Questions and Answers

According to The American Psychological Association, sexualisation occurs when:

1. a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behaviour, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
2. a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
3. a person is sexually objectified — that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
4. sexuality is inappropriately imposed on a person

Any one of these is an indication of sexualisation. The fourth is especially relevant to children. When children are imbued with adult sexuality, it is often imposed on rather than chosen by them. Self-motivated sexual exploration, on the other hand, is not sexualisation by our definition, nor is age-appropriate exposure to information about sexuality.

Opposing sexualisation is not the same as opposing sex or sexuality. We are for a culture in which individuals are able to develop and express healthy sexuality. To achieve this we must resist a culture that tells us we are no more than the sum of our sexual parts.

This video put together by Renee Chopping, provides a useful introduction to the issue.

See also:

Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation of children in Australia, Emma Rush, Andrew La Nauze, The Australia Institute, October 2006 

Letting Children Be Children: Stopping the sexualisation of children in Australia, Emma Rush, Andrew La Nauze, The Australia Institute, December 2006

American Psychological Association Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls (2008) 

Getting Real: Challenging the sexualisation of girls, ed Melinda Tankard Reist (Spinifex Press 2009)

‘The Market is Eating Our Children’, Dr Emma Rush, February 10, 2012 

Sexual objectification occurs when a person (most often a woman) is treated as a body or series of body parts for others’ use and consumption, when her physical attributes and sexual capabilities are regarded as representative of her whole self or seen as determining her worth.

Objectifying representations of women include depictions of women without heads or faces, reduced to a single body part, portrayed as interchangeable, as a stand-in for an object or defined by their sexual availability.

When women are treated as sexual objects and their value is based on their physical attractiveness and sexuality to the exclusion of other characteristics, skills and attributes, this is harmful. It leads to sexual harassment, abuse, discrimination and men’s violence against women. It reinforces women’s status as second-class citizens, as existing for men’s sexual use and enjoyment, rather than fully human.

The harms of sexually objectifying portrayals of women are well established. A review of twenty years of research, from 109 publications containing 135 studies found:
“consistent evidence that…everyday exposure to this content is directly associated with a range of consequences, including higher levels of body dissatisfaction, greater self-objectification, greater support of sexist beliefs and of adversarial sexual beliefs, and greater tolerance of sexual violence toward women…exposure to this content leads both women and men to have a diminished view of women’s competence, morality, and humanity.” We have long argued the objectification of women should be regarded as a discriminatory practice, a form of sexual harassment threatening the health, well-being and status of women and girls.

See also:

The Sexy Lie - Dr Caroline Heldman TED talk https://www.collectiveshout.org/watch_sexual_objectification_explained

The CHIPS test https://www.collectiveshout.org/what_would_advertising_look_like_without_objectification

Keeping Women in their Place: Objectification in Advertising - Jennifer Moss https://www.collectiveshout.org/as_subtle_as_the_pose

‘Women’s bodies are not sex aids: The backlash against corporate exploitation of women’, Lydia Turner, MTR, November 1, 2010 https://melindatankardreist.com/2010/11/womens-bodies-are-not-sex-aids/

Some people who oppose our work challenging the sexualisation of girls claim that those who object to sexualisation are the ones sexualising children.

The claim that identifying or speaking about children being sexualised constitutes sexualisation is a deliberate misrepresentation of what sexualisation is and how it works. The problem is not with child advocates identifying where adults have sexualised children - but in adults sexualising children. While it’s convenient for those with vested interest to paint critics this way,  companies who choose to deliberately costume, style and pose children in adult, sexualised ways for profit deserve to  be called out and held accountable for the harms they cause. (See also: 'What is sexualisation?')

This is not an issue of personal offence or taste. Our opposition is based on documented evidence of harm.

Researcher Rebecca Whisnant distinguishes between offence and harm. Offence is “something that happens in one’s head”,  but harm is “an objective condition, not a way of feeling; to be harmed is to have one’s interests set back, to be made worse off, to have one’s circumstances made worse than they were...Whether a person is harmed does not depend on how she feels.”

