# data[].attributes.body
Society appears to be teeming with moral panic these days, where we are constantly finding new groups of people emerging as the latest 'threat to societal values and interests' (Cohen, p.1). What interests me about the moral panic surrounding children (an especially young girls) and their sexualisation is the fact that there is an argument that this moral panic is unwarranted. Some points of view maintain that children are innocent, and unaware of the controversy surrounding the subject. This collection pad finds both sides of the argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Cohen, Stanley. Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Routledge, New York, 2002.

# data[].attributes.body
What stands out for me here is the following: "The good news is that mothers also have the ability to mitigate this unhealthy messages about sexuality by limiting exposure to age-inappropriate sexuality, using early exposure to sexual messages as teachable moments, instilling healthy values and attitudes about sexuality, and, probably most importantly, not sexually objectifying themselves." I have a 14 year old daughter, and I have always been mindful to use these messages as teaching moments. I teach her that although sexual images and messages are prevalent, she doesn't have to use those messages to define herself, and can choose her own path when it comes to how she defines her own body and sexuality. Of course, at the moment I'm just 'embarrassing' her with 'lectures', but I hope that what I teach her now will help her become a well-balanced adult

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whenever I think popular culture, and the companies that control it for their own profiteering ends, has gone as low as it can go in its wanton disregard for basic decency in general and children in particular, it always seems to find a way to dig deeper within itself and discover new depths to plumb.

Cases in point was the release of a new line of girls' bathing suits by the actress Elizabeth Hurley that has caused quite a stir, along with two recent research studies that, taken in toto, should leave any parent of a young girl absolutely mortified. This isn't the first time I've explored the unhealthy relationship between popular culture and girls. It's such a big issue for me because I have two young daughters of my own. I see them surrounded by these awful messages and want to do everything I can to protect them for as long as I can (while recognizing that I can't protect them forever).

Some might argue that all this concern for young girls' exposure to sexuality is just much ado about nothing. These girls are just wearing clothes that are fun and they don't even know what sex is. Or we Americans are such prudes; girls in other parts of the world run around naked and no one cares. Or girls might as well get used to it because that's the world they are now growing up in.

But my harsh reaction isn't about religious beliefs, personal standards of conduct, or legal views on decency. Rather, my condemnation is based on my own work in child development and parenting as well as the latest research on the impact of early exposure of sexuality to girls' development. And the impact of this early sexualization of girls is real and it ain't good.

As I write about in my third parenting book, Your Children are Listening: Nine Messages They Need to Hear From You, children are sponges for the early messages they get. Further, thanks to television, movies, and the Internet, popular culture sends its unhealthy messages loudly and persistently, drowning out other healthier messages (e.g., from parents) that might be trying to get through. When children are exposed to these messages enough, they can't help but internalize them and make them their own. And, sadly, these unhealthy messages shape the values, attitudes, and beliefs they come to hold about themselves and the world. It's not hard to see, then, how early exposure to sexuality can set girls on an unhealthy life path.

A recent study found that girls as young as six years old wanted to be like dolls who were dressed in a sexy way compared to dolls who were dressed stylishly, but covered up. These young girls associated being sexy with being the way they wanted to look, being popular in school, and who they wanted to play with. Another finding of the study was the girls who spent a lot of time with media and who had mothers who were overly invested in their own appearance were more likely to identify with the sexily clad dolls.

One study found that about one-third of the clothes for girls sold had "sexualizing characteristics." Interestingly, most of these clothes also had age-appropriate elements, perhaps obscuring the sexual side of the designs.

So, what impact does all of this have on young girls? It definitely not good. An American Psychological Association task force report found that girls who are exposed to sexual messages in popular culture are more likely to have low self-esteem and depression, and suffer from eating disorders. I see girls in my daughters' school wiggling their behind, strutting their stuff, posing with hands on hips and one hip out, and giving off that "sassy" (code word for "sexy girl") attitude.

The bad news is that mothers can actually cause their young daughters to buy into this early equalization, potentially causing them to develop attitudes about their sexuality that can have serious long-term consequences on how they view themselves and their future sexual behavior.

But, thankfully, mothers' influence on their daughters is two sides of the same coin. The good news is that mothers also have the ability to mitigate this unhealthy messages about sexuality by limiting exposure to age-inappropriate sexuality, using early exposure to sexual messages as teachable moments, instilling healthy values and attitudes about sexuality, and, probably most importantly, not sexually objectifying themselves.

