Latest News

This article appeared in the Herald Sun today March 8 2011

 A POPULAR clothing chain is facing a people's revolt over its persistent use of sulky, "adultified" images of children in advertising.

WitcheryKids has sparked outrage for the second time in five months, after rolling out another campaign featuring brooding children posed and styled like adults.

In its latest Style Recruits campaign, unsmiling children aged 5-8 are pictured against a drab streetscape, decked out in combat-style garb, knee-high socks and short skirts, and leopard print.

A similar photo shoot by the chain last year attracted controversy across the globe, with a former Play School presenter calling it offensive and dangerous.

The company says it wants to portray "confidence" and individuality. The children were not forced into poses and parents or guardians were present during the shoot.

But child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg is calling for parents to boycott and picket the stores.

 "They have been previously warned about this adultification, so now the gloves are coming off," Dr Carr-Gregg said.

 "This is an attempt by Witchery to cement in our culture that children can be miniature adults and fashion accessories."

 He said it could contribute to "appearance anxiety" plaguing people's childhood and adolescence.

 Kids Free to Be Kids director Julie Gale backed his call, and has complained to the company.

 "I am astonished that your company did not heed the concerns expressed by child development professionals about the way children were depicted in your last catalogue," Ms Gale's letter reads.

"Children do not develop healthy self-esteem if they are encouraged to focus on how they look or what clothes they are wearing."

 A Witchery spokeswoman said, "Witchery does not support the 'adultification' of children and rejects any suggestion that we would intentionally convey children in this light".

 Two complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau, based on concerns the last campaign was "sexualising" children, were dismissed. ________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Kids Free 2B Kids wants WitcheryKids to take proactive responsibility and meet with child development professionals and become educated on where and why they are going wrong with the way they are depicting children.

The aim is for their marketing to  reflect current research and views about child development.

Complaints about their previous catalogue made to the Advertising Standards Board were dismissed.

This is not at all surprising as the AANA code of ethics have absolutely NO guidelines that would cover this issue.

The Advertising Standards Board do not and have never consulted with child Development Experts in the complaints process.

This was made clear in the 2008 senate inquiry in to the sexualisation of children - and child advocates have  consistently called for the system to change.

So it looks like Witchery have stuck with its current marketing strategy based on the fact that the ASB dismissed complaints and not the fact that child development experts find it problematic and irresponsible.   

The ASB  admitted recently though its own  internal research that it has been out of touch with community standards.

 If the decision makers within a voluntary, self regulated system, are not up with latest research -or do not consult with those who are -  then we have a problem.  

To contact Witchery email customerservice@witchery.com.au

_________________________________________________________________________________________

9/3/11

Very interesting to see that Witchery has disabled comments from their WitcheryKids facebook page today. Too much negative feedback perhaps?   

We took a screen shot of some of the comments that were posted before the Herald Sun article was published. Read on....

 Jessica - I love the range but I feel like I'm looking at little adults in these pictures, not kids at all! March 3 at 7:01pm

Sarah - I find the images of kids in military style clothing disconcerting and concerning ... This is not a range that supports the innocence and beauty of youth. I will not be buying any of this range. March 3 at 7:28pm

Allannah - I agree with Sarah - while there are some nice clothes in this range, this styling is far to 'adult'. Beautiful little Jasmine looks like she has been styled for women's magazine - when she is 5 YEARS OLD. It is very disappointing to see such images when all these gorgeous children could have been photographed to look exactly that - CHILDREN and have still shown off the clothes. March 3 at 8:36pm

 Jen - Are these children? The poses are not natural and my children would certainly not pout and try to look sexy like the girls used here....yuck it is grotesque.... Further what child needs an embellished jumper or aviator suit.... March 4 at 7:10am

WitcheryKids - Thank you for all your feedback. The intention of our campaign was to portray kids with confidence, individuality and with a fashion attitude; this is consistent across our brand vision, product range and numerous activities we have held specifically for kids. Overwhelmingly, the majority of feedback we have received regarding our campaign and product range has been very positive. We apologise to those who have misinterpreted the intention of the campaign and will take the feedback on board for future campaigns. March 4 at 9:45am

Melanie - Ditto to most of these ladies comments, when I saw this range yesterday I was a bit shocked & concerned...I have been a fan of your range until now and I hope this is not a sign of things to come. I want my son & daughter to look cute ,not 20 years old with a "fashion attitude". Please bring back the fun kids fashion you do best... March 4 at 10:14am

