When girlhood becomes a performance.
Over the weekend I came across an Instagram post comparing Disney star kids and the current generation of celebrity children and I was left with my mouth agape. My key interest was North West as she has been in the face of the media basically since her conception. Controversies have surrounded the child celebrity from her conversation tones to her “mature” look despite being a pre-teen. While most people might be putting a magnifying glass on her due to her social status it is undeniable that children of these days or popularly known as “Gen Alpha,” are struggling with their identity as children. From crop tops to make-up it is technically impossible to differentiate a 15 year old from a 20 year old – well apart from the maturity that comes with age especially on our faces.
Social networks offer both positive responses as well as situations of risk for children’s empowerment. The social phenomenon of child sexualization, already rejected by women due to discriminatory connotations, the passive role, and tolerance to violence, has become widespread on the Internet with apparent impunity for brands and the media who reproduce these images due to the low level of awareness among girls and parents who publish them on social networks. In Kenya, we are struggling with the legal system implementing simple rules, thus we are faced with a lack of call to action from legislators, parents and researchers to protect children’s rights.
Portraying girls as sex objects is a common practice that can be influenced by different factors: the fashion industry, the media, beauty contests, the increasing practice of sexting caused by children themselves or without their knowledge or consent, grooming the normalization of pornography among minors, the way children and adolescent idols dress and act , and the fact that parents are misinformed or unconcerned about images of sexualized minors. Child sexualization negatively affects children, leading to stereotyped gender roles and increasing the risk of sexual assault and violence. It is also associated with psychological problems and connected to social relationship problems such as low self-esteem, depression, the early onset of sexual activity, eating disorders, and anxiety problems.
According to UNICEF, over 370 million girls and women have been subjected to sexual abuse as children. We are faced with the phenomenon of child sexualization which is more widespread among girls in the images of commercial communications with apparent impunity on the part of the brands and media that reproduce these images. Innovations in the type of marketing that promotes children’s products through the electronic media have been called “Childhood marketing.” This can be seen in shows on TV where children often adorn mature dressing and cosmetics. Lipstick, foundation and eyeshadow on children often leave me wondering what is the main goal? Are we teaching young girls that beauty is found in cosmetology and not naturally?
Marketing children is not compatible with genuine family welfare because it has proven to be non-spontaneous and narcissistic, with the aim of gaining benefits and using a type of standardized language and gestures. Fashion brands demonstrate their seriousness in competing in the children’s fashion segment by launching their own children’s lines from GAP to H&M. This helps them to increase their sales, since “branded” children’s clothing provides a style status in which the brand is paramount. However, it should be noted that this phenomenon is not new, as promotions directed at children began in 1950 and accelerated in 1980. Specifically, marketing oriented toward female minors has repeatedly presented a hypersexualized image of girls that leads to a certain idea: they expect to look sexy, but this reduces their sexuality to a single aspect.
This is the reason why marketing is oriented toward children rather than to their parents, and explains their profile as sophisticated consumers who are demanding and difficult to please. This reinforces the position of authority of the minor and develops peer-to-peer marketing, thereby turning the child into an opinion leader and brand ambassador. We have constantly seen this over and over, be it on social media or TV adverts. Wearing a particular style of clothing (tights, shorts), and stiletto heels, T-shirts with necklines, as well as prominent make-up and dyed hairstyles, is part of a process of transformation into a sexy look.
A girl is considered too sexy when she dresses, poses, talks, or behaves in a way that seeks to attract sexual attention. The criteria set by scientific standards for measuring the sexualization of girls are the following: types of clothing that emphasize sexual attributes, such as transparencies and blouses that show the upper part of the chest, belly or lower back, shorts that expose the thighs and part of the buttocks, clothing that prevents the ability to play without exposing parts of the body; the use of heels, make-up, expressions, settings, accessories and gestures not related to childhood: clothing with suggestive slogans or the use of fabrics and designs with connotations of adult sexuality, such as leopard prints and ribbons. For boys, sexualization implies having pronounced abdominal muscles, and they believe that being muscular is the most important aspect of all, in addition to talking about women only in a physical sense, and being disrespectful or derogatory toward them.
From the time that the Internet became a regular means of communication for the majority of the population, the role of children as pioneers in the digital age has been well-known, as well as concern for their vulnerability. However, the growing presence of children in advertising campaigns and their consistent online presence is changing the meaning of childhood. Childhood has traditionally been linked in advertisements to the concept of innocence –simplicity, tenderness, protection of the family– but now it is being introduced with an “artificial sensuality” within a marketing strategy aimed at adults that is inappropriate for their age. The consistent online presence of children through publicity, whereby brands save money on advertising produces the same effect. Online media and social networks have increasingly allowed children to play an active role as cultural producers in “participatory and collaborative contexts.” This in itself is positive, but it becomes negative when girls in particular are involved in behaviour aimed at altering their appearance, resulting from the idea that women can show their femininity through fashion and beauty products, or when children use the networks in a context of “content marketing” in which activities to promote beauty products and other adult oriented goods are directed by sponsors and might be considered child labour. When they become popular influencers of their peers, children are hired by brands to upload images of their products on social networks: “comments on children’s products, opening gift-wrapped products or toys, challenges among peers, and adult series on TV or on the web”. The appearance of self-sexualization among adolescents in Belgium, Austria and South Korea concludes that digital media lead to higher levels of self-objectification than traditional media. In particular, social networks are used meaningfully and directly to self-sexualise the appearance of both boys and girls. Celebrities such as the Kardashians have asked top designers to create items for their children that they subsequently photograph and send to their 100 million followers. This real-life situation is the result of the generation of millennial parents using their children as an extension of their aesthetic choices.
The main goal of sexual objectification in the media is to increase consumption as sexualization of women implies an observation of one’s own body in relation to the standards of the media and others. As a consequence, it generates a fragile and vulnerable situation of self-esteem that is highly dependent on others; finally, it also involves the tendency toward compulsive consumption to mitigate the situation. The image presented in the media reduces culturally the view of femininity to simply one of a sexual dimension. Sexualisation is not measured only in the presence or absence of isolated sexualizing attributes clothing, gestures or accessories but in the image as a whole
As we scroll, swipe, and double-tap through this digital age, the question remains: are we raising children or curating miniature versions of adult fantasies? The sexualisation of our girls and increasingly, our boys is no longer an accidental byproduct of pop culture but a carefully orchestrated marketing tool. It trades innocence for influence, childhood for clicks, and self-worth for followers.
Yet, the consequences are not virtual, they are painfully real. Low self-esteem, depression, body dysmorphia, and early sexualisation are just the tip of the iceberg. As a society, we must confront the uncomfortable truth that our collective silence and voyeuristic consumption keep this cycle alive.
It’s time for brands, parents, policymakers, and audiences alike to ask: what version of girlhood are we nurturing when we applaud a 12-year-old for looking 21? Protecting our children’s right to be children is not merely about stricter laws or parental controls; it’s about reclaiming a culture that values youth for its curiosity, messiness, and innocence, not its marketability.
So, next time we hit ‘like’ on a post that makes a child look anything but, let’s remember the real cost behind that digital thumbs-up. Perhaps the better question isn’t “Are we sexualizing our girlies?” it’s “What are we willing to do to stop it?”