onset of catastrophic climate change.
billy on February 20, 2007 at 7:22 PM
In other news:
rw on February 20, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Better than “what what in my butt” from ace’s site the other day, though. That was horrid.
lorien1973 on February 20, 2007 at 7:30 PM
That is completely insane…
EnochCain on February 20, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Is there a big market for porn use outside the home?
billy on February 20, 2007 at 7:36 PM
R. Kelley could not be reached for comment.
Grunt2Jag on February 20, 2007 at 7:36 PM
As a father of 3 daughters (10, 8 and 3 mo.) all I have to say is: DUH!
Neo on February 20, 2007 at 7:45 PM
slow news day…
Max Power on February 20, 2007 at 7:49 PM
AP dude, whatever MM’s paying you, you should ask for a 5% raise just for that. Just sayin’.
Enrique on February 20, 2007 at 8:17 PM
It’s okay to sexualize them, as long as you require that they all get HPV vaccine by government mandate.
kmcguire on February 20, 2007 at 8:18 PM
The APA and NASW both claim they did research that showed that children are not adversely affected when raised by homosexual men or lesbian woman, and, in fact, the experience can be better for them, the homosexual men and lesbian women, can be, and often are, better parents-care takers for the children than heterosexual married couples are.
In the past the APA as a group has spoken and said removed homosexuality from the list of disorders, against the wishes and of members and “professional” psychologists.
Now the APA is telling us that sexualizing female children can be a bad thing.
Frankly, when a person with a shingle on their wall (their Psychology diploma) just about has a heart attack when you lean forward in your chair to talk with them from five feet away “Get back! Your too close! You’re in my space!,” how can they be taken seriously in matters which are truly important?
William
William2006 on February 20, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Isn’t the real question – when will 14 year olds be legalized for in home “use” – there is always the next piece of legislation around the corner.
lorien1973 on February 20, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Ali-Bubba on February 20, 2007 at 8:41 PM
(Sarcasim ON)
“Hey, what’s the big deal, as long as you can make a buck?”
PinkyBigglesworth on February 20, 2007 at 8:44 PM
As a Barb-don’t even THINK about adding “ie” to it-I grew up with those stupid Barbie dolls.
People were REAL creative with their gifts.///sarc
Though I have soon to be teenage son I also have 4 nieces-ranging from 2-10.
There is no way in **** they will EVER get one of those “Bratz” dolls from me. Same goes for sluty clothes, and make up.
I seen some “kids” clothes that I wouldn’t wear-and I’m 36!!!
I miss the times when kids could be innocent.
annoyinglittletwerp on February 20, 2007 at 8:58 PM
KM, welcome to the Land of Lincoln. You are officially qualified to run for Governor of Illinois.
Jaibones on February 20, 2007 at 9:00 PM
PIMF.I meant “I’ve seen”.
Proofreading is my friend.
annoyinglittletwerp on February 20, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Oh, my. Timing’s everything.
Jaibones on February 20, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Apart from slightly tarty clothes and going on virtually platonic “dates”, there’s nothing remotely sexual about Bratz.
As for “porn star” teeshirts….well parents should be prosecuted for dressing their kids in such things.
8 year olds shouldn’t even know what porn is.
uptight on February 20, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Yeah seems like someone already asked.
billy on February 20, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Uh. oh……..
,
I think some might disagree that no matter what parents do, if you walk into a store, or multiple stores, to buy your children clothes, and all they are selling are thongs for 7 year olds, what do you do?
The same thing can be said in years past for all the “gang wear”….. “hey, ya, it’s cool to be a Blood!”
This comes at us from all sides, TV shows, Cartoons (notice the belly buttons on the girls?), magazines, tabloids, music, and don’t forget about the Movies!
The never ending, “in your face” agenda of the anti-religion, pro-homosexual, let’s sexualize your children agenda, that prominates Hollywood and Madison Avenue has it’s effect.
Now, let’s all sit back and watch those responsible take blame, apologize, and change their ways………
(crickets chirping all over the country…..)
PinkyBigglesworth on February 20, 2007 at 9:43 PM
You might actually want to read the actual APA study before touting it wholeheartedly. I did, and as I noted, while Bratz are mentioned only brieflyin the APA report, men and boys are attacked a lot and feminist lifestyles are promoted heavily. Always read the study, not just the press reports on it. If you can’t trust the MSM, why are you trusting their reading of a study by a liberal psychologists group?
Debbie Schlussel on February 20, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Ya! I have a masters and a PHd. I have studied the effects on teenagers and have concluded that if exposed to sexually explicit material and/or behavior it may cause them to learn the behavior themselves. What a bunch of idiots! No shit Sherlock! Give ma a break! Is this how these pin heads earn a living, by stating the obvious and putting a lable on it and call it a study! This is lame!
sonnyspats1 on February 20, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I hope that by “those responsible” you mean parents. If there was no market for that crap – if parents refused to buy it – then no one would market or make it. When you’re talking about young kids, it’s the parents spending the money. Older kids have their own money, and they’ll buy what they can get away with. The problem is lack of parenting.
Laura on February 20, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Complain to the manager, for a start. Mind you, the market must be there for the store to sell them in the first place.
My 7 year old daughter watches Bratz. It’s harmless fun – but if she asked me to by her a thong, I’d say “there’s no way on earth”.