Sooz - The photos do depict the kids as mini adults, which seems to be what some parents want these days (Bardot kids range is very mini adult). Whilst I won't have my 5 year old daughter look like she's 18+ (kids have enough exposure to provocative-looking Bratz/Barbies and pop stars to need any more encouragement), I will be buying some of the individual pieces, as there are some very cute things in the range too! Great designs, just please tone down the 'poses/photography' maybe? March 4 at 10:50am 

 Jessica - Thanks for taking on our feedback Witchery, great to know you are hearing your customers and fans!For me it's not so much the range that I have an issue with as it is the kids poses, which mimic those seen in adult fashion mags. March 4 at 10:52am  

Jen - We have not misinterpreted your vision, it is just inappropriate sexualization of a child.....dislike button. March 4 at 8:24pm

SPEAKING OUT HELPS CREATE CHANGE!

                                              *********************************************

 

Kids Free 2B Kids supports the view of The Australian Council on Children and the Media regarding R18+ computer games.

ACCM press release 5/12/10:

Computer games: call them AO or R18+, it won't help protect our kids.

The Australian Council on Children and Media is strongly critical of the Federal Government's support for the legalisation of R18+ level computer games.

Council President Prof Elizabeth Handsley said today that it was evident many of the public rightly wanted greater protections for children from the impacts of very violent computer games. However, she said "The public have been misled as to what it means to create an R18+ classification for games. Doing so is not the answer to children's need for greater protection". 

She said, "The real problem lies with levels of strong violence allowed in the MA15+ category.  There has been a widespread belief that somehow, the more violent games presently in the MA15+ category will migrate to a new R18+ classification. But no convincing evidence has been put forward to support these claims."

She continued "The addition of a higher classification will not change the classification of material into MA15+. If some very violent games meet MA15+ now, they will do so in the future, unless the whole classification system is reviewed, and the criteria and guidelines changes for all levels. There have been no proposals on the table for these kinds of changes. But without them, adding even higher-impact violence to the sale and hire system via the legalisation of R18+ level games will increase, not decrease, parents' difficulties in preventing their children's access to very violent games."

The Council is also critical of the reliance by the Minister on the results of two recent surveys.. Prof Handsley said "The Literature Review prepared by the Minister's Department chose to downplay the results of research showing harmful effects of violent media, while emphasising the claim that there is widespread confusion about the interpretation of the vast literature on media violence. This is in strong contrast to the recent statement on video game violence presented to the US Supreme Court, prepared  by 13 internationally recognised and reputable international scholars and supported by close to 100 researchers in countries from Spain to Australia."

Further, she said, "The telephone survey relied on by the Minister found the majority of respondents agreed it would be difficult for parents to stop children playing R18+ games, that these should be classified differently because you play, not watch, and that playing violent games results in real life violence.  Many who hold such views have been misled into thinking that an R18+ is the answer."      

"The State and Territory Ministers meeting to discuss these issues on Friday need to consider carefully whether it is really possible to protect children, while serving an adult civil liberties agenda."

                                                            ************

The Australian Council on Children and the Media is a national not for profit community organisation whose mission is to support families, industry and decision makers in building and maintaining a media environment that fosters the health,safety and wellbeing of Australian children.

ACCM memo sent to the AG's 6/12/10

DEC 6: AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL ON CHILDREN AND THE MEDIA-  OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR R18+   

On Dec 5, the Federal Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, stated that the Federal Govt will support the introduction of an R18+ classification for computer games, at the Dec 10 meeting of SCAG.  (Min. H A&J Media release 5 December 2010).  

The Minister claims this will help protect our kids. It will not.

The arguments he gives for his support of an R18+ can be summarised thus:  

1) it will provide better guidance for parents

2) it will remove unsuitable material from children and teenagers: children and teenagers should not be exposed to the gratuitous sex, violence and adult themes in some computer games

3) some games classified MA15+ now are classified for adults only overseas 

4) if R18+ is introduced it could [our italics] result in games now MA15+ being reclassified 

5) the arguments for an R18+ have been backed up by research recently released (an AG's Department Literature Review; a telephone poll) plus submissions to the late 2009 Govt Inquiry). 

