TPTW - The "Lolita Effect" - What is our role, if any?

[VHunter]

Let me first say, this is for consideration, and mature ‘DEBATE’ only.
This is NOT for insult-slinging, judgements, or sarcasm.
Morals are NOT the issue, and should NOT be mentioned.
Those need not apply here and I will report any post I find at risk of provoking an insult-slinging match.
I wouldn’t risk cracking jokes either, because someone may take it the wrong way.
I want to hear THOUGHTFUL replies, and if anyone has any ‘research’ (articles/studies/videos….), to further explain their view or whatnot PLEASE share it.

I have been considering this subject for a few days now.
I have given this MUCH thought, and done a great deal of reading, and researching.
I have been tossing ideas, and the opinions of others back and forth in my mind.
This is an issue that has been brought up on a regular basis here on Salongeek (frequently met with heated arguments, and insult-slinging matches).
I expect a different result this time.
The result I expect is that we all walk away from this debate, whichever side of the coin your opinion might be, with food for thought and new perspective.

My questions to all of you are:
1- How do we contribute towards the “Lolita Effect”, if in fact we do?
2- Should we be held responsible for contributing to ‘Lolita Effect’, at a client’s request and should we decline?

These are the only two questions on the table at this time.
Please answer with your reasoning behind it.
PLEASE feel free to contribute other links and/or resources.

Please review the following links BEFORE hitting the reply button.
After some googling of a few key words, OMG I was buried under the onslaught of articles and videos and books. I’ve only posted very few below:

Gigi Durham on “The Morning Show” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA6cvKg1ae0

School Project/Speech Delivered on the “The Lolita Effect” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=450dV11R_ws

“The Today Show”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtJMdXM5oIk

Variety of articles by Psychology professionals and others:
http://www.familycircle.com/teen/parenting/sex-talk/growing-up-too-fast/
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-kids_today_are_growing.htm
http://www.micheleborba.com/blog/2011/04/12/regaining-childhood-parenting-a-too-fast-too-soon-generation/
http://www.drrobynsilverman.com/body-image/girls-feel-pressure-to-grow-up-too-fast-study-says/
http://www.thestar.com/article/603110

Dove Campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U
Christina Aiguilera – I am Beautiful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAfyFTzZDMM
Glee television show remake of TLC’s “Unpretty”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-RbPVUzDlU&feature=fvwrel

Now that you’ve been inundated with articles and videos, here’s my take on things.

Why I would suggest that “We the Beauticians” might have a responsibility:
We are people, first and foremost. We are not unthinking or unfeeling machines, at work.
As much as we say “it’s just a business”, at the end of the day, we DO have our own beliefs and feelings.
We are secondly, Strong women. We DO have influence, as ‘strong women’.
We ARE Beauticians and actively contribute to society’s view of Beauty by the very way we make our living, and by the manner in which we market/sell our services and to whom we sell those services to.

Things that we MIGHT speak up about in daily life:
· If we saw someone beating a dog
· If we saw a bank robbery, and could identify the thieves
· If salon employee stole from the till, we’d tell the boss.
· If a friend had a drinking problem, we’d try an intervention.
· Share a link on Facebook about a cause
· If a child was being bullied at school, we would ask that there be an anti-bullying program.
· And the list goes on, with regards to the many ways we’d feel that we MUST step in and do something, say something.

During our work day, things we MIGHT speak up about:
· Client requested nail enhancements, but had a fungal infection and shredded nail plate, perhaps you’d suggest an alternate service and/or that she visit the doctor.
· Client has hair that is severely over-processed, and terribly damaged and she’s requesting a permanent; perhaps you’d suggest a cut and moisturizing treatments instead.
· Client chooses a hair colour that isn’t complimentary to their skin tone, we might suggest something to better suit her
Etc

Every single day, we offer our opinion, and/or speak up.
Yet when confronted with a ummm ‘questionable’ situation (because for some it is), many often choose the route of “it’s the client’s choice and none of our business”. It’s funny how it wasn’t “None of our business” when she wanted to perm hair that was already waaaaaaaaaaaay over-processed.

