At the same time, in doing so, it’s also important to complicate childhood/children and sexuality even further in a way that moves beyond children/childhood as a fixed, universal signifier and interrogate the ways that the discursive construction of childhood works in both challenging and upholding certain forms of cultural power. As Derek mentions, the intersection of media, children, and sexuality often operate in very gendered ways; we also need to interrogate how this interaction can also be raced and classed, not to mention the heteronormativity of it all.

You make a great point that children are not asexual, and that the media is not to solely to blame for kids’ sexuality. But we can’t say “it’s what kids have always done” without looking more closely at social/historical contexts (that certainly include media in kids’ everyday lives). Instead, perhaps we should take the point that children are sexual and social beings to interrogate the ways in the media (and moral panic discourses) work to define this sexuality, and the ways in which kids themselves – along with parents, families, peers, communities, and other social processes in their lives – are constantly negotiating those tensions.

As for kids, this hits girls about 100x harder than it hits boys, and it starts as soon as they can walk. While boys are rewarded for being into heavily gendered, but not especially sexualized, interests and experiences, girls are overwhelmed with clothing, toys, and accessories that emphasize physical attraction and presentation for men (the princes in all those princess stories).

I hate to sound like those MEF videos, but sometimes the dominant ideology is pretty damn effective and ubiquitous.