Collective Shout's Caitlin Roper quoted in 10 Daily

[UPDATED] WIN!

We call on Instagram to stop providing a platform for normalising the eroticisation of children

Content warning: discussion about child sexual abuse material and paedophilia

12,000 pornographic images, many violent, found on teenage murderer's devices

Tumblr Apps banned from the App Store after child sexual abuse material was found

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’
 

14 year old girls shown in sexualised poses, smoking drugs

We have a saying at Collective Shout:

"Silence is the language of complicity, speaking out is the language of change."

And recently Melbourne mum, Melanie Sheppard, refused to be silent after discovering that her daughter had been sexually exploited on social media. 

"It's important for people to be readily aware that among the (online sexual abuse) offending community these images are of significant interest"

Last year we exposed global dancewear company California Kisses for posting sexualised images of underage and even pre-teen girls on their Instagram - images that attracted hundreds of comments of a sexual nature from adult men which CK failed to even moderate.

 But it seems the message is not getting through. Yet another dance wear company (which also sells swimwear) is regularly posting sexualised photos of underage girls on its popular social media account. Frilledneck Fashion is an Australian company trading online internationally.

Nancy Sinatra once famously said that boots were made for walking but shoe brand Windsor Smith’s advertisements have instead raised concern amongst consumers. These ads specialise in the sexual objectification of women and sexual violence against women.