Everyone cried out in disgust when a woman was spray-tanning her child. Another incident that outraged society was the woman that gave botox injections to her child. Both preschoolers, if I recall.

I’m NOT asking anyone to determine at what age, what service is appropriate. That’s a whole other can of worms.

So, to remind you, my questions are:
3- How do we contribute towards the “Lolita Effect”, if in fact we do?
4- Should we be held responsible for contributing to ‘Lolita Effect’, at a client’s request and should we decline?

PRETTY PLEASE, keep it clean folks. Let’s play nice during this debate that SHOULD be EDUCATIONAL and INFORMATIVE as is my intent and perhaps enlightening?

 

[HWilliams]

Hello,

Great topic.

Firstly, the links were very interesting. Browsed some articles and your song choices are great.

Will read thoroughly when I'm on the laptop.

On a personal level, I think there is so much pressure to look the part. I believe our youth are growing up way too quick.

As a therapist, I try to advise against things that clients want if they were things I wasn't allowed to have at certain ages.

I try to educate on how to make under as opposed to a Snog, Marry, Avoid contestant.

With things like child ear piercing, I stick to my training guidelines and I actually do check the Baby Red Book for immunisations.

I try to accommodate without being too personal.

As a mum, I hate the thought of young girls that are for want of a better word, sexualised.

I disagreed in 2003 on Stilletoe shoes for BABIES.

I am appalled about spray tan mum.

Cannot watch those reality shows about pushy parents/child beauty queens etc.

But that is my opinion as a mum!

Very interesting topic x

 

[Gina Ballerina]

Could u give me a short description on what the lolita effect is please? My phone isn't letting me open your links for some reason.
Thanks

 

[jacquelineanna]

Could u give me a short description on what the lolita effect is please? My phone isn't letting me open your links for some reason.
Thanks

Beautifying children and young girls, fake tans, make up, nails .. beauty pageant princesses etc.

Jacqui xx

 

[VHunter]

Urban Dictionary: lolita effect

which reads in part:The Lolita Effect is the sexualization of young girls and projecting girls as sex objects before they have even reached puberty and are sexualized beings. It is perpetuated by the media. The title comes from the book Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.
The Lolita effect is a 5 year old wearing padded bras or high heels, items which are used to perpetuate sexuality in adult women.

 

[Debs001]

Personally, this is why it's do good being my own boss, I can set my own age limit. I work with children also and although it's up to the parents (as long as the child is not in danger) I am happy to say no way to alot of things. It's their choice if they want their child to have certain things done to them but it's also my choice to not participate in things I dont feel comfortable with (also alot of products can be harsh on delicate skins).

 

[jacquelineanna]

Although you have said morals are not the issue and shouldn't be mentioned, all the points made re things we might do in our work and private lives ARE based on one's morals.

As to the question of the beauty therapists/hairdresser/nail techs role in the lolita effect.

Being asked to do highlights on a 6 year old or spray tan a 4 year old or put acrylic nails on a 10 year old .. it seems to me that again it does come down to the morals of the individual.

However, if we can set our personal morals aside, then it comes down to business and money. Upon which the whole world turns.

So if the therapist et al makes a business decision completely devoid of her moral view, then I do not feel she is contributing to the lolita effect.

She is contributing to her own welfare, the welfare of her business and employees and family.

The Mothers of these children are responsible for creating the Lolita Effect. They are driving this out of control vehicle.

Therapists could say no to performing these treatments, and could therefore be said to be taking responsibility by doing so, but if they do say no, its because they feel morally obliged to.

Why else would you refuse trade and payment if not because of morals.

If you decide to opt out completely of beautifying children and therefore not contributing to the lolita effect it wouldn't make a scrap of difference.

Because the Mother is driving the bus and she will just move on down to the next salon until she finds someone who will.

So the only way to prevent such beautification of children is to ban it.

And is that right? That's another debate. But if the mother cannot be held morally accountable for her child then neither can anyone else.

At the moment a mother cannot be put into jail for any of the things we are currently debating.

So from a purely business perspective totally devoid of any morals, no we should not decline the services requested by these mothers for their children.

