And the Crown Goes to... The Parents or the Kids?

First things first, the basis of my argument lies within the video above. The question my argument looks to answer is this, Who's desire for pageants drives families to the competitions, is it truly that of a toddler or is it the parent's trying to live through their child's success. The first things I noticed about TLC's documentary Toddler's and Tiaras was the parents, well mothers to be exact. Long gone were the days of their prime, these women,to put it lightly were in need of a workout and a makeover themselves, yet they put the money, the time and the effort into their toddlers. Hence my belief that they are only doing this to live through their children, because they themselves we incapable of finding happiness within their own lives. 


Said parents try to justify their means by saying things like it's what she loves to do. Really? Is it what she wants to do. Ma'm your child is two years old she barely has the vocab to describe her desires, let alone know the concept of desire. In fact "their wants pale beside the interests of parents and a multimillion-dollar industry of grooming and showcasing." (de Witt 1997) As seen in the video Marleigh's Mom said she was going to be in pageants before she was even born, sounds like Marliegh has some choice in the matter there. Also Amy, used to be in pageants herself, as the video plays she shows off some of her accomplishments, notice the fact that she only shows one crown. She also goes on to say that her daughter Marleigh loves pageants, followed by clips of her screaming and being forced into doing routines. 


Clips like this are not foreign to the documentary, they are seen throughout many episodes. With all of the seen force of parents making their daughter participate in such competitions makes me wonder is society really the only factor to blame in the issues of young girls. When the parents themselves are reinforcing the stereotypes that women are only valued beauty and that girls should aspire to look like the images shown in the media. It's also the mom's who preach about being thin and sharing negative self-talk with their daughters that damage girls self-esteem. Instead mother's should be teaching their daughters to be above the influence of media and society. Instead of trying to fit the mold. 

Never Too Young for Perfection- Girls and the Unattainable Reality

Body image, everyone has one. Body image is "how one defines what his or her body means personally" (Cash 2002). This is formed through expectations and opinions as wells as verbal and nonverbal communications conveyed through family, friends and peers and even strangers. Body image is often based off of how well someone believes their body matches the social standards of physical beauty. All of this seems to be logical but the standards of physical beauty in today's world are based off of a fallacy. With all the technology out there the images of the bodies we see in the media are not what those bodies look like in real life, because they go through a series of editing that makes them more physically appealing.Sometimes those bodies don't even exist with in real life, they are created from computer software. Not only are these images fake and unattainable they are often hyper-sexualized and focus on disemembering women into few body parts such as butt and breasts all to display this artificial ideal of what is physically attractive.

Shockingly this ad is selling jewelry, not breast implants. 

With the standards of society being so high and unattainable we set people up for failure. Young girls who are influenced heavily by such images are shown to have to problems finding their body image acceptable. Sexualization, — "turning someone into “eye candy” — is linked to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression in girls and women" (Warner 2007). When adopting these sexual images seen in the media girls suffer negative consequences such as hindering their ability to develop sexually. 

Child pageants are no exception to the unattainable standards of society, girls as young as infants parade in often skimpy outfits to be judged on their "beauty", which is of course the product of fake tans, teeth, hair, lashes and eye color. Not only does this reinforce the stereotypes of beauty in the media to keep women in their place as objects of men  but also little girls dressed as miniature women "mark a deep sexual disturbance in society" (Camille Paglia)  which finds school girls and pig tails sexy and where women have to portray virginal innocence to attract men.  

The Lolita Effect

The Lolita Effect is a novel by M. Gigi Durham, that explores the sexual culture of children. The term "lolita" originated from a Vladimir Nabokov’novel, the character Lolita was a young girl curious and had no control over her relationship with an older man, who was manipulative and abusive. Today the term Lolita is a cultural reference to a young sexual girl, they are not legally adults but are deliberately provocative cause adults to see them in a sexual way. Accruing to Durham society and media causes this, creating young hyper-sexualized girls, through advertising, television and other outlets. In the book Durham argues that sex is a normal and vital part of a human being growing up, but the media's influence is more harmful than helpful, with sex being portrayed as either good or bad with no in between area. While little girls are portrayed as little women through sexualization. Women are shown sucking lollipops, with pigtails and childish clothes, the school girl uniform is seen as sexy. All of these messages lead to the idea that little girls are sexy. And because of this the age of first sexual experience gets younger and younger. The sexualization of young girls is becoming mainstream pop culture. Durham says this adds to the myth that "female sexuality is the the province of youth" Throughout her book she explains other myths that go along with female sexuality and sexualization in the media.

Sex Sells, But Are Children Paying the Price?

Everyone knows that sex sells, advertisers take an ordinary image and make it simply irresistible by giving it a sexy edge. According to research done by advertising and marketing research firm, Gallup and Robinson the use of sexual images in advertising is  "a significantly above-average technique in communicating

with the marketplace'." When everything from cheeseburgers to shampoo has a sexual image attached to it, its really not that big of a surprise that ads geared toward children or even the children themselves are being sexualized as well. 

Australian Commentator Philip Adams calls this Corporate Pedophilia,"the abuse of children involving sexual abuse, violent abuse and economic exploitation by some of the mightiest corporations." The corporations that sexualize children in their marketing schemes, promote "molestation on a massive scale" according to Adams. Many other critics are agreeing with him, for example the Australian Senate has linked Beauty Pageants with body image and issues and child abuse. 

Authors Emma Rush and Andrea La Nauze warn in their book ‘Corporate Paedophilia’ the potential consequences of the sexualization of children in advertising. They say that these ads not only promote pedophilia but also promote precocious sexual activity in children and that can be extremely dangerous, especially for girls. Premature exposure to sexual images can heighten the pressure for young girls to strive to look a certain way, causing body images. It can also lead to the promotion of sexual behaviors and actions. Sexualization can also hinder the ability to form positive relationships in the future. Young girls and boys lack the understanding of sexual desire and the premature sexualization of theses children can bring on dangers situations such as unwanted sex. 

In Australia there is a debate going on whether or not the sexualization of children in the media should be regulated. Considering that sexualization of children is no stranger to American media maybe its time to rethink the advertisements that are in circulation.

Which Came First?

We've all heard the saying "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The question points out the ineffectiveness of trying to identify the first case of cause and consequence. So for the sake of this blog which came first sexualization or the sexualization of children? According to the Australian Journal of Early Childhood

"In the past the sexualization of children occurred indirectly, primarily through exposure to representations of teen and adult sexuality in advertising and popular culture. The very direct sexualization of children, where children themselves are presented in images or directed to act in advertisements in ways modeled on adult sexual behavior, is a new development". Before this new era where children themselves are the sexual image, there was a time in which children saw sexual images from another source, from adult and teen mediums. 

But now sexual images are everywhere children turn. In music videos, on magazine covers in the stores, in lyrics of popular songs heard over the radio. Sex is inescapable and the consequence to this premature exposure to very adult things is an increased risk for poor body image, eating disorders and early and escalated sexual behavior. Instead of seeing the sexual image through adult and teen pop culture, the children themselves are now the sexual image. Young girls on Toddlers and Tiaras wear skimpy outfits and stripper make up to compete in beauty competitions, Tween magazines encourage young girls to act like teenagers, and emulate young celebrities in Hollywood by looking "hot". Even the toys young girls play with scream sex, like the popular Bratz dolls, which are supposed to represent teenagers but they look more like prostitutes. 

Childhood should be time "of innocence, playfulness, fun and spontaneity" Children should be taking their time to grow up and not rush into trying to fit in with what is being portrayed in the media.