A company attempting to paint those who object to their routine sexual exploitation of women and girls as easily offended, prudish, moralisers or religious fundamentalists is a deliberate tactic to silence those who might threaten their profits.

A common refrain is that to acknowledge sexualised clothing, toys and products marketed to girls is to ‘shame’ them for their ‘choices’. The sexualisation of girls has very little to do with girls' choices, and much more to do with companies, advertisers and marketers - whose financial interests are at stake. 

Calling out retailers that manufacture and sell padded push-up bras and g-strings for pre-pubescent girls, clothing and underwear with sexualised and suggestive slogans and merchandise embedded with the logo of global pornography brand Playboy is not shaming girls. It is holding them accountable.

Another accusation from sexualisation deniers is that accurately labelling children’s clothing as sexualised is tantamount to arguing children are inviting sexual attention or even sexual assaults from grown men. We in no way suggest girls or victims are responsible for crimes against them. Research shows the sexualisation of children may actually play a role in ‘grooming’ them for abuse.

Dr Emma Rush, co-author of Corporate Paedophilia report writes: “Premature sexualisation also erases the line between who is and is not sexually mature, and as such, may increase the risk of child sexual abuse by undermining the important social norm that children are sexually unavailable.”

It’s not “sex” being sold, it’s women’s objectified bodies. If it was sex being sold, we would see men and women equally objectified, but we don’t. Even if it is true that advertising that sexually objectifies women does generate more profits, this doesn’t make it any less harmful. (See also ‘What do you mean by ‘objectification’?')

While we support challenging the narrow, limiting beauty standards for women, and greater representation of diverse body types, race and ethnicity and age, we do not believe objectifying a wider range of women constitutes progress. No one should be reduced to the status of an object. 

See also:

'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit: Is inclusive objectification something to celebrate?'

As part of our campaigning, we share these images to encourage supporters to take action. Most of these images are already in the public domain where they are visible to an all-ages audience. Where possible, we take steps to censor the images we share on our social media platforms. 

History shows that most of our supporters are more compelled to take action when they see the offending ad or product. We take all necessary measures necessary to hold companies to account. Sometimes we have to be made uncomfortable in our efforts to protect our kids.(Armchair critics who take time to berate us rarely make complaints directly to companies whose ad or product they find so offensive. And no one is forced to follow us). 

While we wish none of us had to see these images, our aim is to create change through collective action in the most successful way possible. Our record over 14 years shows our methods work.

It’s true that some companies will use controversy as a way of increasing exposure to their product and brand and increasing sales. 

But these are our choices: ignore it and hope it goes away (it won’t).. Or take action and call them out. Some act because they see the negative publicity is harming their brand and they need to fix it. Many times - and even more welcome - is when companies decide to act ethically, demonstrate Corporate Social Responsibility, make amends and apologise.

‘Silence is the language of complicity, speaking out is the language of change’ – anon

It's true that some women ‘choose’ to participate in practices and industries that sexually objectify and commodify women's bodies. But just because a few individual women participate in their own objectification doesn’t negate the well-established harms of sexual objectification on women as a whole. (See also 'What do you mean by objectification?')

We also need to consider the wider cultural context in which women make these 'choices'. We live in a culture in which women learn from childhood that their worth is largely determined by their physical beauty and sexuality. Women and girls are rewarded for conforming to sexualised beauty ideals, and ostracised if they do not. Women are also sold the lie that embracing sexual objectification is "empowering".

Focusing on the choices of individual women obscures the power dynamics behind sexploitation industries, and those who stand to profit from them. Our approach is to challenge the toxic culture rather than focusing on the so-called choices of individual women.

Arguments that women posting pornographic images online, being subjected to violent, abusive and degrading porn-sex acts or being paid for sex by men are all “empowering” render the word meaningless.

Is empowerment nothing more than a feeling, a state of mind, a defence of misogynistic practices? Or does it involve real-world conditions, advancing the status of women as a whole – women globally having rights, education, a voice (actual power)?