But it just keeps on coming back to the moal perspective ....

Jacqui xx

 

[Elaine143a]

Wow what a post! Tbh didnt check all the links as when I got to Christina's song (which happens to be one of my favs) I was actually fighting back the tears after the previous video - which is soooooooooo not like me to cry.

I need to digest all this info, and try and reply in as concise a way as possible, otherwise i will ramble on for hours.

 

[Mrs RSM]

Although you have said morals are not the issue and shouldn't be mentioned, all the points made re things we might do in our work and private lives ARE based on one's morals.

As to the question of the beauty therapists/hairdresser/nail techs role in the lolita effect.

Being asked to do highlights on a 6 year old or spray tan a 4 year old or put acrylic nails on a 10 year old .. it seems to me that again it does come down to the morals of the individual.

However, if we can set our personal morals aside, then it comes down to business and money. Upon which the whole world turns.

So if the therapist et al makes a business decision completely devoid of her moral view, then I do not feel she is contributing to the lolita effect.

She is contributing to her own welfare, the welfare of her business and employees and family.

The Mothers of these children are responsible for creating the Lolita Effect. They are driving this out of control vehicle.

Therapists could say no to performing these treatments, and could therefore be said to be taking responsibility by doing so, but if they do say no, its because they feel morally obliged to.

Why else would you refuse trade and payment if not because of morals.

If you decide to opt out completely of beautifying children and therefore not contributing to the lolita effect it wouldn't make a scrap of difference.

Because the Mother is driving the bus and she will just move on down to the next salon until she finds someone who will.

So the only way to prevent such beautification of children is to ban it.

And is that right? That's another debate. But if the mother cannot be held morally accountable for her child then neither can anyone else.

At the moment a mother cannot be put into jail for any of the things we are currently debating.

So from a purely business perspective totally devoid of any morals, no we should not decline the services requested by these mothers for their children.

But it just keeps on coming back to the moal perspective ....

Jacqui xx

Very well written! I agree. We cannot disregard morals whilst discussing this subject. I would never treat a child so young and if that means losing income, so be it. I have a rigidly set moral compass. Just by me refusing to treat infants will not change the whole revolting culture but I will be happy in the knowledge I am not contributing to it either.

 

[makeupartistzoe]

1. We do contribute by providing these services
2. We should held responsible if we are actively encouraging these sorts of treatment but not if the child and parents request it and then it is down to the individual professional.

It is societys fault. This is me as a person...and how society has effected me and my beauty routine...

Grew up with one brother and sister. As we washed bits and bobs then face with a wash cloth soap and water every morning and brushed out teeth after breakfast. We would wear clean clothes and my mum would put mine and my sisters hair in a pony tail or plaits. At night we would have a bath and brush our teeth and hair again before bed. Sunday nights we would wash and blow dry hair and get fingers and toe nails cut. I used to have plaits like dorothy from the wizard of oz as i loved her, when i grew up i wanted hair like Ariel from the little mermaid but not as bright red. We swam alot and got lots of fresh air. My auntie was a hairdresser, i used to ask to play with her makeup, i used to like opening lipsticks and winding them up and down. I also liked barbie and polly pocket.

From the age of 11 the routine continued but you start with deoderant and i started getting spots before anybody else i used a anti bac face wash and tea tree gel. Maybe when i was 12 I got a coverup and was allowed coloured nail polish at weekends only. I was made to wait until i was 13 to get my ears pierced. at 14 i was plagued with acne, i used to do a paper round and spend all my money on makeup and skin care products to help combat the problem. I washed my teenage hair every other day. I exercised, only drank water and ate insane amounts of carrots and apples and never chocolate. I felt people on tv, grown ups, other girls at school and people in magazines never had spots. I went on antibiotics. I loved how makeup help me feel 'normal' at the same time it wasn't a thick mask, if you wore makeup at my school and caught u were made to take it off. I liked having a little concealer on, tidy brows, the smallest hint of black liner right at the root of my lashes to draw people to talk to my eyes rather than the juicy mother of a zit on my nose. I taught myself to tint my lashes after work experience at a salon. And then all the girls at school loved lip smackers, we used to collect them like boys collected pogs. At 16 i went on roaccutane and went to beauty college. I went to london and learnt more makeup. Now I help clients feel special on their wedding days, birthdays and teach non accredited makeup lessons so you can feel confident about flaws society creates. all beauty ads give you a complex...eg they will open 'black under eye circles making you look exhaused and crap..?'