The ACCM argues that these are unsubstantiated claims that are misleading.   Our commentary follows: 

1) Labelling games R18+ provides better guidance for parents: 

An R18+ classification is a strong signal of material unsuitable for minors. But, the benefit of this will be marginal compared to the challenges faced by parents in preventing their children's access to inappropriate material be it MA15+ or R18+.  The Minister seems to be saying that parents don't have enough knowledge about the classification system to recognise MA15+ which also has legal force.  The answer to that is better consumer education, not using the sledgehammer of R18+ to get the message across. 

2) remove unsuitable games from children and teenagers:

Children's current access to unsuitable material results from a combination of a lack of public education about the legally restricted nature of MA15+, and the criteria that allow strong violence at the M and MA15+ levels. Adding R18+ into the mix is not the answer to this. The answer is to review all the classification criteria.

3)  Some games now MA15+  here are classified for adults overseas. 

There has been no reliable research done on whether this is due to the absence of R18+ in Australia, or due to cultural and classification criteria differences between countries. Criteria allowing strong violence justified by context at MA15+, and higher impact if stylised are not replicated in all countries. Once again, if the MA15+ criteria give adolescents access to inappropriate material, the answer is to review our criteria, not add another higher level of violence via R18+.

4)  If R18+ is available, some games now MA15+ "could" be reclassified

This will be true only if the criteria for MA15+ are revised to be more restrictive. Games now MA15+ are there because they meet the present MA15+ criteria, and new games that meet those same criteria will be MA15+. The reclassification of games is not an automatic consequence of legalising R18+ games, and there is no current proposal for how this could be achieved.

5) The arguments for R18+ have been backed up by recent research, and findings of 2009 Inquiry 

The Minister quotes large percentages who support an R18+ for games. He places great reliance on the results of two recent surveys- a Literature Review carried out by officers of his department and a phone survey. Psychologists who work in this field have commented "The Literature Review prepared by the Minister's Department chose to downplay the results of research showing harmful effects of violent media, while emphasising the claim that there is widespread confusion about the interpretation of the vast literature on media violence. This is in strong contrast to the recent statement on video game violence presented to the US Supreme Court, prepared  by 13 internationally recognised and reputable international scholars and supported by close to 100 researchers in countries from Spain to Australia."

The telephone survey relied on by the Minister actually found the majority of respondents agreed it would be difficult for parents to stop children playing R18+ games; that these should be classified differently because you play, not watch; and that playing violent games results in real life violence. The context of the other survey questions about whether there should be an R18+ appears conducive to respondents supporting its introduction because they have been misled into thinking that introducing R18+ was going to move very violent games out of MA15+.

The outcome of the 2009 Inquiry into whether there should be an R18+ classification was certainly skewed by the weight of very brief responses in the affirmative from the gaming lobby. However, detailed submissions to the Inquiry were almost 50-50 for and against  the proposal, with gamers and industry on one side, and the rest of the community predominantly on the other.

CONCLUSION

The proposal for R18+ has been advanced principally by arguing that it would provide  greater protection for children.  This argument does not stand up.

A more honest argument would be based on the principle of adult freedom to see hear and read what they want. Gamers want access to more extreme content.

These principles are both part of the Classification Code, which strives to maintain a balance between them. Adding R18+ will not improve the balance.

The State and Territory Ministers meeting to discuss these issues on Friday need to consider carefully whether it is really possible to advance the protection of children, while advancing an adult civil liberties agenda.   

                                                                                                             ***********************************

Mark Metherell

Sydney Morning Herald - October 6, 2010

Year 12 girls are more likely to have had sex than boys, and teenagers are likely to have had sex with more partners than a decade ago, a national survey has shown.

More than 61 per cent of year 12 girls said they had had sex, compared to 44 per cent of boys of that year, the study by LaTrobe University's faculty of health sciences researchers found.

In a trend the report links to heavier drinking by adolescents, the proportion of sexually active year 12 girls who reported having had sex with three or more partners in the previous year more than doubled to 27 per cent in the decade to 2008. Among boys, 38 per cent said they had had three or more sexual partners in the year.

The survey of 8800 year 10 and year 12 students in 300 schools around Australia was taken in three snapshots between 1997 and 2008.

The proportion of year 10 boys who had had sex rose slightly from 23 per cent to 27 per cent between 1997 and 2008, while for year 10 girls the rise was more significant, up from 16 per cent to 27 per cent.