Hey, don't forget us fathers either in whether or not young girls see themselves as sexual beings. If you don't think dads have an impact, you're being naïve. Think about it. If you read men's magazines, ogle cheerleaders while watching football on TV, or get upset when your wife isn't all "dolled up," what messages are you sending to your daughters?

I can't really blame companies that sexualize young girls to fatten their bottom line. In the amoral free-market system, that is their reason for being. I do, however, blame the parents who buy this clearly inappropriate stuff, thus creating a market for these and other products that have no redeeming value and do plenty of harm. The calculus is simple: no demand, no market, no sexualization of girls. I do wonder about some of the executives of these companies who have young daughters of their own.

Is there any chance that we can convince the companies that sell sexuality to young girls to just stop it because it is wrong? No way! And I can't see our government doing anything that would place the welfare of children over the bottom line of Big Business (sorry for the cynicism). So, as is so often the case with children, the buck stops with us. We the parents have the power to turn our daughters into strong and confident women with a healthy relationship with their sexuality.

The choice is yours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Disturbing Sexualization of Really Young Girls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whenever I think popular culture, and the companies that control it for their own profiteering ends, has gone as low as it can go in its wanton disregard for basic decency in general and children in particular, it always seems to find a way to dig deeper within itself and discover new depths to plumb.

# data[].attributes.headline
The commerical sexualisation of children - Corporate Paedophilia 

# data[].attributes.subject
The commerical sexualisation of children - Corporate Paedophilia 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[].name
pedophilia (disease or medical condition)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Commercial Sexualisation Of Children I The Feed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fine line between sophistication and sexy - The Feed's Andy Park looks at Corporate Paedophilia. Produced by Andy Park and Dan Holohan. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SBS2Australia Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheFeedSBS2

# data[].attributes.body
The critique of this music video is done in a comedic manner, but amidst all the laughter is a sense of horror that an 8 year old girl be expected to dress, pose and behave like an adult. But by simply dismissing this sexualisation with laughter,  are sections of society trivialising the subject? I find myself laughing at this video (it's pretty awful) but at the same time I feel upset that adults around her have instructed her to behave this way for the cameras.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A classic and very tasteful music video. Watch the Ethan and Hila Playlist --► https://goo.gl/rGFTcP THANKS TO PIDGY FOR THE AMAZING INTRO: https://goo.gl/901PGW Cool h3h3 remix song by The Notorious T.A.F.T.: https://goo.gl/QKEsKJ Original theme song by Holder: https://goo.gl/e0nSv6 ***ULTIMATE DUNNIE GIVEAWAY RULES*** Every month, we give away one unique, beautiful and luscious dunnie.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The sexualisation of girls: beyond the moral panic - We Consent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've just come back from a Gender and Education conference where we organised a symposium on sexualisation and girls. We pulled together the session to respond to the moral panic aspects of the public debate with some empirical data with girls. Despite extensive debate there is still very little qualitative research on girls' everyday sexual cultures and 'sexualisation'.

# data[].attributes.body
A study by the American Psychological Association finds that sexualisation has a negative effect on girls, such as low self-esteem, eating disorders and depression. I'm very glad and proud that my 14 year old daughter is one who is so far resisting the urge to wear makeup and the latest fashions, and has found a group of girlfriends who share this resistance. However, I'm sure that they would not be accepted by other peer groups at their school because of this. There is a social price to pay for not adhering to the media's version of 'femininity'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Sexualisation" has become a much-debated issue in recent years, and a noticeable feature is the assumption that feminists who oppose sexual objectification are generating a "moral panic."

Ever since sociologist Stanley Cohen introduced the term in 1972, it has been used as a shorthand way of critiquing conservatives for inventing another "problem" in order to demonise a group that challenges traditional moral standards.

So apparently feminists are now the conservatives fomenting unnecessary panic about the proliferation of "sexualised" images while the corporate-controlled media industry that mass produces these images is the progressive force for change being unfairly demonised. What a strange turn of events.

To suggest feminists who oppose the pornification of society are stirring up a moral panic is to confuse a politically progressive movement with rightwing attempts to police sexual behaviour.