Im still on roaccutane. I still brush my teeth twice a day i get my hair cut and bleached every 6 weeks. I like to tan myself weekly. I use deoderant and perfume daily. I wax what i can-roaccutane rember! i shave. i paint or shellac my toes. i have pink and white acylics. i double cleanse and moisturise twice a day. I wear makeup every day- its only off when im chilling out or working out. I wash and blow dry my hair every day. I have keratin treatment to keep the condition. I dont eat super well but i dont drink excessivelty, smoke or do drugs. I'm a young salon owner, i like to be me, be happy being me and help others out when i can. It upsets me out when people have chipped nail polish, dirty nails, smell bad, don't brush their hair,are obese. I'm more insulted that people arent taught/ don't feel the need to have a level of personal hygiene and respect for what they are born with than others just embracing beauty to the max.

 

[sarahpoppy24]

Question one. How do we contribute to the lolita affect. Simple. Bye performing servives on children. That is what the "lolita effect" is right.
If we put spray tans and false nails on little girls, then that is a direct contribution. If the "lolita effect" exists then this is what it is right??

Should we be held responsible. Well yes and no. At the end of the day are we responsoble for them asking us to do it in the first place or having the DESIRE to look like that. Probably not. Did any one watch the "sex education show" when they had the the part on sexulised images beign readily available to children. I think that kids look up to adults for their inspiration and learn from them. In our society in the past decade or so, what has been in fashion while kids grow up.? People like brittney spears, christina agulara, Jordan, paris hilton. I could go on and on. "Fakery" in the show snog marry avoid is all about sexulisation, and if adults are dressing like this then children will just copy as adults do. In the olden days if you think about what women and kids wore (eg long dresses, bonnets etc) then it was kind of a variation of the same kinds of clothes so this would not be a problem. They all covered their legs etc, well nowadays you see women dressing in sexualy provocatve ways all the time, and kids will just follow what they do. Now its up to a person what they wear as an adult you can wear what you want. I dont judge a person on apperances (try not too anyways). This issue is obviously a new problem that has evolved over the past few years, and to be honest I cant see a solution myself. I dont know what to think. I realy dont. I dont think kids half the time even know that how they are dressing is even seen as sexual/could be percieved as wrong. They are innocent to it and if they havent developed adult feelings yet, surely they just see it as "dressing up like mummy/older sister" or "dressing up like the girls on MTV". Copying what they do. Great thread bye the way. x

 

[VHunter]

Have 'shortened' the quotes below, just to abbreviate:wink2:

Although you have said morals are not the issue and shouldn't be mentioned, all the points made re things we might do in our work and private lives ARE based on one's morals.

Jacqui xx

I appreciate your thoughts on this, I DO.
But really, my questions by themselves are not about Morals.
I raised the issues that I did only to explain WHY I felt I needed to ask those questions.

I'm only wondering at OUR IMPACT on the issue and if we are partly RESPONSIBLE for it.
More of a Yes or No answer.

Morals only come in to play if we were to sit and determine what is right or wrong, or at what age something is acceptable.
But that's not what I'm asking.

Morals would come in to play if we were to determine IF we should say no, and/or at what point we should say no. Again, not the questions at hand.

AND that would be in regards to our PERSONAL morals.

BUT just to touch briefly regarding making a living, and nothing wrong with that:
This is a GROSS exageration of an example, of course, and not at all comparable, but bear with me: Drug dealers are just trying to make a living too, and meet the needs of their clientel. I know one that had 3 kids. He was supporting his family too.
AS I SAID, not even in the same ballpark. It's like comparing Apples to Potatoes. But just a thought, to throw out there.

