Return to school special at Melbourne sex shop
Blackboard, schoolbooks, pencils, apple. You associate these things with children right? Children in classrooms, children learning, children bringing an apple for the teacher.
Not the sort of things you would usually associate with a sex shop.
The “Love Play” adult store in St Kilda, Melbourne, has no hesitation in associating schooling with pornography. In the minds of its managers, all those girls on the way to school are really sluts. And their teachers are justified in having any sexual interest in them.
This window display is in open view of anyone in the area.
The display further fuels growing interest in the tween porn market, with shirt skirts and mid-riff shirts positioned near the classroom paraphernalia. It promotes the harmful notion that every school girl is a ‘naughty’ schoolgirl.
My friend and colleague Julie Gale, founder of Kids Free 2B Kids, was interviewed on the issue here.
With all the efforts made to ensure safety of children in our community, why is a sex shop allowed to undermine these initiatives for its own profit motives?
And why the silence of the teacher’s unions? Surely the suggestion that children are sexually interesting and sexually available puts teachers at risks as well?
Collective Shout colleague and educator Collett Smart has also blogged on this issue and included some useful details to help you make a complaint.
February 1st, 2011 at 10:04 am
Yet again it is not ‘children’ being sexualised because I do not think boys routinely wear skirts to school! No it is female children and as we all know girls are all little ‘Lolitas’ are they not according to male-created pornography and its brother the sex industry.
Girl children are the ones who use their sexuality to entrap poor innocent men do they not? Girl children are the ones who accuse poor innocent men of raping them do they not? So of course this porn shop masquerading as a ‘sex shop’ is promoting male rape of girl children since it is all ‘harmless fun’ is it not? That is it is harmless unless the child happens to be female and not male because this is what girls and older females exist for – to be men’s disposable sexual service stations.
Hint why isn’t there an outcry from concerned parents and more importantly teachers – unless of course male teachers believe the misogynistic lie that all female children are innate ‘Lolitas’ and even being in the same room as a female child is likely to result in the male teacher being accused of raping female children.
News flash ‘Lolita’s do not exist – that is the creation of a male misogynist whose porn writing continues to be hailed by men as ‘intellectually exciting.’ Exciting for whom? Oh yes those men who believe it is their innate right to have sexual access to any female 24/7. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the photos because there are none representing male children.
February 1st, 2011 at 10:53 am
This makes me feel totally ill.
February 1st, 2011 at 10:53 am
I’m totally with you on the dangers of sexualising children etc – however, if this clothing is being sold in an adult sex store, and the sizes of the clothing is adult size, then it’s pretty clearly being sold for the use of consenting adults… right?
February 1st, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Are you claiming that age play is not a valid form of sexual expression, and that no woman (or man) can consent to it in a loving, caring relationship?
February 1st, 2011 at 12:36 pm
We are claiming Arved, that this links school children with the sex industry.
Firstly, I do not see any boys uniforms there, which once again puts only girls in the position of being the sexual object/plaything.
Secondly, I find it strange that you would assume a ‘coincidence’ that this display occurs just as the school year starts.
Parents do not want to be explaining to their children the link between a sex shop and school supplies. Why must it be displayed in the window and particularly at this time of year? You are naive to think that the adult shop did not strategically plan the display with the time of year!
February 1st, 2011 at 1:47 pm
T Fair and Arved – it’s true, unlike many other examples of sexualisation that Melinda and Collective Shout have brought to our attention, this particular advertising campaign is clearly targeting an adult market.
However, while consenting adults are of course free to indulge in sex play with each other, this is not the issue. The issue is – what consent does a child have, to having their childhood imbued with an imagined sexuality? We know that our culture is increasingly insistent upon conflating children and sexuality; and we know that this is having some very disturbing and damaging effects on the minds and bodies of our young people. So why is a display like this not being resisted by those who are charged with protecting them?
In the display in their window, this shop is not necessarily inciting people to have sex with a child; but it is most certainly participating in and further entrenching a culture which says that children can be sexually alluring. But children are not sexually alluring – they cannot be. But while children do not yet understand or control the sexual aspect of their personhood, they deserve the chance to develop this part of themselves with dignity. The imposition of adult themes upon people who are not only unready to deal with them, but usually too vulnerable and voiceless to resist having their sexuality exploited, is nothing less than a gross violation of their human rights.
Still think it’s just a harmless cheeky window display?
February 1st, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Nicole J – As with many things, depends. First, let me say I totally agree with Collett that there should be more male dress up material available. ‘Hot For Teacher’ can certainly go both ways in adult role playing, and I’m certainly a big fan of increasing the presence of the female gaze.