In year 12, the number of boys who reported having had sex dipped slightly from 47 per cent in 1997 to 44 per cent in 2008, while the rate for girls rose from 48 per cent to 61 per cent.

The report, published in the latest Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, said the increased numbers of students having multiple sexual partners was significantly higher than that found in a large survey in the US and may be linked to heavier drinking among Australian teenagers.

''In Australia, rates of alcohol consumption among secondary students have increased markedly, as has the proportion of young people engaging in sex while under the influence of alcohol or drugs - these factors may be associated with the increases observed in sexual activity here,'' the report says.

The report said that given the increases in sexual activity and still moderate levels of knowledge about sexually transmitted infections among young people, it was ''of some concern'' that the levels of safe sex practised by adolescents had not increased in Australia since 1997.

It was significant that year 10 students showed lower levels of knowledge about STIs than those in year 12, even though they had comparable rates of sexual partnerships to year 12 students.

Psychologist Dr Michael Carr Gregg recently gave a speech at Melbourne High School calling on the Victorian Premier to take action on the issue of secondary supply of alcohol...

Here are some of the points he raised:

"Secondary supply" generally refers to the sale or supply of alcohol to people under the age of 18 years (minors) by adults or other minors. It is illegal under licensing law in all jurisdictions for licensed premises in Victoria to serve minors and for adults to purchase alcohol on behalf of minors. However, the situation in private homes and at private functions is less clear. Currently in Victoria it is not illegal for adults to provide alcohol to minors in a private residence, even if the minors are not their own children.

"Secondary supply" refers to this situation: the supply of alcohol to minors in private homes, potentially by adults other than their parents.

The reason why this "secondary supply" is so important is that this is the main way that minors obtain their alcohol. Almost 40% of under-age drinkers get their supply of alcohol from their parents, and only 5% buy it themselves. The new draft National Health and Medical Research Centre (NHMRC) guidelines recommend that "not drinking is the safest option for 15-17 year olds" and children under 15 should not drink any alcohol. In Victoria, and most other Australian states, there are no laws prohibiting the serving of alcohol to minors in private homes.

Traditionally, it has been considered the right of parents to decide when and how their children first try alcohol. The "Mediterranean model" of introducing alcohol to young people, where they are gradually allowed to drink small amounts in the presence of their parents, has been popular with many parents. However, the concerning levels of binge and under-age drinking in Australia suggests that this has not worked. Loopholes in the current Victorian laws allow adults other than a child's parents to provide them with alcohol without the parents' consent if in a private residence. Regulating secondary supply aims to prevent this happening by providing a deterrent for adults to supply alcohol, and to support families affected by providing a legal course of action for them to pursue if appropriate.

Although there is no Victorian law relating specifically to the supply of alcohol to minors in a private home, there are several laws in Victoria that make it illegal to purchase alcohol for someone who is aged under 18 and to serve alcohol to minors on licensed premises. A person aged 18 or older who buys or supplies alcohol for an under-age person can face an on-the-spot fine of more than $600 (and the under-age person for whom the alcohol is bought can be fined $50).

Why is it that Qld and Tasmania both changed the law last year to prevent minors being given alcohol by an adult other than their parents (or equivalents) but Victoria refuses to offer that protection?

This means that half of all adolescents in Australia (in NSW, Tasmania and Qld) get that protection, but anyone in Victoria can give any child of any age any amount of alcohol and is exempt from the law.

What is Victoria waiting for?  Adults in those states are already being prosecuted under these laws.

Kids Free 2B Kids supports  the introduction of Secondary Supply laws in all states and territories.

An article in todays Herald Sun says:

FORMER Play School presenter Noni Hazlehurst has hit out at a disturbing new trend by advertisers to "adultify" children.

The popular actor said retailers were entering dangerous territory by portraying children as pouting, high fashion "mini-me" adults.

In the most recent example, Witchery launched its new line for two to nine-year-olds featuring young, brooding children in adult attire and poses.

Kids Free 2B Kids has fired off an angry complaint to Witchery about its catalogue, saying it was "misguided".

Read the full Herald Sun article here.

Kids Free 2B Kids Director Julie Gale sent this email to Witchery Kids 29/09/10

To the CEO and Product/Buying Manager,

I am the Director of kids free 2B kids, an organisation which raises community, corporate and political awareness about the early sexualisation of children.

I am writing to express concerns that the images in your WitcheryKids catalogue are adultifying children.