In a culture that teaches women from the earliest of ages their value lies in their physical attractiveness and sexual appeal to men, being wanted sexually may feel validating. But individual validation for being ‘hot’ is not meaningful power, nor is it advancing women’s collective rights. The ‘power’ that comes from being desirable is temporary and conditional.

If pornified portrayals of women as passive, interchangeable, sexualised props are really the means of obtaining power, why isn’t the same treatment being extended to men? And why is it that this so-called ‘empowerment’ is only found conforming to narrow demands about how women should look and act, and not in our resistance to harmful cultural practices?

OnlyFans, a subscriber-only social media platform that allows people to sell pornographic content of themselves, is portrayed as a great way for young women to make money, and a better, safer option than traditional prostitution. In reality, it puts women at risk and leaves them vulnerable to exploitation. An increasing number of young female content creators report degrading and violent requests, abusive and predatory treatment, as well as doxxing, image-based abuse and stalking. 

We published a piece by a woman named Victoria, a former recruiter for OnlyFans, who revealed that women who were prepared to do the most degrading acts were glorified on the platform. Victoria wrote: 

“I have seen young girls in the most intimate of positions. I have even seen them defecate on themselves and it was encouraged by the agency, as the more intense the act, the more money you could make. The more the girl would do, the better for us.

“I had people ask for the girls to be tied up, write ‘slut’ on her stomach, play with sex toys on camera while saying the man’s name, moaning and other sexual acts. ‘Age play’ was huge!  The girls who looked the youngest were the most in demand and made the most money so you’d promote them that way.”

In 2023 we joined a coalition of thousands of advocates calling on the US Attorney General to investigate OnlyFans for facilitating sex trafficking, child sexual abuse material, and image-based sexual abuse. The women who have alleged rape and sex trafficking by Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan reported they were forced to make pornography that was shared on OnlyFans.  

Our joint research with the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia (CATWA) found that during the first year of the pandemic, Australian media actively promoted OnlyFans to young women.

See also:

 ‘Side Hustles and Sexual Exploitation: Australian news media reporting and commentary on the sex industry during the Covid-19 pandemic,’ CATWA/Collective Shout

The sex trade is a form of systemic violence against vulnerable women and girls fuelled by male demand. Legitimising the sex industry through legalisation or decriminalisation communicates that men have a right to paid sexual access to women’s bodies, and that it is acceptable to make an underclass of women available for men’s sexual use.

Decriminalising pimping, brothel keeping and sex buying is a gift to those who profit from the sexual exploitation of women. It leads to an increase in sex trafficking (as more women have to be imported to meet the growing demand) and poorer conditions for the women in the industry, while emboldening buyers.

We work closely with sex trade survivors and seek to amplify their voices. These women reject the term “sex work” and describe prostitution as paid rape. We stand with survivors in calling for the Nordic/Equality model, which has been endorsed by the European Parliament as best practice for tackling trafficking and gender inequality. The Nordic model decriminalises those providing sexual services and supports them to exit the trade, while the buyers, pimps and exploiters are criminalised. “Without men’s demand for and use of women and girls for sexual exploitation, the global prostitution industry would not be able to flourish and expand.” - Gunilla Ekberg

See also: 

Collective Shout Submission, Review into Decriminalisation of Sex Work  

‘Prostitution Narratives: Stories of Survival in the Sex Trade’, ed Caroline Norma & Melinda Tankard Reist, Spinifex Press, 2016.

We are not against sex – we are against sexual exploitation. Unfortunately, the two are often conflated, with any critique of sexual objectification and exploitation framed as an objection to sex – often a deliberate attempt to silence those who speak out against sexual exploitation industries.  

As sociologist and founder of Culture Reframed Gail Dines explained, "People who often criticise pornography are called ‘anti-sex’, to which I would argue that if you want to be pro-sex you have to be anti-porn. You can’t be pro-porn and pro-sex, you have to pick one. I think those of us who are against pornography are against pornography because we can’t stand what it does to sex. We can’t stand to see the way in which it reduces sex to an industrial, toxic product, which is exactly what pornography does." 