Very well written! I agree. We cannot disregard morals whilst discussing this subject. I would never treat a child so young and if that means losing income, so be it. I have a rigidly set moral compass. Just by me refusing to treat infants will not change the whole revolting culture but I will be happy in the knowledge I am not contributing to it either.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh but there is the crux of the matter... IF something is not available and it is denied - across the board - then perhaps culture COULD change?

 

[VHunter]

Just to add a spanner to the works LOL

Definitions of Moral & Immoral:

Moral:
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.

3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.

Immoral:violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious


Based on those Definitions, the following acts, by themselves are not deemed as neither of those things:
- colouring/perming hair
- manicures
- applying nail enhancements
- applying makeup
- spray tanning.

Technically, the actual activities, on their own, are neither moral NOR immoral.
So as I said, "morals" have no bearing when answering the question.
We aren't selling drugs; THAT would most definately, without question be immoral (at least to me LOL).

I simply ask if we contribute and/or should be responsible for doing so, with regards to the "Lolita Effect".

The "Lolita Effect" is a result of MULTIPLE contributing factors.
We can't blame it on one single beauty treatment, it's the culmination of MANY THINGS.
BUT, Are we one of those factors?
I just want to know if people think we are?

Keep your thoughts coming folks.
I'm truly interested.
:hug:

 

[jacquelineanna]

Have 'shortened' the quotes below, just to abbreviate:wink2:

I appreciate your thoughts on this, I DO.
But really, my questions by themselves are not about Morals.
I raised the issues that I did only to explain WHY I felt I needed to ask those questions.

I'm only wondering at OUR IMPACT on the issue and if we are partly RESPONSIBLE for it.
More of a Yes or No answer.


Morals only come in to play if we were to sit and determine what is right or wrong, or at what age something is acceptable.
But that's not what I'm asking.

Morals would come in to play if we were to determine IF we should say no, and/or at what point we should say no. Again, not the questions at hand.

AND that would be in regards to our PERSONAL morals.

BUT just to touch briefly regarding making a living, and nothing wrong with that:
This is a GROSS exageration of an example, of course, and not at all comparable, but bear with me: Drug dealers are just trying to make a living too, and meet the needs of their clientel. I know one that had 3 kids. He was supporting his family too.
AS I SAID, not even in the same ballpark. It's like comparing Apples to Potatoes. But just a thought, to throw out there.




Ahhhhhhhhhhh but there is the crux of the matter... IF something is not available and it is denied - across the board - then perhaps culture COULD change?

********************

Which is why I already said that the only way to prevent such beautification of children was to ban it

Jacqui xx

 

[Debs001]

I have done friends and my own childrens nails, with glittery or pink varnish (I wouldn't use a red for instance) I think it is fine for children to experiment but there are certain times you have to say no to things as the adult guidance. These pageants and the like are putting these children on display for all to see. I used to dress and play with make up in my bedroom as a young child, but I would not have dreamed stepping outside like it, simply my mother wouldn't have let me. I feel for these childrens self esteem thinking they have to look this way to please their parents and other adults, as they are being praised and rewarded for it. Simply, there is no need except to satisfy the parents own selfish needs for attention.

 

[jacquelineanna]

Have 'shortened' the quotes below, just to abbreviate:wink2:

I appreciate your thoughts on this, I DO.
But really, my questions by themselves are not about Morals.
I raised the issues that I did only to explain WHY I felt I needed to ask those questions.

I'm only wondering at OUR IMPACT on the issue and if we are partly RESPONSIBLE for it.
More of a Yes or No answer.

Morals only come in to play if we were to sit and determine what is right or wrong, or at what age something is acceptable.
But that's not what I'm asking.

Morals would come in to play if we were to determine IF we should say no, and/or at what point we should say no. Again, not the questions at hand.

AND that would be in regards to our PERSONAL morals.

BUT just to touch briefly regarding making a living, and nothing wrong with that:
This is a GROSS exageration of an example, of course, and not at all comparable, but bear with me: Drug dealers are just trying to make a living too, and meet the needs of their clientel. I know one that had 3 kids. He was supporting his family too.
AS I SAID, not even in the same ballpark. It's like comparing Apples to Potatoes. But just a thought, to throw out there.