Child development professionals are concerned that children are being catapulted out of early childhood into the teen years and are increasingly portrayed as ‘mini-me' adults.

While your philosophy states that ‘WitcheryKids is playful and real ‘-the images do not portray kids in a ‘playful' or ‘real' way....rather they are posed and styled as brooding precocious teenagers.

They are not smiling or joyful or having ‘fun' - which seems at odds with your belief that ‘fun and imagination are at the centre of every child's universe'.

Your philosophy states that your ranges reflect this fun - but your catalogue images certainly don't.

Your range is for 2-9 year olds and your philosophy says that  ‘Witchery Kids is for kids who want and know how to choose clothes that express their personality and desire for independence.'

Latest research shows that  younger children are experiencing increased body image problems, eating disorders, anxiety and depression as a result of pressure to grow up too quickly... and for obsessing about their appearance.

2-9 year olds should not be concerned about ‘growing up in style' - in fact they should not be concerned about growing up at all!

Nor should they be thinking that their ‘personality and desire for independence' comes from the clothes they wear.

It's a curious trend for children's fashion to be ‘inspired by up-to-the-minute adult trends and styled for the smaller set.'

What happened to kids clothing styled on ...kids?

It's one thing to create ‘adult trends styled for the smaller set' - but to actually portray the children as mini adults or older teens is extremely misguided.

Perhaps you have fallen for an ad agency spin?

Perhaps you have missed the increasing amount of publicity about parents objecting to kids being portrayed as adults?

If you want to understand more about this increasing problem, I would be happy to discuss the issue with you.

I recently spent time with the CEO and Product/Buying Manager of Cotton On Kids who crossed the line with their adult sexualised humour on children's wear, which was highly publicised earlier this year.

It is important for you to know that there is a strong public groundswell against the sexualisation and adultification of children.

Kids free 2B Kids calls for retailers to be proactively responsible about what they are selling and marketing to children and how they are portrayed.

I look forward to your response.

Regards

Julie Gale

Director Kids

Free 2B Kids

Witchery Kids Philosophy:

Witchery Kids is playful, candid and real. Our well-priced, seasonal collections for boys and girls aged 2-9 are inspired by up-to-the-minute adult trends and styled for the smaller set. We believe that fun and imagination are at the centre of every child's universe and our ranges reflect this. Confident and individual, Witchery Kids is for Kids who want and know how to choose clothes that express their personality and desire for independence. It's time to grow up in style

Example email received by Kids Free 2B Kids  1/10/10

WITCHERY KIDS!  Disgraceful advertisement in the sep 2010 edition of the Melbourne Child pg 18. Shame on both of them! This advertisement should be removed immediately and formal apologies written by both Witchery and the Melbourne Child for supporting the sexualisation of children! I will never buy this brand of clothing again for either my children or myself and will cease the distribution of the Melbourne Child Magazine in my practice. Rebecca 

Let your complaints be heard - speaking out helps raise awareness and create change!

Contact Witchery Kids  - customerservice@witchery.com.au

Kids Free 2B Kids has been campaigning about the marketing of bras and ‘bralettes' to little girls in sizes as small as 2 & 3 since early 2007.

This week, the group Collective Shout blogged about Bonds selling bras in girls in size 6.

(Bonds also came under fire in June this year for selling a padded bra in girls size 8.)

Read the Herald Sun article including comments by KF2BK director Julie Gale, social commentator Melinda Tankard Reist and leading child psychologist Michael Carr Gregg .

The same day Bonds announced it would withdraw all bra-like products in girls sizes 6 and 8 from the market, effective immediately, after consumer feedback.

It is good to see a major company like Bonds finally recognise these items are totally unnecessary and contribute to the adultification and sexualisation of little girls.

Let's hope other companies follow their lead.

Despite the positive reaction from Bonds, Kids Free 2B Kids would like to see proactive responsibility from industry.

Speaking out makes a difference and helps create change.

Unilever has been criticised by many over the blatant hypocrisy of promoting self esteem to women and young girls on the one hand (Dove) but promoting women as sexual predators and sex objects on the other hand (Lynx/Axe). 

Kids Free 2B Kids and US based Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood campaigned about this hypocrisy back in 2007 and Unilever issued a Global Statement which included:

"The chosen vehicle for Axe/Lynx is a series of light-hearted and tongue-in-check adverts. They are all designed to be tongue-in-cheek propositions and are not meant to be taken seriously."

