Diane Abbott, a shadow health minister, will tonight warn that the “pornification” of culture is causing children to be “hypersexualised” at an early age.
At a meeting of the Fabian Women’s Network, she will say parents are struggling to cope with the tide of sexual images available on social networking websites and the wider internet.
“For so long, it’s been argued that overt, public displays of sexuality are an enlightened liberation,” she will say.
“But I believe that for many, the pressure of conforming to hypersexualisation and its pitfalls is a prison. And the permanence of social media and technology can be a life sentence.
It was only a generation ago that the left in Britain were insistent that nudity was natural, that sex was fun that should not be denied as a result of outdated modes of morality. Hell, it was only a couple of decades ago that the left seemed almost insistent in ushering young men into their teenage daughters’ bedrooms and locking them in for the night.
What happened? Ian’ll be along in amoment to tell us it’s all the Puritans. Or mebbe they don’t like the results of what they campaigned for? In which case we should be seeing some interesting mea culpas soon enough.
My own diagnosis is that there are certain people, Dianne Abbott being a good enough example, whose existence is only validated by telling people to do something different from what they are. If everyone’s a model of Victorian primness then the shriek will be that free love is a necessary part of civlised society. If everyone is indeed practising free love then Victorian modesty is the only valid more for society to allow. It’s not that either is better or worse. It’s that, by definition, whatever people are doing is wrong and they must be controlled to do the other. After all, Kips Esquire’s Law does require that someone should do the controlling and there are those who do insist they are in the vanguard of those who ought to be.
What is being controlled and to what end is much less important than the controlling itself.