The Washington Post has a review of The Lolita Effect , a book that focuses on the sexualization of young girls and asks what can be done about it. Based on the review, the book is solid when it comes to showing how this early sexualization hurts young girls and produces other social ills (child pornography, rape, eating disorders, etc). But it’s interesting to see what happens when the author looks for an alternative to the hypersexualized culture. If we’re going to replace this culture, we’ll need a clear, coherent, and reasoned proposal for what human sexuality should be. Jennifer Ruark, the reviewer, writes:
From her first sentence (“The Lolita Effect begins with the premise that children are sexual beings”) to numerous descriptions of herself as “pro-sex” and “pro-media,” Durham takes pains to show that she is no prude or censor. But she sees a vast gulf between healthy female sexuality and the one dictated by “hooker chic,” which is all about turning boys on with the public display of girls’ bodies (thin, of course, yet voluptuous). Why, Durham asks, can’t girls’ sexuality be about their own pleasure? And why must teenage girls, in particular, live in fear of slipping over the delicate line “between acceptable hotness and unacceptable sluttiness”? Girls should be allowed to say no to virginity pledges and to “Girls Gone Wild,” Durham argues. But she does not develop a clear definition of healthy sexuality, beyond describing it as “inclusive, diverse, and affirming” and unyoked from commerce (emphasis mine).
