Haunting sex? Capitalism as spectre in the Australian anti-‘sexualization of childhood’ rhetoric

ABSTRACT

This article explores the anti-‘sexualization of childhood’ rhetoric that has circulated in Australia since the publication of the Corporate Paedophilia report in 2006. I argue that this rhetoric is striking because of how it appears to have moved away from the ostensibly feminist and anti-capitalist stance taken by Corporate Paedophilia, and been advanced by Right-leaning critics (as evidenced by the Safe Schools Coalition Australia controversy of 2016–17). I suggest that this rightward shift can be attributed to two factors. Firstly, within much anti-sexualization rhetoric, capitalism has actually had a spectral presence; it has been hinted at, flagged as being a problem, but seldom been engaged with in any meaningful way. Secondly, anti-sexualization rhetoric has (over)emphasised the relationship between sex and harm, as well as childhood innocence. I suggest that a more nuanced approach to the relationship between childhood, capitalism and sex is needed.

KEYWORDS:

• Sexualisation of childhood
• capitalism
• spectrality
• Australia
• right-wing politics

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. In Corporate Paedophilia, Rush and La Nauze define ‘children’ as ‘people aged 12 years and younger. In Australia, this includes all primary school students and many students in their first year of secondary school’ (2006a, 1). This seems to be the definition that has been adopted in another anti-sexualization discourses.

2. I use the term ‘anti-sexualization’ because it best describes the stance taken by critics such as the authors of Corporate Paedophilia. It is worth noting that the stance taken by critics of the anti-sexualization argument cannot be adequately described as ‘pro-sexualization’; as we shall see, many critics of the anti-sexualization stance proffer a more complex analysis of the relationship between childhood, sexuality and commodification.

3. The term ‘corporate paedophilia’ was borrowed from the Australian media commentator Phillip Adams (Rush and Andrea 2006a, 1).

4. The term ‘sexualized’ is deeply subjective. I concur with Albury and Lumby (2010, 143) that it is difficult to read many of the images featured in Corporate Paedophilia as being ‘sexualized’; indeed, these images mainly reflect ‘long-standing practices for dressing, grooming and photographing children in Australia in family contexts.’

5. For an overview of The Australia Institute’s political stance and influence, see Seccombe (2014).

6. There was also a debate about whether the police removal of Henson’s artwork from Oxley9 constituted a stifling of ‘artistic freedom’ (Simpson 2011, 291).

7. Robinson refers to a 2004 controversy surrounding an episode of the children’s television programme Play School which featured a family headed by a lesbian couple.

8. The term ‘tween’ is ‘typically used to identify children between the ages of 8 and 14‘ (Velding 2017, 506).

9. Pendleton and Serisier’s analysis is indebted to Wendy Brown’s States of Injury (1995).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jay Daniel Thompson

Jay Daniel Thompson lectures in media writing in the Media and Communications programme, School of Culture and Communication, at the University of Melbourne. His research interests include journalism studies, media rhetoric, and gender and sexuality studies.