We speak out against a culture that sexualises children, that exposes them to adult sexual concepts prematurely, and imposes toxic ideas about sex and sexuality on them. We challenge the message to women and girls that their worth is defined by their sexual appeal. We believe young people should be able to develop healthy relationships and authentic sexuality free from the influence of the global porn industry and its messages.

In Australia, this material is illegal. The Commonwealth Criminal Code prohibits the sale, production, possession and distribution of offensive and abusive material that depicts a person, or is a representation of a person, who is or appears to be under 18.

While some people defend the use of virtual child sexual abuse material or child sex abuse dolls as “victimless”, these products serve to normalise and legitimise men’s sexual use and abuse of children. As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children notes, this material “may encourage potential offenders and increase the severity of the abuse…the objectification of children comforts offenders in their actions.”  

A 2019 report by the Australian Institute of Criminology concluded not only that there was no evidence child sex abuse dolls could prevent abuse, but that they could increase the risk of child sexual abuse by desensitising users, bridging the gap between fantasy and reality and could be used to groom children. 

In her book Sex Dolls, Robots and Woman Hating Campaigns Manager Caitlin Roper documents a growing number of cases where men found in possession of child sex abuse dolls are sexually offending against children in additional ways. Some incorporate children into their doll use, and commission dolls made in the likeness of children known to them. 

There is no evidence that having access to ‘virtual’ or AI CSAM, or replica children to practice sexual abuse, prevents child sexual abuse. Rather, it encourages it. 

While both men and women can be sexualised, it is primarily women who are being objectified, and women who are far more likely to be negatively impacted by it as demonstrated earlier.

When men are sexualised in media and advertising, they are not typically demeaned, portrayed as decorative objects or posed as vulnerable and submissive in the ways that women are. Men are also rarely dismembered and presented as a collection of sexualised or individual body parts. Instead, men are depicted as hyper-masculine and strong. The sexualising and objectifying treatment of men may serve to enhance their power and status rather than to reduce it.

Having said that, we do not support ‘equal opportunity’ objectification. We encourage individuals to speak out against objectification including when men and boys are subjected to it.

We agree. However we have chosen to focus on the objectification and sexualisation of women and girls. Our core focus has a significant impact on the overall status of women and the way they are treated (mistreated). Our resources are limited, we are a small team and can’t take on every issue. But we do what we can to address sexual exploitation in all its forms. 

It is hard to be politically 'pure'. It could be argued it is a luxury. At Collective Shout, we are non party political/non partisan. Politics is the art of the possible. We may not agree with everything any politician/party does, but we will support anyone who pledges to act to try to protect young people from the ravages of pornography, destroying their lives. We will lend our support to any MP, of whatever political stripe or persuasion, willing to stand up against the predatory global porngraphy industry currently laying waste to a generation. Of course we would prefer any legislative/regulatory measures be introduced on a bipartisan basis.

You can find information on how to lodge a complaint here

https://www.collectiveshout.org/lodge_a_complaint

We've argued for over a decade that the current system of ad industry self-regulation is a failure, and have called for an overhaul. In the meantime, we still encourage you to make a complaint as Ad Standards has to respond. And it demonstrates community standards and adds pressure for them to respond appropriately. 

If the image appears to be illegal, or depicts a child, you can make an anonymous complaint to eSafety.  

Contact us at team at collectiveshout.org

Through single donations or monthly giving, you can directly fuel our campaigns.

Your contribution helps fund the work of our activists who challenge companies about their advertising, enable lobbying of politicians, and send Collective Shout representatives to schools, professional and community groups.

You can find information on how to leave a bequest for Collective Shout here. 

You can share your story at www.collectiveshout.org/kidsexposed (you can remain anonymous if you prefer). We will share your accounts on our social media pages and collate them for the attention of Federal Communications Minister Michelle Rowland in our ongoing campaign to secure an age verification trial to help protect our kids. 

Check out the e-safety commissioner website which has some helpful information and free online webinars you can attend.  

Check out our Tips for Parents

If you would like to join our media list or speak to a Collective Shout representative please leave a message here with your contact details and we will get back to you as soon as possible. 

You can book a Collective Shout presenter to come to your school, professional or community group here.