Dani Garavelli: Don't blame the bikini

Published on Saturday 17 April 2010 20:59

SINGLING out Primark's sparkly pink bikini for seven-year-olds as a focus for society's angst over the sexualisation of girls is a bit like laying the blame for the rise in childhood obesity on the humble Creme Egg.

I mean, it's not as if we are unaccustomed to the sight of pre-schoolers tottering around in high heels, crop tops and lip gloss. Little girls have always wanted to dress up like their mums, and, in recent years, an increasing proportion of mums seem to want their little girls to be carbon copies of themselves.

Sure the Primark bikini tops were padded so as to create the illusion of a bust. But it's not as if they came with nipples tassels and a matching thong. Set against the likes of the Peekaboo Pole Dancing Kit (withdrawn from the toy section of Tesco in 2006), the High School Musical pants bearing the legend Dive In (produced by Disney) or the T-shirt which read So Many Boys, So Little Time (Next), the little two-pieces – with their gold stars – seem a vision of childish innocence.

But this is the age of Mumsnet. And there's nothing the Mumsnet mob likes better than a bit of a moral panic, particularly if it can be linked to a downmarket chain store. Such is the website's sway at the moment, that its criticism of the bikini saw it lambasted by David Cameron and taken off the shelves in record time, with Primark offering to donate any profits made on it to a children's charity. Call me a sexual libertarian, but that does seem to be a bit of an overreaction and proof that – when it comes to children – we are prone to knee-jerk behaviour.

It's not that I have any problem with Mumsnet's Let Girls Be Girls campaign per se, it's just that the emotive nature of the debate over the sexualisation of children is allowing some contentious claims to be presented as facts.

A particular bugbear is the way in which outfits which pander to a little girl's desire to be grown up are being presented as a virtual charter for paedophilia, even though there is no evidence of a link between so-called "sexy" clothing and the sexual abuse of minors.

Last week, campaigner Shy Keenan, backed the withdrawal of the Primark bikini with the words: "It never fails to amaze me how many household high street names are prepared to exploit the disgusting paedophile pound." No-one challenged her, because she herself is an abuse survivor and it's a powerful soundbite. But it's also nonsense. Unless she, or anyone else, is seriously suggesting that these clothes are being marketed to, or snapped up by, child abusers.

It is well-established that most victims of child sex abuse are known to their assailants. It's their accessibility that makes them targets rather than the way they dress. But even if that weren't the case, what logic is there in suggesting that paedophilia which is – by definition – an attraction to prepubescent children will be increased by making those children look older?

Linking what little girls wear with paedophilia is, in any case, offensive because it places the onus for avoiding child abuse on the girl (or her parent). Suggesting that a mother shouldn't dress her daughter in a padded bra because it might attract unwanted attention is perilously close to telling a woman in a mini-skirt she is asking to be raped. And the phrase "provocative" in relation to a child's clothing makes sense only if you share the warped perspective of the paedophile, who justifies his actions with the words "she led me on". For 'normal' people, no seven-year-old looks 'provocative' in a padded bikini top or anything else.

The real issue with the premature sexualisation of girls is not the way it might affect how others see them, but the way it might affect how they see themselves. If – from an early age – they are buying thongs that say "nudge nudge, wink wink", it's hardly surprising they grow up to view women as little more than objects of male desire; and to feel inadequate if they can't live up to sexual stereotypes.

There is plenty of research linking pressure on girls to grow up too quickly with poor body image and depression. A study by Girlguiding UK and the Mental Health Foundation in 2008 found the leading potential "triggers" for serious mental health problems in girls were premature sexualisation, commercialisation and alcohol misuse.

But even more damaging than the sexual aspect of many fashion lines, in my opinion, is the way they are designed to limit girls' horizons; to present them as a bunch of silly bimbos. So there are T-shirts with slogans such as 'I left my brain in my locker', 'Future Footballer's Wife' or 'Catwalk Ready'. There are no T-shirts on the High Street which offer aspirational messages, although Pink Stinks – set up to oppose the way girls' toys and clothes are marketed – sells ones that say: "I'm no Princess" and "Future ROLE Model."

Of course, we can't stop children from becoming sexualised eventually, nor would we want to. But the transition from little girl to sexual being is something every female should negotiate on her own terms and at her own pace. And she should be encouraged to see her sexuality as part of a wider identity, rather than her raison d'tre.

High street stores have a part to play in relieving the pressure to grow up too quickly, along with celebrity magazines and the music industry. But really it's parents who hold the key to long-term change. Only when they start to ask themselves why they are prepared to pay good money to turn their daughters into little Lolitas; or to promote a version of femininity that puts beauty and bagging a rich man before personal achievement will girls regain the freedom to be whatever they want to be.