But feminists who organise against pornification are not arguing that sexualised images of women cause moral decay; rather that they perpetuate myths of women's unconditional sexual availability and object status, and thus undermine women's rights to sexual autonomy, physical safety and economic and social equality.

The harm done to women is not a moral harm but a political one, and any analysis must be grounded in a critique of the corporate control of our visual landscape.

The left has a long history of fighting capitalist ownership of the media. From Karl Marx to Antonio Gramsci to Noam Chomsky, leftist thinkers have understood the corporate media to be the propaganda machine for capitalist ideas and values.

By mainstreaming the ideologies of the elite, corporate-controlled media shapes our identities as workers and consumers, selling an image of success and happiness tied to the consumption of products that generate enormous wealth for the elite class. Alternative views are at best marginalised and at worst ridiculed.

No one in progressive circles would suggest for a moment that criticism of the corporate media is a moral panic. Chomsky has never, as far as we know, been called a "moral entrepreneur," yet those of us who organise against the corporations that churn out sexist imagery are regularly dismissed as stirring moral panic.

The industry-engineered image of femininity has now become the dominant one in western society, crowding out alternative ways of being female.

The clothes, cosmetics, diets, gym membership, trips to the hair salon, the waxing salon and the nail salon add up to a lot of money. Even in these dark economic times, when women are experiencing the most severe financial hardship, the beauty business is booming.

Women's self-loathing is big business, and supports a global capitalist system that, ironically, depends heavily on the exploitation of women's labour in developing countries. Adding insult to injury, many of these underpaid women are spending a significant proportion of their wages on skin-whitening products that promise social mobility out of the sweatshops.

In the West, cosmetic surgery is increasingly normalised. Last year in the UK along, almost 9,500 women underwent breast augmentation surgery, and the number of labiaplasties has almost tripled in five years.

One plastic surgeon helpfully explains on his website that labiaplasty "can sculpture the elongated or unequal labial [ sic] minora (small inner lips) according to one's specification ... With laser reduction labiaplasty, we can accomplish the desires of the woman." If this is not evidence of living in a sexualised culture, what is?

The emotional cost of conforming to hypersexualisation is enormous for girls and young women who are in the process of forming their gender and sexual identities. We construct our identities through complex processes of interaction with the culture around us, but today images of hypersexualisation dominate. Where is a girl to go if she decides Beyonce, Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Rihanna or Britney Spears aren't for her?

An American Psychological Association study on girls' sexualisation found that it "has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality, and attitudes and beliefs." Some of these effects include risky sexual behaviour, higher rates of eating disorders, depression and low self-esteem, and reduced academic performance.

Of course, there are girls who resist, but there are real social penalties to be paid by those who do not conform to acceptable feminine appearance.

Last weekend, feminist campaigners in London hosted a conference on the pornification of culture. In the build-up, mass protests were held outside the London Playboy Club and Miss World beauty contest to highlight the relationship between corporate interests and the objectification of women.

The fight against the increasingly narrow and limiting image of femininity is inextricably connected to the progressive fight for democratic ownership and control of the media.

This is a political struggle. Feminists are rightly concerned, but we're not panicking. We're organising.
Gail Dines is a professor of sociology and Women's Studies at Wheelock College in Boston. She is the author of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality. Julia Long is an activist with the London Feminist Network and Object.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resisting sexualisation isn't moral panic: it's politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Sexualisation" has become a much-debated issue in recent years, and a noticeable feature is the assumption that feminists who oppose sexual objectification are generating a "moral panic." Ever since sociologist Stanley Cohen introduced the term in 1972, it has been used as a shorthand way of critiquing conservatives for inventing another "problem" in order to demonise a group that challenges traditional moral standards.

# data[].attributes.body
At first I was mad when I read this Mamamia article, but then I realised that this was the other side of the coin! The idea that society creates the meaning behind the products was very interesting to me. The products themselves don't sexualise children, it's society's perceptions of these products when used in conjunction with young people that creates the moral panic!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by DUNCAN FINE

I must have missed the memo.

You know, the one everyone else seems to have received about how we are all now living in a world so shocking and depraved that our kids are hopelessly sexualized, our culture is a swill of pornography and paedophiles openly groom children for sex.

That banned Pasolini movie - Salo? Next to us, a freakin' Sunday School picnic.

Because that appears to be the world according to any number of psychologists and authors like Steve Biddulph and Melinda Tankhard Reist, who have made a career out of making perfectly good decent parents panicked about their perfectly good decent kids.

These people form a very long line of modern commentators who have mastered the art of simultaneously wringing their hands and wagging their fingers at how our culture has devolved into sex and chaos.

And what triggers all this angst? Let's see. Take your pick from girls dancing around to Beyonce and Rhianna videos in their bedroom, Kmart selling a line of underwear for teenaged girls with the words, "I (heart) rich boys" and "Call Me" written on them. the work of Bill Henson, Kylie Minogue videos on TV, a member of Hi-5 appearing in a men's magazine in lingerie, and pole dancing lessons for kids.

It's hard to argue for calm in this debate because the emotive script about kids and sex has been so thoroughly written and seems so widespread. But some plain talking and some rational thinking are overdue. So here goes.

We are in the middle of a terrible moral panic about kids and their sexuality. And it's being fuelled by both liberals and conservatives.

So on the one hand, Tankard Reist of the religious right, constantly calls for a "crackdown on degrading and objectified images of women in the public domain" in our "culture that is becoming increasingly pornographic."

Meanwhile, Phillip Adams years ago coined the hyperbolic term "corporate paedophilia" which became the title of the left wing Australia Institute's report on how corporations were making a dollar on the back of allegedly sexual images of children in clothing catalogues. Clive Hamilton, then head of the Institute, warned that, "corporations, retailers are sexualising children in their advertising ... selling bras for 6-year-old girls."

Now... deep breath... for the facts.

First, there is no evidence whatsoever that images in the media cause physical or psychological problems or a heightened and inappropriate sexual curiosity in children. Indeed, the experience of the Scandanavian countries and Japan, with liberal attitudes to porn, says the opposite.

Further, it's in countries where there is widespread, explicit sexual education that we find the very lowest levels of teen sex, pregnancy and abortion.

Secondly, your young son or daughter should be allowed to dance in the underwear or run around stark naked if they wish without any fear of any grown-up molesting them or even thinking about it. Children cannot provoke child abuse. And anyway, child abusers don't care what their victims are wearing.

So let's get this straight. Children are not appropriate objects of sexual desire for adults. The idea of "sexually provocative" children's clothing or sexually provocative children's activities makes no sense.

The claim that paedophiles will be turned on by girls walking down a catwalk or prancing around in bikinis is extraordinarily naïve.

Paedophiles have a sick fixation with children looking like children - not like adults. And, horrifically, the vast majority of child sexual abuse cases take place inside families. Or the Church. The victims do not provoke this horror by wearing lip gloss or skimpy shorts or by dancing like Beyonce - they cannot provoke anything. They are children.

Thirdly, one of the great dangers in constantly claiming that children are being sexualised is that people are becoming incapable of seeing images of children in any normal way. We all begin to look at innocent images through the eyes of the paedophile. So a school concert becomes a pornographic display; a kids' swimming carnival is a paedophile's delight.

And before people start tut-tutting like stern Victorian schoolma'ams about a lost golden age of childhood innocence, they ought to read a little history. In Victorian England the age of consent was 12. London was awash with childhood slavery and prostitution. Australian cities and towns were teeming with runaways and neglected children to such a degree that the Society for the Relief of Destitute Children was formed in 1852 with the aim of creating a home for Sydney's 'waifs and strays.'

We have thankfully come a long way. So rather than fretting over kids from stable homes playing with Bratz dolls or admiring a photo shoot of Kate Moss (depending on their age) we should be focused on kids today who live with the very real - and not imagined - fear of abuse. That means finding solutions for kids growing up in homes where there's social dysfunction, poverty and drug abuse. And it means finding some effective solutions to the third world conditions that exist in some Indigenous communities.

So it's easy to whip up a moral panic about teenage models, music videos and internet porn. It's easy to blame the advertising industry. What's incredibly difficult is to find ways of solving child abuse in our communities.

Sententious nonsense, pseudo science and moral panic are simply not the answer.

Duncan Fine is a writer and commentator who has worked extensively in theatre and in children's television and is co-author of the book, Why TV Is Good For Kids.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We're in the middle of a moral panic about kids and their sexuality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by DUNCAN FINE I must have missed the memo. You know, the one everyone else seems to have received about how we are all now living in a world so shocking and depraved that our kids are hopelessly sexualized, our culture is a swill of pornography and paedophiles openly groom children for sex.

# data[].attributes.body
This articles talks about the Sexualisation of Young People Review, but finds flaws in the methodology used. I think that there's no doubt that there's a moral panic in relation to this - what people can't seem to agree on is how penetrative this moral panic is. Should we be as concerned about this as the media and politicians tell us we ought to be?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Sexualisation of Young People Review commissioned by the Home Office is confused, simplistic and fails to situate sexual representation within a historical and social understanding of power and inequality.

Sex is everywhere. I did an actual double-take when I saw an arched and airbrushed woman on the back of a Manchester bus promoting their new environmental fuel, with the tagline 'Green is the new Black'.

So you would assume that I'd been jumping for joy at the recent independent Sexualisation of Young People Review commissioned by the Home Office.

Psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos led the year-long consultation for the review, which included a literature review of the field, focus groups and evidence sessions with practitioners, academics and activists.

I had to think quite hard before writing this piece, as I am troubled by the overwhelmingly homogeneous notions of sex, sexuality and gender that confront me every day. The kind of images that present the goal of femininity as white, heterosexual, slim, pubescent, rich, hairless, and up-for-it (but not too up for it).

But the Sexualisation of Young People Review also troubles me. The review may well have implications for policy - David Cameron and Gordon Brown have both weighed into recent moral panics about childhood innocence, and the report carries nine pages of policy recommendations for education, media, business and research. Yet it is confused, simplistic and fails to situate sexual representation within a historical and social understanding of power and inequality.
What is 'sexualisation' anyway?
The term 'sexualisation' has been flying around the research world for a few years, but academic Feona Attwood has argued that it is more of an umbrella term than a straightforward definition. Broadly, it tends to be used to describe the process of something becoming sexual - whether that be the increased mainstreaming of sexualised images and texts, or the 'imposition' of sexuality onto a group of people, for example children and young people. As with many broad terms, the word is often used in different ways by different people, which has important implications for any claims being made by researchers, or attempts to compare research in this broad area.

The term is central to an often polarised debate about the 'pornification' of culture, in which feminists are divided over whether an increase in sexual representation is about empowerment and choice, a form of or 'retro-sexism' something more complicated.
What was the purpose of the review?
The review is situated within the Home Office's Together We Can End Violence Against Women consultation. As such, it sets out its scope as "how sexualised images and messages may be affecting the development of children and young people and influencing cultural norms, and examines the evidence for a link between sexualisation and violence".

This is an ambitious goal. Researchers across disciplines have been divided over the possibility of determining the impact of representation on attitudes and behaviour. The review is part of a heavily contested debate about the relationship between our development as human beings and the world around us.
Troubled
While Papadopoulos is clearly aware of the theoretical debate about what sexualisation means, she decides not to engage with complexity and uncertainty, presenting instead a dazzling 'review' of literature that leaps across the subjects of body image, objectification, child sexual development, pornography, media consumption, eating disorders, the sex industry, bullying, adult sexual violence and child abuse.

Unlike the recent research on Sexualised Goods Aimed at Children conducted for the Scottish Parliament, the Sexualisation of Young People Review rarely critically evaluates the existing research, but rather combines the findings of work from different national and historical contexts, amalgamating research on adults and children as transparent 'facts' to illustrate the growing menace of sexualisation for the monolithic group of 'young people' in the UK. Most noticeably, the review presents a range of statistics about music videos that spans over 20 years as a reflection of current media culture.

Dr Linda's underlying premise is one that I identify with: the constant reproduction of sexual, racial and gender stereotypes must surely be related to how we can make sense of the world: it can open up or limit who we can be, and how we can behave.

But this research feels like the journalism that I get so fed up with in the news - where a premise is decided upon and research is found to 'back it up'. Although the review engaged with qualitative research with focus groups, including with young people, we don't get to evaluate the methodology, the kinds of questions asked or how the sample was devised. All research is necessarily partial and involves decisions about what is included, so this process should be out in the open.

The questions posed for the fact finding review (which are not published in the final review) illustrate why it is important for methodology to be transparent. For example, contributors were asked to consider 'how young people's exposure to overtly sexual and other media content negatively affects them' (2009, Invitation to evidence sessions). In contrast, Sara Bragg and David Buckingham, who worked on the Scottish review, have done some great work with young people that examines the often multiple and complicated readings that young people have of media representations.
Ghettoised panics
The flaws in the way this review was conducted and presented reflect a much bigger problem in this debate, which was articulated brilliantly by Nina Power at the launch of the Feminist Manifesto for the 21st Century. When we take the debate on sexualisation in isolation from a structural analysis of power, as feminists we end up as uneasy bedfellows with the moralistic arguments of the right. This leads us to categorise and police 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' sex, which is particularly evident in the review regarding sex outside of a long-term monogamous relationship.

We cannot examine the impact of sexual representation, whether that be consumed by children, young people or adults, without contextualising it within the This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">changing structure of identity in late capitalism. In a society increasingly characterised by the requirement to improve ourselves and find identity through our consumption, the commodification of sexuality is intertwined with unequal power relations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The sexualisation of young people: moral panic?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sex is everywhere. I did an actual double-take when I saw an arched and airbrushed woman on the back of a Manchester bus promoting their new environmental fuel, with the tagline 'Green is the new Black'. So you would assume that I'd been jumping for joy at the recent independent Sexualisation of Young People Review commissioned by the Home Office.

# data[].attributes.body
What sexualises the models in this photo shoot isn't the clothing, it's the meaning given to the poses used. Society views the positioning of the body (arched back, knees raised) as sexual, and therefore most find it disturbing that these poses are being adopted by a child, on the instructions of adults. I know that if I saw a young girl adopt such as adult pose, it would make me feel very uncomfortable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated July 20, 2016 13:52:18

Critics have dubbed them a "reckless" risk to the safety of the child models, but those involved have defended publishing the photographs of scantily clad, young girls on social media to promote a popular dancewear label. It comes as Australia's eSafety Commissioner warns parents that paedophile parasite websites are publishing seemingly innocent photos found on Facebook.

A model lies on the ground, her back arched as the sun illuminates her frame. A protruding chest is teamed with a longing gaze. And lipstick-kissed lips form sumptuous pouts.

The models featured in these photographs are as young as nine. Most of them are under the age of 15.

The photographs are posted on an Australian dancewear company's social media site and are shared with tens of thousands of followers.

Frilled Neck Fashion's followers post comments of appreciation - and while many people give positive feedback about the costumes, the praise is largely directed at the models:

"Wow you are so gorgeous."

"Love this one!"

"Sexy."

"You look extremely stunning."

"Hey follow me."

Women's advocacy group Collective Shout received complaints about the photo shoots and its campaigns manager, Caitlin Roper, started to investigate.

She acknowledges there are photos of dance performances and dance moves, but says she is appalled and shocked by the adult-like poses and styling contained in the photo shoots.

"When girls are young, they all like to put on their mum's heels and somehow always find the red lipstick, that's child-led curiosity," she told ABC News.

"What's disturbing about these photographs is that at some point, someone told this child, 'Lay down on the ground, arch your back, don't smile, look serious and pout'."

Ms Roper also discovered parents approved of the posts, and often boasted about how beautiful their child looked.

"Girls as young as nine don't have the emotional maturity or context to understand the potential implications of sharing these photos publicly and promoting them on social media," Ms Roper said.

Using information publicly available on the dancewear company's social media pages, ABC News was able to quickly locate the schools and addresses of two of the young models who feature heavily on Frilled Neck Fashion's Instagram page.

"It's really quite risky; it's something [parents] need to be aware of," Ms Roper said.

"It's reckless behaviour that is putting young girls at risk. You can find these girls so easily by tracking them online, their profiles are often public and they give up a lot of information about who they are and where they live."

In an interview with ABC radio earlier this year, eSafety Commissioner Alastair MacGibbon warned parents to take more care in selecting photos they share on social media.

Even seemingly innocent family photos of children in everyday life were being extracted and sexualised by paedophiles, Mr MacGibbon says.

Ms Roper says if regular photos of "kids being kids" could be sexualised and posted elsewhere, the risk to these young models is "hugely concerning".

"This is a case of adults failing to act in the best interest of the child," she said.

Ms Roper contacted the dancewear company over the course of several weeks, to no avail.

ABC News's repeated requests for comment from the NSW Central Coast based business were ignored, and its director Amelia Annand also did not reply to private messages.

'There is nothing sexual about these photos'

Sydney woman Cindy's 11-year-old daughter is a dancer, and appears on Frilled Neck Fashion's Instagram page.

