Once upon a time, little girls wanted to be grown-ups. So they tottered along in their mother's high heels and "borrowed" her lipstick. Ah, innocent days. Nowadays, little girls don't want to be grown-ups, writes Breda O'Brien
They want to be sexy, strutting, and hot. Little girls as young as six bump and grind in front of mirrors with the same intense concentration with which they used to try to conquer the mysteries of keeping lipstick actually on the lips, as opposed to all over their faces.
They are presented with role models like the Pussycat Dolls, supposedly icons of female empowerment. Once a burlesque troupe, a canny manager recruited a strong female vocalist, and a girl band was born.
Any resemblance to strippers is entirely intentional. They sing songs like Buttons, where they repeatedly urge a guy to loosen their buttons, and mock him for being all talk while they are looking for action.
The recent Joint Committee on Child Protection report proposed a new offence of "grooming". It is not too far-fetched to suggest that our culture "grooms" young girls into a belief that sexual availability is the norm, and that any hesitancy about sexual activity is evidence of grim repression. Funny, though, that the Pussycat Dolls, allegedly icons of female empowerment, are paid employees of their record label and are designed to be fully interchangeable, so should a doll start to sag, she is immediately replaceable. Unlike most comparable bands, they get no cut from the extensive merchandising, advertising deals or live shows. They are in short, not empowered at all, but open to cynical manipulation. Apparently, only three of the six members actually sing, but then, singing is not the point of what they do.
It is within the context of a culture where Pussycat Dolls are mainstream entertainment for small girls, that any discussion about the age of consent has to take place.
The joint committee has produced a thoughtful and well-researched report, and it seems positively churlish to concentrate on the age of consent, given that there are some 60 other recommendations.
However, it has to be said that the committee, with some notable exceptions, took a very benign view of teenage sexual activity.
While I agree that criminalising young people is far from desirable, it is simply not in touch with reality to believe that all adolescent sexual experimentation is cosy and consensual.
The earlier that young people engage in sexual activity, the more likely it is to be sordid and exploitative. The Rape Crisis Network's (RCN) recent contributions to public debate contain much that is insightful and well argued. However, I think they go too far in their extrapolation from the Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland (Savi) Report. That research states that one-quarter of sexual abuse is carried out by teenagers. RCN believes that this could mean that up to one-quarter of sexually-active young people "are raping other children". There is no direct correlation between the numbers of sexually-active teenagers and teenage abusers, because in theory, a handful of teenagers could be responsible for all the sexual abuse.
Yet there is no doubt that there is a huge amount of bullying and pressure that many young people simply do not have the maturity to withstand. Instead of looking at the "reality" that many young people are sexually active, why not look at the reality that more than three-quarters of women who became sexually active at an early age regret it?
The earlier people become sexually active, the more likely they are to contract sexually transmitted infections (STIs), or to experience a crisis pregnancy. Aside from the moral and cultural issues, which should not be lightly dismissed, there is a public health consideration.
We should be doing everything we can to discourage early sexual activity. Setting the age of consent at 16 signals to young people that society sanctions sexual activity at this age. What do we do when the "reality" becomes sexual activity at 14, or 12? Will we try to accommodate that reality, too?
We have lots of different "realities" in Ireland, including extraordinarily high levels of binge drinking. In fact, most young people find it hilarious that four or more units of alcohol in one sitting constitutes a binge for a woman. For many of them, that would be very moderate indeed.
But we don't propose harmonising legislation with that particular reality, so that teenagers aren't drinking in fields but in comfortable, warm pubs instead. In fact, if we were really serious about reducing levels of sexual activity at young ages, we would be working on reducing levels of alcohol consumption.
Many young people are as drunk as skunks when they have their first sexual encounter, hardly a recipe for fulfilling sex.
Most young women, in particular, do not want to be sexually active in their early or mid-teens. There is a direct link between educational disadvantage and deprivation of all kinds, and early sexual activity.
It often leads to a vicious spiral of early parenthood, and children who have no ongoing contact with a father, or who witness a procession of men entering and leaving their mothers' lives. It can be no coincidence that this is the pattern in the areas with the highest levels of poverty and crime, but that is a reality that dare not speak its name.
Young people have called for annual modules on sex education by outside teams of experts, because they are uncomfortable receiving it from teachers.
There is merit in that suggestion, provided that it focuses as much on the skills of negotiating sexual activity, especially having the self-respect to say no, as it does on providing information.
Yet sex education by outsiders is only a tiny part of the picture. A study by the Kaiser Institute on the family found that a close relationship with a mother was a key factor in delaying early sexual activity.
If a teenager perceived that his or her mother strongly disapproved of early sexual activity, they were much more likely to delay becoming sexually active.
It is hardly rocket science, but we live in an era where parents are terrified of appearing prudish or repressive, and so give very mixed messages to their children.
As a result, the strongest messages they receive come from the cynically exploitative industries that produce groups like the Pussycat Dolls.