Ahhhhhhhhhhh but there is the crux of the matter... IF something is not available and it is denied - across the board - then perhaps culture COULD change?

For the purpose of this debate I have pondered on the drug dealer. Even if we remove the morals this is a buy and sell activity that results in prison if caught. Which again supports my previous theory that the only way to prevent the beautification of children is to ban it.

Although drugs are banned yet there is still massive demand for it.

Therefore, I don't hold the drug dealer responsible for resulting in ruined lives. I blame the drug taker, because he or she has a choice. They were not born drug addicted and at some point they decided to make the choice to try a drug. So they seek out a friend who knows a drug dealer and their choice is made, the money is handed over and the rest is often history.

Even if the drug dealer pretties their drug up with ribbons, the individual still knows the choice they are making. They are not in the dark trying it without the benefit of knowledge.

Because someone supplies a demand does not make them responsible.

Everyone can choose.

In this case the individual. In the case of the Lolita Effect the Mother.

Jacqui

 

[WaxGirl]

Although you have said morals are not the issue and shouldn't be mentioned, all the points made re things we might do in our work and private lives ARE based on one's morals.

As to the question of the beauty therapists/hairdresser/nail techs role in the lolita effect.

Being asked to do highlights on a 6 year old or spray tan a 4 year old or put acrylic nails on a 10 year old .. it seems to me that again it does come down to the morals of the individual.

However, if we can set our personal morals aside, then it comes down to business and money. Upon which the whole world turns.

So if the therapist et al makes a business decision completely devoid of her moral view, then I do not feel she is contributing to the lolita effect.

She is contributing to her own welfare, the welfare of her business and employees and family.

The Mothers of these children are responsible for creating the Lolita Effect. They are driving this out of control vehicle.

Therapists could say no to performing these treatments, and could therefore be said to be taking responsibility by doing so, but if they do say no, its because they feel morally obliged to.

Why else would you refuse trade and payment if not because of morals.

If you decide to opt out completely of beautifying children and therefore not contributing to the lolita effect it wouldn't make a scrap of difference.

Because the Mother is driving the bus and she will just move on down to the next salon until she finds someone who will.

So the only way to prevent such beautification of children is to ban it.

And is that right? That's another debate. But if the mother cannot be held morally accountable for her child then neither can anyone else.

At the moment a mother cannot be put into jail for any of the things we are currently debating.

So from a purely business perspective totally devoid of any morals, no we should not decline the services requested by these mothers for their children.

But it just keeps on coming back to the moal perspective ....

Jacqui xx

Very well said Jacqui! Agree totally it is a morals based issue.

 

[eskimonailtech]

I disagree with comparing drug addiction and beauty treatments.

People who have addiction issues are born with chemical imbalances that make them prone to addiction. It is a disease, not a choice.

However I'm going to keep myself out of this thread starting now...

 

[jacquelineanna]

Having pondered for some time on the unsavoury business of drug dealers and having to remove all moral responsibility from the issue, I have come to the conclusion that most issues/dilemmas DO require our own moral intervention.

Without it, anything goes and nothing matters.

Without it bad things happen, murder, rape, adultery .. ha ha, look at the 10 commandments actually.

The 10 commandments are there to guide us morally because morals are the glue that holds society together.

There are plenty of things deemed illegal, wrong or bad and people commit such acts every day everywhere in the world.

The difficulty comes in not putting our own morals and judgements onto other people who have a different set to our own ... the drug dealer who may be simply trying to support his three children or the mother who wants to beautify her child.

Morals vhunter, I just don't think you can get away from them.

Although I feel I have tried quite hard to provide an answer to your questions based on logic not morals.

What do you think, in fact you have yet to answer your own questions ... ? Where are they lol

Jacqui xx





Jacqui xx

 

[jacquelineanna]

I disagree with comparing drug addiction and beauty treatments.

People who have addiction issues are born with chemical imbalances that make them prone to addiction. It is a disease, not a choice.

However I'm going to keep myself out of this thread starting now...[/QUOTE]

Amanda, with absolute respect, if you want to be contentious on this debate this would actually be the best thing to do.

Jacqui xx