Category Archives: corporate paedophilia

Waxing lyrical

Perhaps I’m old-fashioned, but I’ve never understood the appeal of the Brazilian wax. In fact, I’m a bit disturbed by the thought that there might be guys out there who prefer women to be hairless. Do these guys like to imagine that the woman is very young? Erk.

There is a piece in The Age today about Brazilian waxes for teens and pre-teens. The piece references a site called girl.com.au which touts itself as “Empowering girls worldwide”. The site has a feature on Brazilian waxes. I thought I’d go have a look. I was horrified. It explains the concept as follows:

Removing all hair from the vagina area, the Brazilian Wax although sadistic in nature is surprisingly not as painful as you might think, to some.

My first comment is that this is an appalling sentence. (Yes, I’m a pedant). My second comment is that I have my legs waxed and it hurts! And once my sister persuaded me to have a bikini wax…owch! Not the kind of thing you want sensitive girlish skin to undergo. I think I’ve made the right decision to avoid Brazilian waxes. The piece goes on to describe the process in ways that make it sound like some kind of torture or violation:

Brazilian waxing involves spreading hot wax your buttocks and vagina area. A cloth is patted over the wax, then pulled off. Don’t be alarmed if the waxer throws your legs over your shoulder, or asks you to moon them, this is normal and ensures there are no stray hairs. A tweezer is used for the more delicate areas (red bits).

EEEK! Doesn’t sound very empowering to me. Apparently if I wanted to become a model this would be a “must”, but fortunately, I got over that particular desire at the age of 13.

I think they have changed the most offensive part of the feature since Dubecki wrote her article. Dubecki says that the site says “Nobody really likes hair in their private regions and it has a childlike appeal”, but the site now says, “Nobody really likes hair in their private regions and this removes it.” Nonetheless, it’s still pretty full on. It suggests that “nobody” likes people who have pubic hair and that “everyone” is removing it.

I suppose it’s all about what you’re comfortable with. I can understand wanting to remove leg hair, and if my 15 year old daughter wanted to wax her legs, I’d let her, with parental supervision. However, I don’t think I’d allow it before the age of 14. Also, if my daughter wanted to shave her underarms, I’d let her. It would be hypocritical of me not to let her do these things because I do them myself.

But I draw the line at Brazilian waxing. The skin there is particularly delicate. And that area is private. It is a sexual area, in a way that legs and armpits are not. There’s no reason to undergo Brazilian waxing unless one is (a) wearing very revealing clothing or (b) exposing that area to others. I just don’t think that it’s appropriate for young teens to do either. Furthermore, I don’t want my daughter thinking that there’s something wrong with her when she hits puberty and gets pubic hair. The inference is that an adult body is somehow dirty or wrong, but girlish, thin and smooth is “sexy”. It’s just a continuation of the idea already present in the media that only girls are attractive, and that a womanly body (with curves, breasts, pubic hair) is ugly. I don’t want my daughter to believe that. And I’d encourage her never to undergo the process described above.

As I’ve said before, there are some very confusing messages out there for young girls these days. Girls’ magazines seem to assume young girls will be wearing makeup and revealing clothes before hitting their teens. Let’s not beat around the bush. Makeup, revealing clothing and waxing are all designed to make a woman more sexually attractive to men. Do we really want 8 year olds doing things which are ultimately designed to make them sexually attractive? I don’t. No wonder Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant at the tender age of 16: to be rather crude, she looks like “gaol bait”. If we sexualise girls at a young age, we shouldn’t be surprised if they then go out and behave in a sexualised manner.

I really don’t want my daughter to go out and explore her sexuality until she’s ready. And I want her to be comfortable with her womanly body when she grows up. Now, I think that’s an idea which is truly empowering.

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under children, corporate paedophilia, feminism, media, morality, motherhood, parenthood, sex, sexuality

DJs commence legal action

There’s been a couple of posts on blogs I like to read (here, here, here and here) on David Jones’ decision to commence legal action for misleading and deceptive conduct against the Australia Institute and Clive Hamilton. The proceedings relate to a media release in October 2006, which reported Clive Hamilton as saying:

“Major retail chains such as David Jones and Myer have jumped on the bandwagon. When family department stores show no conscience on these issues, or are inured to the effects of their behaviour, the situation is very unhealthy.”

Now, is there any way I would have gone out and looked at that press release had there not been publicity and a legal action in the offing? No. Would I have even thought of DJs and corporate pedophilia in the same sentence were it not for the issuing of proceedings? No.

I certainly don’t like the current trend to expose children to overtly sexualised images at a young age, as I have detailed in a previous post. As the parent of a young girl, it worries me greatly. But legal proceedings are not always the best way in which to deal with a dispute. I shouldn’t be saying this: I’m a lawyer after all…and once a litigator…so I made my money by running disputes. But nevertheless, I am an honest lawyer.

On the weekend, a lawyer friend and I were discussing cases which should never have gone to Court. I have witnessed cases where the presiding Judge has said to the parties, “Have the parties considered settling this case? After listening to opening submissions, I think it would be a good idea.” Sometimes the parties listened, sometimes they didn’t. As I said to my friend and his wife over lunch, I think that a part of the role of a solicitor or a barrister is to hose the client down. The solicitor or barrister should not indulge the client’s fantasies and take their money if there is no (or very little) prospect of a person winning. I feel sick when I see ordinary people being ripped off by incompetent or greedy legal representatives who run cases with no hope of success. As lawyers, we have a position of privilege because we are empowered by our knowledge of the law, and we should not abuse it.

In any case, the publicity surrounding this case can be nothing but negative. I would never have linked DJs and corporate paedophilia in my mind…”but for” this legal action (to adopt the causation test from March v E & MH Stramare (1991) 175 CLR 506…once a nerdy lawyer always a nerdy lawyer). Now DJs and corporate paedophilia will be inextricably linked in my mind, whatever the outcome of the case. It’s something to think about. I exhort any litigants to think carefully about what they want to achieve when they commence a legal action.

9 Comments

Filed under corporate paedophilia, feminism, law, motherhood