I say depends, because I think the location of the store plays a big role. I’m not familiar enough with Melbourne, especially St Kilda to make any judgements. I’d probably agree if this store was next to a toy shop or on the path between a bus stop and the local school (in which case, I’d say it is more a problem with zoning than anything else). If it’s a relatively industrial area, then I have no problem, and I think they have just as much right to advertise as anyone else.
What disturbs me about the way this has been reported is that there is an element of ‘this kind of sexual expression is wrong’ about it. Children don’t come into it at all. Jumping to a ‘Think Of The Children’ position has too been used to often to suppress minorities like gays, lesbians and transgenders. It was used to prevent women from entering the workforce. It is the reason why a large number of men will no longer go to the aid of a child in distress, for fear of the paedophile label.
I read a very thought provoking book at the National Library in late December while doing research for a project I’m working on: Joanne Faulkner’s, “The Importance of Being Innocent”. There may be an element of confirmation bias in this, because this author put into words a lot of what I find disturbing about the ‘sexualisation’ debate. Not to take anything away from the book, but it’s important to try to be aware of one’s biases. I agree with her premise that the fetishisation of the innocence of childhood is a generally dangerous thing. I mean, as a society, we’re quite prepared to lie to children; Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, etc. I think that there is some truth to the notion that the paradise we create for children is not theirs, but, as adults, ours.
February 1st, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Let’s just review:
First paragraph: “… this particular advertising campaign is clearly targeting an adult market.”
Last paragraph: “The imposition of adult themes upon people who are not only unready to deal with them, but usually too vulnerable and voiceless to resist having their sexuality exploited, is nothing less than a gross violation of their human rights.”
You seem to contradict yourself there. If the window display is targeting adults, comes in adult sizes, how is it imposing on anything on children?
But bringing things about to your point: “The issue is – what consent does a child have, to having their childhood imbued with an imagined sexuality?”
An absolutely fair enough question. But is this an example of it? Again, it’s a clearly defined adult store. This isn’t Target! (However, if clothing like this WAS available in target and marketed to kids – i’d be right with you).
This is important stuff to talk about. But lets address this maturely and reasonably. There are a lot of horrible things children can witness, and have witnessed, over time, in the world. In this case, if a child were walking down this street with their parent, I’d imagine the parent would find a careful way to work around this issue if a question was raised about what the clothing in the sex store meant.
If further questions were raised – good. This is the role a parent should play in mediating and explaining the world to a youngster.
February 1st, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Would it be such a pressing issue if the school outfits were only on display inside the store, rather than the front window? Normally sex shops have more discreet shop fronts. I agree the timing is bad, no parent really wants people associating back to school with sexual antics, but I don’t agree that the wearing of a school uniform in a sexual context behind closed doors is necessarily ‘sexualisation’ of girls.
February 1st, 2011 at 4:56 pm
On Google’s Street View, the closest school is the National Theatre, which has ballet and drama schools as part of their operation, but as per the newspaper article, they don’t seem to care about the porn shop. There’s a primary schools about two kilometres away, but why would children go past the porn shop? It’s be out of the way completely, and the area around the porn shop looks like a bit of a dive (sorry if anyone lives in the area), so why you would take children there is beyond me. I’m really concerned that some people seem to “think little girls” when seeing the window display. I don’t and most of those who posted on the newspaper’s online article seem to be saying the same thing. I see an adult shop with tacky clothes. If you see the display as being about young girls or fuelling the “growing interest in the tween porn market” (whatever that is. Any evidence this exists at all?), then I think that says a whole lot more about you than it does about me. If I stated making connections between adult porn shops and young girls, I’d haul myself off to a psychologist. Normal people don’t have those kinds of thoughts. There’s also the bizarreness of asking the teacher’s union to speak up. I mean, why? What’s it got to do with them? They need support in helping children getting the best education possible by making sure there’s a good student to teacher ratio and more funding to public schools. Why harass them over this trivial nonsense?
February 1st, 2011 at 4:56 pm
A couple of questions, Arved:
If something is placed in public space, do we need to actually see it for it to affect us?
Do you really think that sexually charging tokens of childhood in a public space is keeping things between consenting adults?
Why do you think that attempting to create a place in our society where the needs of children and young adults can be respected and protected is ‘fetishisation’?
T Fair:
The campaign is targeting an adult market, yet in using public space to do so has imposed its concepts onto all of us to whom that space belongs. When messages are placed in public space we do not necessarily have to see them to have something said to and about us and the world we live in. And if anything, kids occupy and experience the public space far more than most grownups! Sure there are more terrible things a kid could see than this window display. Does that mean it’s not wrong?
February 1st, 2011 at 5:44 pm
I’m not sure what your asking exactly. Some people are still squeamish around homosexuals. Does that mean that the entire idea of homosexuality has to be kept out of the public square in order to avoid offending those who don’t like homosexuals? Is a gay nightclub problematic in some way? It certainly may present difficult questions for a guardian, but would you really deny their right to exist?
If you divorce the idea of age play from children, as you seem to have accepted, then what exactly is the connection between tacky clothes, marketed at adults who want to engage in that fantasy, and the sexualisation of children? Age play doesn’t involve children in any way. It is simply one (or more) consenting partners pretending to be an age different from their true age. Again, where exactly do children even come in to this? What, exactly, is wrong with exploring a student / teacher fantasy as adults? What, exactly, is wrong with exploring power dynamics in a healthy sexual relationship?
The way you’ve phrased the last question to me is endemic of what I’m talking about. ‘Fetish’, albeit, has picked up sexual connotations, but I meant it in the ‘idol worship’ sense. I think the world is advancing so rapidly now, and many adults feel they have very little control of their lives. ‘Innocence’ has become fetishised in the sense that it has become a way to exert control over one of the few areas where such control can still be felt. We are creating fantasy worlds for our children, not to help them, but to help us. We project our fears and desires onto children. That’s where I think the problem lies. We should never shield children from reality. That’s not to say that idealism isn’t important, but idealism shouldn’t come at the expense of putting blinders on children. Pretending the world is different from how it really is, inhibits understanding and the ability to strive for improvement.
February 1st, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Arved
Not sure why you’re bringing homosexuality into this. My first question was in reference to your suggestion that location is an important factor in this particular scenario – i.e. the more likely children are to see it, the less acceptable it is. As I’ve argued to T Fair above, the objection to this window display has very little to do with the exposure of children to its content, and far more to do with the use of public space to make particular (and quite frankly unacceptable) statements about members of our society.
Second, my concession that ‘consenting adults are of course free to indulge in sex play with each other’ is a long way from ‘accepting’ the idea that age play is divorced from children. I think this is an area of sexual psychology that I’m not qualified to comment on, however others may have a better idea.
Third, you were the one who brought up the ‘fetishisation’ of childhood! But it’s hardly ‘idol worship’ to treat children as human beings too – members of our society with value, personhood and worth. People who deserve better, just as you and I, than to be exploited or harmed. Accepting that young people’s minds are vulnerable as they go through the process of development, and asking that they respected as they learn to interpret themselves and the world around them is not ‘shielding them from reality’ or ‘creating fantasy worlds’. It is, rather, seeking helping to enable them to become healthy and empowered adults who can navigate life in a complicated real world. Is that really so much to ask?
February 1st, 2011 at 9:55 pm
As has been mentioned earlier this sex shop is right across the road from The National Theatre which runs drama and dance classes for children. Any parent who has a child enrolled at The Nat would be aware of this sex shop because its window display is totally inappropriate for the area. Children regularly walk past this shop. I know this for a fact as my children attended the National Theatre for classes. The site of the store is also at an intersection, the cnr of Barkly and Carlisle Streets. If you’re stuck in traffic or just at a red light the store is on your left with the window display in full view of passing motorists. There is a school not far from the area and Barkly Street is the street used by parents, including me, taking their kids to school and the local school buses. I’m wondering whether this is an issue I should ask the local Council about.
February 1st, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Yes, and that exact argument (‘the more likely children are to see it, the less acceptable it is’) is *still* used against homosexuals. That was my point.
The public sphere argument only makes sense if children are expected to walk past it every day. As I said above, if, for example, this shop was on the route between a bus stop and a school, then I would agree with you. This doesn’t seem to be the case. As it seems, this seems to be an demand that the entirety of the world should be suitable for a 5 year old. That is certainly unreasonable.
In what way, exactly, would you posit that age play is not divorced from children, then?
It is becoming idol worship. The ‘innocence of children’ meme is becoming dogmatic. Ideas that aspire to dogma *are* dangerous. Again, this is a situation were no children seem to be involved in any way. Yet, the innocence of children argument is being used to stifle adult sexuality.
The ‘innocence of children’ is the fantasy world. It is our fantasy, not theirs. I have more faith in children. There is certainly a lack of life experience, but I think children are able to make fully informed decisions for themselves. (For example, ‘I don’t want to take violin lessons any more.’) I think the danger in entertaining this myth is two fold. First, for children, it disempowers them. Their ideas are dismissed out of hand, and in addition, it also puts them in a position where they are always in danger of losing their innocence. Secondly, for adults, the elevation of this idea increases adult desire to live with that innocence for themselves. This is dangerous for democracy, as it turns governments into parents.
February 2nd, 2011 at 8:28 am
Arved, I’m growing a bit tired of your seeming insistence upon reiterating over and over your own take on the situation, and accusations of ‘somebody think of the children’ moral panic, at the expense of engaging with most of the points raised both in the OP and subsequent discussion.
There has been no attack on homosexuality, or the private sex lives of adults. Nobody has expressed an intent, overt or implied, to ‘stifle adult sexuality’. Nobody has demanded that the entirety of the world be suitable for a 5 year old. Yourself aside, nobody has said anything about the ‘innocence’ of children, or a desire to worship or shelter them. The main perpetuator of myths about childhood, has in fact been yourself – ‘children are able to make fully informed decisions for themselves’? If this is the case, would you mind explaining why persons under the age of 18 are treated differently to adults under the law?
At the end of the day, it’s about whose rights trump whose. About why those who profit from the proliferation of sexualised cultural messages are considered more important than those who do not wish to receive these messages, or who are harmed by them. That’s the question Melinda originally posed – got any thoughts?
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:57 pm
ARVED – your comments are full of complete contradictions, but I will only identify a sample:
“I have more faith in children. There is certainly a lack of life experience, but I think children are able to make fully informed decisions for themselves. ”
If a child has a lack of life experience how can they be fully informed? Just a point.
Another point, what constitutes well developed adult sexualit”,in any case? The ability to dress up like a school girl?
Finally, you actually concede that if there is the possibility of children seeing this that it is not appropriate, so in essence you agree with the author that the display is inappropriate for children. “As I said above, if, for example, this shop was on the route between a bus stop and a school, then I would agree with you.” So Arved where do you stand, is this display appropriate for kids to see or not?
February 2nd, 2011 at 3:58 pm
And I’m increasingly confused about what your point actually is. What is this article other than an appeal to childhood innocence? It first claims that there is a sex shop that has a window display that shows student paraphernalia. The pictures make this simply a factual statement. Secondly, that this display takes ‘something’ away from ‘children’ as a concept, and makes all children less safe. I reject the second premise. Age play does not involve children in any way, so the connection being made is fundamentally flawed. Finally, it concludes that people should complain, presumably with the goal that this shop should be forced to take down the window display, or even be closed. This doesn’t follow because the second point is flawed.
It is clear that this sex shop is not selling to children. It is pandering to an age play fantasy. *No* children are involved. Many Australians are childless, and many parents have lives beyond their children too. There then have to be areas of public space that are open to adults at the exclusion of children. There have to be areas of public space that are open to our sex lives, including for the purchasing of sex toys and role playing equipment. So, I see right for this shop to exist, and a right for it to have a shop front window. As I’ve said, if, as Jacqui Lamont claims, there is good reason to expect children to be going past this shop a lot, then there probably are grounds for having the shop moved, or at least requiring them to not have a window display. And again, that would then be a zoning issue, not an issue of dangers to children.
My homosexual tangent was an analogy. The dangers of homosexuals to children is a meme that is trotted out by those who are offended by them. That’s all this article seems to boil down to for me: “This particular sexual fantasy among consenting adults, for consenting adults, offends me. Therefore it must be a danger to children.” Children don’t come into it at all.
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:39 am
Oh come now dave. There is a huge and obvious difference between being fully informed and life experience. Even adults often don’t have the life experience necessary for some things. Life experience is how you personally react. It’s about feeling. It cannot be taught. For example, you could have had the best sex education possible. You were likely still going to feel nervous and vulnerable the first time you have sex with someone, no matter how great the other person was. You could know the complete workings of poker from reading numerous excellent books. You still require experience in order to read other people’s bluffs and to become a good player. Neither means you don’t have all the information necessary to make a decision, just that you can’t be sure how comfortable you will be with the outcome, or the starting level of your skills.
I try to avoid judging other people’s sexual kinks and fantasies. I firmly believe that sexual encounters between adults only becomes problematic if at least one partner does not or cannot give informed consent. If you get your jollies from playing with power dynamics, like role playing a teacher/student scenario, more power to you. It doesn’t make it necessarily healthy or unhealthy.
I highly doubt that this display would harm any child that saw it. However, in a situation where children have little choice but to walk past it every day, then I would concede the location of the store is not appropriate. This is no different then, as a non-muslim, being annoyed if a mosque was built nearby that loudly called for prayer 5 times a day. It is no different then not wanting to constantly have environmental problems brought to my attention when I want to spend some time enjoying the benefits of electricity. Context is everything.