Sexual objectification of women is serious and should not be a 'vehicle' for light hearted or tongue in cheek adverts.

"In fact, we are recognized as being one of the most creative companies in the world in this respect and we are very careful to try to ensure that we do not offend." 

‘Creative' ...maybe, but what about ethics and integrity!

If Unilever was truly committed to the welfare of young girls, women and young boys then Unilever would not blatantly sexualise and objectify females in their advertising and it would not be co-advertising with Playboy - one of the major brands of the pornography industry.

Here are excerpts from an email exchange with the Corporate Social Responsibility & Communications Manager at Unilever Australasia. Dated 26 October 2007

Dear Julie,

Thanks very much for your email...

You have raised some points that we within the organisation struggled with and which we have discussed at some length as a result of your letter...

However, I can certainly appreciate that although Lynx is not breaching any national advertising standards, these standards may not represent what other groups or individuals find acceptable. I also recognise that for them, this may not appear consistent with Unilever's position as an organisation committed to "the highest standards of corporate behaviour". 

Your considered and balanced letter highlighting the apparent inconsistencies within our business has encouraged me to escalate your comments to the Global teams responsible for Dove and Lynx/Axe with a view to bringing the issue to a head at a senior level...

...as you have identified, there is a risk of inadvertent exposure to children of images such as those portrayed in the Lynx/Axe web sites. This is a matter that we have yet to fully consider, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will be certain to raise it in my correspondence to the global brand teams, along with your comments.

I will also ensure that the AANA is made aware of the issue of inadvertent exposure of adult advertising to children. 

Regards,

Sarah Clarry
Corporate Social Responsibility & Communications Manager
Unilever Australasia

To read more about this issue and how Woolworths has got into bed with Unilever and the porn industry see Melinda Tankard Reists blog  

Kids Free 2B Kids urge you to stop buying Lynx products.

 

 

The Australian Federal Police have launched an anti sexting educational video warning teenagers of the risk of sending provocative images from their mobile phones. The video lasting nearly 2 minutes can be viewed here.

It ends with the tag line “Think you know what happens to your images, who will see them, how it will affect you. Think again.” The aim is to make young people aware that if they send an image it can end up anywhere.

The video is supported by Think U Know an Internet safety program delivering interactive training to parents, carers and teachers through primary and secondary schools across Australia.

Source: Generation Next Blog  - article by Susan McLean Cyber Safety expert.

Childwise and The Bodyshop have formed an alliance to help raise awareness about sex trafficking of children & young people.

Please sign the petition at The Body Shop or online to encourage the Australian Government to fund programs to stop the demand and supply of child trafficking for sexual exploitation in our region.

Know the Facts. (from Childwise fact sheet)

• Human trafficking is the third largest organised crime in the world after illegal drugs and weapons.

• Over 2.5 million people are trafficked in the world each year, and 1.2 million are under the age of 18.

• Children and young people are abused, beaten, raped and repeatedly sold into prostitution against their will.

• Australians are responsible for feeding demand by accessing child pornography or travelling overseas to sexually abuse a child.

• Child sexual abuse is an Australian crime even if you are overseas. Penalties include up to 25 years imprisonment for child sex or child pornography offences and up to 10 years imprisonment for planning to commit a child sex offence overseas.

• Children (under 16 years old) can never consent to sexual exploitation. It is the responsibility of adults to protect them from abuse.

See more information at Childwise.

Something that has got "much worse" according to Wolf, is the influence of pornography, which "has become the air we breathe... it's definitely affecting young women and men's sexual development deeply, deeply, deeply."

Wolf, "a free speech absolutist", does not advocate censorship. In any case, she says, attempts to ban pornography wouldn't work. "It's like the military-industrial complex: so much money's being made that there's no way to stop it at the source. The best thing we can do is try to persuade young woman and men that it's not good for their self confidence, and they'll have better sex if they choose not to let this stuff shape their sense of sexuality."

Of course, that's an argument to be made to adults who consensually consume porn.

On the current Australian debate over the display of porn magazines in service stations and supermarkets, Wolf is unequivocal. "I think it's appropriate to keep pornography away from children. I don't think it's censorship to keep public space porn free - people still have a choice about when they want to consume it. I don't feel it's right to impose pornography on - people in the public sphere."

Extract from The Sunday Age article The Porn Myth by Emily McGuire. 3/5/10