Sadly, other parents are either weak willed, apathetic or tasteless enough to think it’s cute. They are the root of the problem.
uptight on February 20, 2007 at 10:26 PM
I can understand and appreciate those concerns, but as the father of a daughter, am glad someone is pointing this out as a bad thing. Even the APA, like a broken clock, can be right once in awhile.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 10:35 PM
I should amend to say that someone other than conservatives are pointing this out as a bad thing. Far too often, organizations like the APA try to normalize abhorrent behavior on the part of society.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 10:39 PM
An example of moral relativity in a practical situation.
Previous to the 60’s it was a well known fact that….
“…..sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, and healthy sexual development.”
Stupid liberal moonbats from the 60’s. Read it and weep you sickos!
csdeven on February 20, 2007 at 11:04 PM
What’s sad is that it took a major report from the nation’s top psychiatric association to point out the bloody obvious.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Wow. That link is just … frightening. How can that be legal? Actual porn w/14 year olds?
As for the study … it’s too stupid to comment on.
What I *am* interested in, however, is who exactly FUNDED the study or studies cited.
Please tell me my tax dollars did not go to this.
Professor Blather on February 20, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Living vicariously through using one’s children as sex objects.
Crazy thing is…
It’s mothers sexing up their daughters.
Well, no, it’s not crazy. It’s down right creepy.
Lawrence on February 20, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Agreed, you are both right, Parents are the final authority, and I am a parent of a 4 1/2 little boy……
But am I wrong that this kind of “bovine feces” is everywhere?
Great Ceasar’s Ghost…… one more crotch shot and I will hang up a shingle as an OB/GYN……..
PinkyBigglesworth on February 20, 2007 at 11:53 PM
One word.
DUH!
Tru2my2 on February 21, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Amanda Marcotte will absolutely hate this latest development. It seems like the “man” it up to his old tricks again.
jaleach on February 21, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Yes, it’s everywhere. It’s hard to avoid, but it can be done. All we can do is maintain our own households – my 16 year old daughter doesn’t dress like a slut, we’re selective about movies and music, and choosy about her friends. We get to know them AND their parents. It’s a good deal easier to live this way if you raise your kids like this from the beginning, I admit. But it’s a reasonable solution, and it worked pretty well up until the 70s when people generally stopped doing it. It doesn’t cost anything but time, requires no legislation, and if everybody did this the problem would be solved. It IS solved, for my family.
Laura on February 21, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Nice advice Laura, my baby girl is due next month. I’ve got a long road ahead. :-)
Mojave Mark on February 21, 2007 at 2:18 AM
God Bless you Laura, I hope I have similar success….
Actual questions, just by channel surfing, and other incidents, just happen to come up…….
Yeah, it’s all up to the parents……..
I think that this thread started with the fact that current advertising techniques across a broad range has an effect….
And if you don’t think so, than it’s all our, as parents, fault….
PinkyBigglesworth on February 21, 2007 at 3:07 AM
It took a PhD and chair of the APA Task Force to figure this out? It gives me great comfort to see my tax dollars at work.
BacaDog on February 21, 2007 at 7:12 AM
WHAT????
Dressing your daughter like a PROSTI–TOT is harmful??? NOOoooo….since WHEN?
I thnak God I have boys for myriad reasons. Not the LEAST OF WHICH, I think they might be outcasts in the lawn and leaf bags I would make them wear instead of the TRAMP Couture at TARGET…
seejanemom on February 21, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Pinky, five of the seven questions you listed were related to media consumption. Just eliminating or restricting that cuts your list by about 75%.
Yes, it’s up to the parents. We can’t control what kids hear at school (unless you homeschool) but by exercising strict control over media intake, the majority of the problem is solved.
Laura on February 21, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Let them raise their kids how they want. Someone has to clean my daughter’s house and do her laundry or clean up the hotel room while she is on vacation. These girls will have “fun” when they are young, and take menial jobs when they are older…fulfilling a vital role in our society. Of course, illegal immigration sucks up a lot of those jobs, so even that will be tougher in the future.
right2bright on February 21, 2007 at 10:33 AM
I recently took my 14 year old daughter to the doctor because of a volleyball injury. While there, we were given information on the vaccine, which is fine. But the doctor did warn us to check with our insurance first if we decide to do it. It takes 3 injections at $100 each.
My fist thought was, where do states considering making this mandatory think they’re going to get the money for this??? My second thought was there must be a better way to use all that money for preventing STDs.
Like I told my daughter, wearing a condom is to “safe sex” what wearing a seat belt while driving down a dark country road at 100 mph is to “safe driving”.
taznar on February 21, 2007 at 10:48 AM
I believe Christian leaders have been saying this for … decades? Maybe centuries. keep up people.
And for those who care I put something up about this a while back.
One Angry Christian on February 21, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Millenia, actually. And the Torah prohibited it long before Mary ever met Joseph, if I am not too mistaken.
But, of course, God forbid that the media and academics actually acknowledge that us radical, fanatical, fundamentalist, as-bad-as-the-Taliban Christians were actually RIGHT about something so important. Again.
Lancer on February 21, 2007 at 1:10 PM
It looks like the Bible was right when describing the virtues of Chastity.
Who would have thought that modern research would prove some of that biblical wisdom correct?
RedinBlueCounty on February 21, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Mine too! Congratulations Mark.
NTWR on February 21, 2007 at 1:53 PM
What kind of Disney version have you been reading? Everyone knows it’s the “****ing right to **** without getting ****ing pregnant.”
I hate to say this, but it looks like Aldous Huxley was right.
Wolfman on February 21, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Good point, Wolfman.
I think that Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is one of the central philosophical dividers between the Left and the Right today. The Right sees BNW as a dystopia to avoid at all costs, while the Left sees it as a utopia that all things, starting with America, must be sacrificed to achieve.
Lancer on February 22, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Comment pages: