SONY has blocked the Western release of an 'adult role-playing game' that saw the player undress schoolgirls and fondle their breasts while on a quest for the holy grail.

The Video Standards Council (VSC) objected to its "setting within a 'school' environment”, saying it "clearly promotes the sexualisation of children via the sexual interaction between the game player and the female characters."

Collective Shout has campaigned for the end of the sexualisation of girls in pop culture, the media and mainstream marketing over the past decade. For instance, in 2016,6 Amazon was marketing a ‘Sexy Nurse Toddler T-Shirt', where the shirt had drawn in a fake cleavage, available in sizes for 2-6-year-old girls. Just recently, Collective Shout helped to remove child sex dolls from Amazon’s website. For a long time, Amazon has contributed to a culture of sexual abuse by allowing the sale of novels that normalises paedophilia. The sale of such dolls and similar material has earned Amazon a spot on the NCOSE's Dirty Dozen List for the past two years.

Content warning: This post contains content that may be distressing. 

Yesterday we exposed budget shopping app Wish selling a range of child sex dolls. We were pleased when the company responded quickly, promising to remove the child sex dolls and take action against the sellers. But then we learned more.

How long have Wish known about child sex dolls?

The response from Wish on our Facebook page suggested they were not aware of the items that had “made it onto [their] platform” and that they were committed to removing such items “when [they] find them”.

But what about products they have verified for quality, like this sex doll complete with a blue tick? Did they know about them?

Yesterday we learned Wish has been selling inappropriate products for some time. One woman recounted deleting the app after being confronted with plastic vaginas for sale, one of which was a ‘child’ model. Another woman commenting on our Facebook page described how her twelve-year-old son using the app was confronted by ads for sex toys, despite providing his age upon sign up.

Child sex dolls were only the beginning

Since releasing yesterday’s blog post, we have discovered a substantial array of disturbing products available for purchase on Wish. In addition to child sex dolls, we have found realistic silicone replica vaginas, female torsos and backsides, replica female mouths and throats, disembodied child sex doll legs, feet, and heads for sale, all for men’s sexual use.

Activist Melinda Liszewski documented the chilling range of lifelike replica body parts for sale on a Twitter thread, noting the rave reviews from male consumers. View the images here- Warning, graphic content.

We have also discovered hidden spy cams for purchase alongside imagery depicting a man secretly filming a woman as she undresses. This criminal violation of women’s privacy is now a popular genre of pornography.

Wish is a major international company, with over 30 million followers on Facebook alone. The app is rated 12+, appropriate for users aged twelve and up. How could a major company be so negligent? And what are they doing about it?

It's not enough to simply remove child sex dolls from sale. All of the replica body parts modelled on the bodies of women and children for men's sexual use must go, and Wish needs to implement a policy to prevent this happening ever again.

Call to Action

Delete your Wish account.

Contact Wish on Facebook, Twitter, or via Customer Support (if you have the app).

Report individual items at report-abuse@wish.com 

Got an iPhone? Hop on the App Store and leave a review, or contact the App Store on Twitter. 

If you have an Android phone, visit Google Play to leave a review or report the app, and contact them on Twitter.

Update: Wish promises to remove child sex dolls from sale, but what about other replica body parts meant for men's sexual use?

Wish has responded in the comment thread on our Facebook post as follows: 

*  *  *

Content warning: This post contains content that may be distressing. 

Budget shopping app Wish is selling a range of child sex dolls for men to simulate sexual abuse.

The dolls, which are designed to look like pre-teen girls, are often between 100 and 130 cm tall, with emphasis on their “flat chest”. They are deliberately posed in such a way as to emphasise their youth and innocence, shyly looking away from the camera and tilting their heads in a childlike way. Their vulnerability is accentuated in images of them sitting cross-legged on a bed in their knickers, or naked in the bath. There is a suggestion of sexuality, with singlet straps falling off shoulders, fingers lingering over mouths, or shorts pulled down to reveal themselves. 

Product descriptions of the dolls emphasise how “real” they feel:

“Buying a sex doll can be a daunting task at first, but understanding the various types and benefits of each will make your decision easier. Sex dolls are made with natural, safe, real silicone so that each gorgeous girl feels real.”

Even sex dolls with large, porn-inspired out of proportion breasts still appear very childlike. One wears a cropped Pikachu t-shirt, from the cartoon Pokemon.

These items exist to aid users in their fantasies of raping children. The very sale of these dolls is an endorsement of paedophilia. Why is Wish promoting crimes of violence against children?

Wish is not an obscure website. Its Facebook page alone has almost 30 million followers. A major shopping app recommended for users aged 12 and above is profiting from the sale of child sex dolls. We cannot accept this.

Call to Action

Delete your Wish account.

Contact Wish on Facebook, Twitter, or via Customer Support (if you have the app).

Got an iPhone? Hop on the App Store and leave a review, or contact the App Store on Twitter.

If you have an Android phone, visit Google Play to leave a review or report the app, and contact them on Twitter.

A group of young female high school students have called out Frank Body over the skincare company’s product, “Send Nudes” lip and cheek tint.

The Year 9 and 10 girls shared their concerns in a post on Fusion Morning Peninsula’s Facebook page:

Dear Frank Body,

I am speaking on behalf of a group of 15 girls aged 14 to 16 from a Secondary School located on the Mornington Peninsula. We would like to enquire about your 'Send Nudes' lip and cheek tint, and specifically why you would ever see it appropriate to name a product 'send nudes'.

We all love your products, but sadly, this one is just a reminder of the undesired sexualisation that has become so 'normalised' by people and companies like yourself. And no, this name is not just 'banta' (sic) it's not a joke, and we believe it is time for you to take initiative in valuing your consumers. You stated in your marketing description that 'Unlike most men, you know how to listen'. That is quite a brave statement to make for a company who's product campaign reflects the objectifying and disempowerment of girls. If you care about your customers, about encouraging teenage girls to be more than sexualised objects, then you will act by changing the name of this product.

Sincerely, a group of year 9 & 10 girls from the Mornington Peninsula

The brand has a long history of sharing sleazy and sexist imagery and content on its social media. Sexualised images of young women covered in dirt, or just parts of their bodies are frequently shared alongside double entendres such as “Whipped for your convenience”, “Party in your birthday suit”, “Guess what? You’ll be naked in one minute” and “There’s a party in my package”.

But there is a growing groundswell for change, made of women and girls who will no longer tolerate sexual exploitation and objectification from companies trying to flog their products.

It’s so heartening to see young girls speaking out, calling out the companies who sexualise and objectify them. We hope Frank Body gets the message.

The Child Rescue Coalition has warned parents about the risks of posting intimate photos of their children, as well as using certain hashtags that can be accessed and misused by predators. It is a reminder to parents to take great care when posting images of their children on social media, to consider their privacy settings and possible risks to their children.

#ToddlerBikini and the ‘adultification’ of children

Psychologists, health professionals and child advocates have spoken out about the harmful impacts of sexualisation and ‘adultification’ of children. Adultification occurs when children are deliberately posed and styled to appear much older than they are, as high fashion ‘mini-me adults’ in adult attire. There is substantial research to suggest that premature sexualisation or adultification negatively impacts children’s natural development and puts girls at risk of exploitation and abuse.

Given evidence of the harmful impacts of sexualising and adultifying children, the practice by some parents of posting pictures of their female toddlers in skimpy bikinis alongside the hashtag #ToddlerBikini is troubling.

Dr Emma Rush, co-author of the report Corporate Paedophilia, told ABC: 

“Children are not a reflection of the adult’s personal style...they’re not a miniature adult, they’re not a fashion accessory, they’re a developing human being and they need the cultural space to be just that.”

Photo sharing and risks to children

Once the image has been shared publicly, the owner no longer has control over it. A study by Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) revealed that 88% of sexual or suggestive images and videos posted by young people on social media sites are being stolen by ‘parasite’ porn sites. Of the 12,224 images and videos monitored on 68 different websites, 10,776 were later found on parasite websites. Parents need to be aware that once posted online, they may no longer retain control of where their child’s image ends up or how it might be used.

The sharing of sexualised images of girls puts them at risk from paedophiles. In 2015 we published a piece by dance teacher and writer Jemma Nicoll, who exposed the exploitation of girls in the dance industry. Nicoll followed the Instagram account of a prominent US dancewear company, California Kisses, which featured highly sexualised images of young girls, as young as 5-7, sometimes alongside suggestive slogans.

(Note: ‘Pop that’ refers to the ‘popping’ of a girl’s cherry or the taking of her virginity. It is a popular porn genre.)

The company’s recklessness didn’t end there, with California Kisses failing to moderate frequent sexual and predatory comments from adult men directed towards female children, including requests for sexual acts.

The devastating emotional impact on children

Just this week, a woman has won her fight to get nude photos taken of her as a child removed from several prominent New Zealand art galleries. The victim claimed the photos, taken by her artist mother, were “child pornography masquerading as art”, calling on the Government to protect children from exploitation.