Cindy says she does not see anything wrong with the photographs.

"They are gorgeous girls wearing gorgeous costumes. There is absolutely nothing sexual about these photos," she told ABC News.

"The girls love to dance and love to wear beautiful costumes."

Dance teacher and dance industry code of ethics campaigner Jemma Nicholl disagrees.

"There's no denying that these children are positioned to have attention clearly drawn to specific body parts - their chest, their crotch," she said.

"Facial expressions are sultry, and some images even present the illusion of nudity. There is nothing child-like about these pictures."

Ms Nicholl is working on stronger guidelines for studios and dance schools, called the KidsPace Dance Code of Practice.

The voluntary guide was developed in conjunction with child psychologists and educators, and provides tools and information on how to combat sexualisation of children in the dance industry.

"My question to parents is: 'Are you seriously this comfortable with the way your daughters are being depicted, and are you aware of the consequences?'" Ms Nicholl said.

Images reproduced on pornographic websites

The UK's Internet Watch Foundation study tracks the number of child and adolescent images lifted from social media and posted on parasite pornography websites.

In 2012, it found 88 per cent of photographs uploaded to parasite websites were found on social media pages of individuals.

These parasite websites had often been created for the sole purpose of offering sexually explicit images and videos of young people, often with commentary or fantasy storylines.

"How would these parents feel ... knowing that others may be viewing their child's image on other sites?" Ms Nicholl said.

But Cindy vehemently denies she is potentially putting her daughter in harm's way.

"None of us are out there exploiting our children, and there is nothing disgusting about any of these photos," she said.

"All these children are well supervised and have responsible parents."

Photographers defend pictures and poses

Dance photographer Rob Eyre captures beautiful mid-air dance manoeuvres during performances.

He is also the photographer behind some of the highly stylised photographs Collective Shout want taken down.

ABC News asked him if he felt his photograph of a young model wearing black lace, posing on the ground with a serious expression on her face, could be seen as "sexual".

"That's a shock as it seemed a cute image when I took it. I wouldn't have thought just laying there would be seen as suggestive," he told ABC News.

He said he did not have a say in what the models or dancers were wearing.

"I'm always mindful of what I shoot with these dancers, as they do put themselves in moves and positions that, to the wrong person, can be taken the wrong way," Mr Eyre said.

Photographer Lisa Young works closely with the fashion brand, and her daughter also models for them.

She said her photos were only used commercially if the model's parent or guardian gave permission.

"The poses in the photos are poses that are widely used on stage in lyrical and contemporary routines by dancers and photographed by many dance photographers," Ms Young said.

But Collective Shout and KidsPace Code fear safety is being overlooked for commercial gain.

"I would advise those involved to take far greater care and consideration in their photography and social media moderation, when it is the wellbeing and safety of young girls at stake," Ms Nicholl said.

"Is there surely not another way to style and position a child, for the purpose of a sale?"

An industry-wide responsibility

Last year, global dancewear brand California Kisses - which is widely distributed in Australia - was called to account for its Pop That campaign photograph.

The particular image featured three models aged 12-16 posed alongside the slogan "Pop That", a phrase commonly used when referring to a female losing her virginity.

Several weeks later, the company removed the photograph from its homepage.

Ms Nicholl says sexualised styling and representation is not limited to the internet, and is present on the competition stage and in public performance through choreography, music and costuming choices.

Earlier this year, a male dance student who gave evidence before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Survivors, called for better regulation of the industry.

He was one of many survivors of paedophile dance teacher Grant Davies.

The male student said he hoped the inquiry would lead to stricter guidelines and governance of the dance industry.

Ms Nicholl agrees.

She says safer, smarter practices in local dance halls could help prevent the exploitation of children.

"As dance educators, we have the potential to be a key influence in the most formative years of a child's life, and that automatically issues us with a responsibility to safeguard not only the physical, however, the mental and emotional wellbeing of children too," Ms Nicholl said.

The KidsPace Dance code of practice will be available next month.

Topics: children, community-and-society, social-media, australia

First posted July 18, 2016 05:43:26

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dancewear company accused of sexualising pre-teen models

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated July 20, 2016 13:52:18 Critics have dubbed them a "reckless" risk to the safety of the child models, but those involved have defended publishing the photographs of scantily clad, young girls on social media to promote a popular dancewear label.