In her submission to the Film and Literature Board, the victim indicated the photographs represented her in a way that was harmful, and that as a naked child model she was subject to a power imbalance and unable to render consent.

The woman, who was also a victim of child sexual abuse, told the board that if the images were to outlive her they “will continue to remind her of that time of her life, oppressing and humiliating her.”

The Board banned two photos. The first picture suggested “sexual availability and experience”, with the victim “made up to look older than her years”, found the board. The second banned photograph was taken when the victim was 10.

Board President Rachel Schmidt-McCleave stated:

“The image seeks to make a statement about sexual availability and power that ought not to be made in the case of a child or young person. There is no doubt that depiction of a child in this way... is injurious.”

“The board is of the view that depicting young persons being older than they are and being sexually available normalises the sexualisation of young women and forms part of a continuous desensitising of the public to the sexualisation of children and young people and is therefore harmful to those children and injurious to the public good.”

See also:

Australia’s #NextTopPredator: Reality TV Show soliciting sexy selfies from girls

Witchery adultifies children in latest kidswear catalogue: Child experts and advocates say ‘Let children be children’
 

Last year, father of three Kenneth Thor started a petition calling on Westfield to stop Honey Birdette’s consistent sexist and porn-inspired imagery in shopping centres across the country.

More than 61,000 people share Kenneth’s concerns about the retailer’s ongoing depictions of women as sexual playthings for men, yet to date, Westfield has failed to demonstrate corporate social responsibility or even respond to hundreds of complaints.

Honey Birdette is a serial sexploitation offender, attracting numerous complaints to Ad Standards for its sexually objectifying treatment of women. The sex shop even made the Ad Standards top ten list of most complained about ads in the country in both 2015and 2016. When complaints against Honey Birdette have been upheld, they refuse to comply, even stating, “Nobody tells Honey B’s when to take down her signage!”

Honey Birdette employees protest sexual harassment and workplace bulling

In a response to Kenneth’s petition, CEO Eloise Monaghan once again dismissed legitimate concerns over Honey Birdette’s sexist treatment of women, claiming,

“You see more flesh on Bondi Beach at 10 a.m.”

Monaghan has missed the point.

What is sexual objectification?

The presence of female flesh alone does not constitute sexual objectification. The inclusion of attractive women does not constitute sexual objectification.

Sexual objectification occurs when a person, often a woman, is treated as a body, or series of body parts for other’s use and consumption, when her physical attributes and sexual capabilities are regarded as representative of her whole self or seen as determining her worth.

As Dr Linda Papadopolous stated in Sexualisation of Young People Review:

 “Although sexual objectification is but one form of gender oppression, it is one that factors into- and perhaps enables- a host of other oppressions women face, ranging from employment discrimination and sexual violence to the trivialisation of women’s work and accomplishments.”

Honey Birdette routinely promotes the sexual objectification of women in their floor to ceiling porn-themed advertising, featuring hypersexualised depictions of women’s bodies or even just parts of their bodies. Women in Honey Birdette advertising exist for men’s pleasure, defined only by their sexual appeal and availability. The message is that women exist for men’s enjoyment and entertainment.

Honey Birdette same-sex marriage marketing stunt slammed as ‘worse than Pepsi’

Objection to the sexual objectification of women is not an objection to women, nor is it an objection to women’s bodies. It is about opposition to sexism, to corporates who profit from the sexual exploitation of women and have the audacity to claim they are empowering women in the process.

What about ads showing men in underwear?

Monaghan went on to suggest Honey Birdette is the victim of a double standard because there is no outcry over ads showing men in underwear.

Again, the issue is not and has never been about underwear. The depiction of men or women in underwear is not inherently degrading or sexualised, nor does it require women to be objectified and exploited. Just look at the lingerie ad below by Badger and Winters who “made a commitment to never objectify women in our work”.

While we have spoken out against the objectification of men, the objectification of men is not nearly as prevalent as the everyday sexualisation and objectification of women in media and popular culture. Women are far more likely to be objectified and to be negatively impacted by objectification. Men featured in advertising are not typically demeaned, dismembered, treated like decorative objects, or posed as vulnerable and submissive in the way women frequently are. Read more here.

In the #MeToo era, with a growing community awareness about alarming rates of men’s violence against women and the relationship between the objectification of women and men’s violence against them, companies like Honey Birdette continue to put their profits before the respect, dignity and wellbeing of women. #TimesUp Honey Birdette.

See also:

"When will somebody figure out Honey Birdette has no intention of playing by the rules?"

Female Empowerment? Why Feminism Deserves Better than Honey Birdette- ABC Religion and Ethics

Sign petition- STOP Honey Birdette using porn-style advertising in Westfield family friendly centres.

***"Trigger warning: child exploitation'' 

Twenty men across Victoria have been arrested over child exploitation offences, with police seizing photos and videos of children and babies being tortured.

Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton told the Herald Sun that each month hundreds of Victorians shared millions of images of child abuse material.

“We know there are links between this type of online activity and contact offending, so it’s important that we target anyone prepared to source this type of material in any way,” he said.

Source: Victoria Police 

Mr Patton said the material showed children, and even newborn infants, in sexually provocative poses and in pain.

Writing in response to the Royal Commission into institutionalised child sexual abuse, Collective Shout co-founder Melinda Tankard Reist said:

There is deep distress in the community that defenceless children are used in such evil ways. But the broader culture that encourages the abuse of the children goes unaddressed. The same loathing that is directed toward child sexual abuse has not been extended to the mainstream promotion of paedophilic fantasies for profit.

Melinda Tankard Reist pointed out that this abuse of children was also driven by a culture that normalises and eroticises child sexual assault. 

We’ve exposed mainstream retailers for their promotion of child sexual abuse. Bookworld was forced to withdraw hundreds of rape and incest titles, many of which portrayed the rape of girls by their fathers as erotic and desirable.

After months of campaigning against Amazon in 2010, they finally delisted ‘The Paedophile’s Guide to Love & Pleasure”, a book written by an actual paedophile endorsing sexual crimes against children. Amazon continues to attract criticism for its sexualised content involving children and babies, including sexy nurse outfits for toddlers.

Australian sex shops sell replica vaginas for men’s use, modelled on the bodies of little girls and promoted as “fresh” and “innocent” with intact hymens. Chemist Warehouse sold the ‘Virgin Palm Pal’ men’s sex toy until we exposed them in 2015.

Major retailers sell sexualised clothing for girls, including padded bras, and advertising features children posed and styled in increasingly adultified ways, inviting us to see them as older than they really are.

Service stations around the country sell ‘barely legal’ style porn magazines featuring girls with braces and pigtails.

As Melinda Tankard Reist concludes,

We are destroying the cultural norms that once taught male adults that children’s bodies are off-limits to sexual use. We cannot fully address child sexual abuse until we reject a culture that glamorises it.

We recently shared an article detailing a mother’s experience with her teenage daughter and an online swimwear company. 

The mother, Tania, had written to Collective Shout after her 16-year-old daughter received a g-string bikini in the mail, a prize for a “last comment wins” competition on Instagram for a company called “Makana Swimwear”.

The g-string bikini was accompanied by a card which encouraged her daughter to tag herself in any photos she shares on Instagram of herself posing in the swimmers.

The mother went on to have a difficult but necessary conversation with her daughter about the swimmers and why she could keep the top, but not the bottom. At the same time she was alarmed that anyone would think it appropriate to send this item to her daughter. So she contacted Collective Shout. Read more about what the mother had to say here.

Following publication of our article, we were alerted to a post that appeared in a closed group from someone speaking on behalf of the “Makana team” making a series of factually incorrect claims.

As a result of this post, Collective Shout began receiving comments from hundreds of people defending the business. Almost every comment made the same specific claim, that competition terms and conditions "clearly stated" entry was for over 18+” and therefore it was the 16-year-old girl’s fault for entering against the rules.

Upon visiting Makana Swim’s website, we found a link called ‘competitions’, which included terms and conditions, including a requirement that entrants be aged 18 and over. However, a google cache search found that this section of the website did not exist before March 15, one day earlier. It appears that the owner only published terms and conditions after the mother’s complaint and then edited old Instagram posts to cover her tracks, while making misleading statements that resulted in hundreds of hostile comments blaming a 16-year- old girl for breaking the rules and claiming the mother was unreasonable to complain about the business for her daughter’s actions. 

Pic: How Makana Swim’s website appeared up until March 15 (see left hand sidebar, with no competitions section)

Pic: How Makana Swim’s website appeared after Collective Shout published the mother’s article (see ‘competitions’ section added to left hand sidebar)

Pic: Instagram photos as they appeared before March 15, with no reference to terms and conditions.

Commenters, many of them adult women have called the 16yr old girl a liar, sneaky and naughty among other things. They’ve claimed the mother is an incompetent, inattentive and irresponsible. Both have been mocked mercilessly. 

At the time of writing there are over 600 comments on our fb page and volunteers have struggled to keep up with moderating the abuse against the teenage girl her mother and Collective Shout. We are now receiving messages via our website, which include accusations and threats to disrupt Collective Shout’s operations in various ways. Staff have had to take time out of their weekend to attend an urgent situation as a result of Makana fans making good on these threats. 

All because a business didn’t want to cop to making a mistake and instead decided to go with a cover up and portray themselves as the victim.

This is taxing on our volunteers and staff, but our biggest concern is the 16 year old girl who played by the rules presented to her at the time and who according to her mother leaned towards defending the company and yet is still subject to a barrage of nasty abusive comments from adults who should know better. 

Adults running a business should have known better than to allow a 16-year-old girl to participate in an 18+ competition. Adults should have known better than to try and cover it up and lay blame at a 16yr old girl’s feet. 

Hundreds of other adults should know better than to gang up against a teenage girl with such vicious name calling and mockery. 

On top of being the most bizarre behaviour Collective Shout has observed for some time, what is also striking is how unnecessary this all is. 

How different it could have been if they had posted a statement with something like “thank you for bringing this situation to our attention. We apologise to the mother for this mistake. This was a serious oversight on our part and because of this we are now taking measures to prevent a similar situation occurring again.” 

The company has now issued an apology and stated it will close indefinitely. We can’t speak to whether that was a wise or necessary decision to make. We can only hope that if the owner/s do decide to re-establish, that they commit to doing better in future, not only in relation to how they manage ethical age restrictions, but also in how feedback or complaints are managed. 

UK retailer Primark has been accused of sexualising toddlers by selling frilly, adult-style bikinis for children younger than two.

Young mother Holli Sherratt saw the swimwear while shopping and felt they were inappropriate.

Ms Sherratt said:

“In my eyes it is completely stripping the innocence and childhood of said child. When I first saw the bikini, I instantly thought it was lovely until I realised it was for a child.

“A child should be covered up, protected from the sun and not flaunted as some sort of model. I have a daughter of my own and I want to protect her innocence and let her be a child. I look at this bikini the same way I look at bras that are aimed at young children.”

Children’s campaigners Kidscape have urged the retailer to “let our children be children” and to leave bikinis for a time when girls have breasts and make a choice to wear them.

Primark denied the swimwear is unsuitable, claiming the bikinis are in line with British Retail Consortium guidelines.

Read the original article here. 

“Why do girls’ dysfunctional clothes prioritise their looks over their freedom? And why do we parents buy them?”

A recent article on SBS described a mother’s frustration over the process of trying to buy appropriate clothing and footwear for her young daughter. Most of the clothing is designed to be pretty rather than comfortable or practical. Louise Wedgwood writes:

When shopping for my eldest, a boy, it’s a breeze to find shoes that are comfortable to play in and practical for parks and puddles.

When I stood in front of the girls’ sections in three different major retailers, I was perplexed each time. Why is almost EVERYTHING pink, frilly or sparkly? How are pale fabrics and glittery finishes to withstand the rigours of play?

On that first naive shoe-buying mission at my local shopping centres, I was desperate to go home with something. So I bought the most practical shoes I could find – Mary Janes in a sparkly rose gold canvas, and glittery jelly sandals.

From birth, girls’ “cutest” outfits are usually dresses. But they can be unwieldy to move in, and girls in dresses are discouraged from climbing, hanging upside down or doing anything else fun that might show their undies.

I’ve unwittingly restricted my daughter with dresses. We were given a sweet purple cotton dress with white polka dots, buttons down the back and contrasting frills on the edges. I popped it on my daughter for a playdate with a baby boy the same age, around 10 months old. They were both eager explorers but she kept getting tangled in the skirt and couldn’t crawl in it, navigate stairs or climb onto furniture. As soon as we got home, I changed her into leggings.

Not happy Target: one woman speaks out, thousands join in

If an alien landed in any of our major retailers, you could forgive them for assuming girls and boys are different species. Girls’ t-shirts encourage them to be "sweet and fun" and "hug your heart out". Meanwhile boys' shirts instruct them to “say yes to new adventures”, “fly away with me” and be superheroes.”

Both boys’ and girls’ slogans limit them to narrow stereotypes but the girls’ are particularly uninspiring. “Those companies are selling sexism, basically, the idea of a subordinate female or a dominant male,” according to Dr Hannah McCann, a gender studies lecturer at the University of Melbourne.

Read the full piece here.