Doing the möbius strip: The politics of the Bailey Review

Abstract

This paper argues that recent sexualisation discourses are problematic in several ways: they assume that all sexual materials are harmful, they smuggle in normative assumptions about good and bad sex, and they conflate sexism and sexuality in ways which function to restrict femininity. Through an analysis of the history of sexualisation discourses, and their recent deployment in the United Kingdom government's 2011 Bailey Review, we argue that it would be useful to unpack the concept of sexualisation into its earlier form: 'sexual socialisation'. This would shift the focus from individual girls, and the policing of their sexual behaviour, to wider societal forces, making space for exploration of the normativity and sexism operating within these. We draw on the image of the möbius strip to capture the subtle codependence of representations of young women as innocent, passive recipients of sexualisation, and as neoliberal choice-making subjects. On both sides of the strip oppression is something that is either simply present or absent for a particular subject. A turn to 'sexual socialisation' rather than 'sexualisation' could offer a way of escaping this möbius strip and moving towards an understanding of gendered relations of power as simultaneously enabling and limiting gendered subjectivity and agency.

Sense about sex: media, sex advice, education and learning

“…Our work also includes continuing to analyse the ways in which sex and sexual health are conceptualised in policy (see for example, Smith and Attwood, 2011;Barker and Duschinksy, 2012;Duschinsky and Barker, 2013) and legislation (see for example, Attwood and Smith, 2010), as well as current mediated sex education (see for example, Barker, Gill and Harvey, forthcoming 2016b), and the broader study of mediated sex and sexuality (see for example, Smith, Attwood, Egan and McNair, forthcoming 2016). Some of us have been active in blogging on these issues (see for example, Petra's 'Dr Petra' and Meg John's 'Rewriting the Rules'), on writing about formats like blogging and how academics might use these (Attwood et al 2012), and on helping to shape research and professional practice (see for example, Boynton, 2005;Richards and Barker, 2013;Richards and Barker, 2015).…”

Sexualization: A state of injury

“…The Coalition’s Programme for Government , issued by the Cabinet Office in May 2010 (Cabinet Office, 2010), stated that since “strong and stable families of all kinds are the bedrock of a strong and stable society,” the government must “take action to protect children from excessive commercialisation and premature sexualisation” (p. 19). Leaving aside the Home Office’s Bailey Review (Bailey, 2011), which I have considered in detail in two other articles (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Duschinsky & Barker, in press), there have been several other mobilizations of the issue of sexualization in justification for conservative social policy. For instance, in order to further fight the “premature sexualisation of children,” Communications Minister Ed Vaizey has begun discussions with UK service providers regarding a moral filter on the internet, censoring “filth,” except for those who make an official request to registered agencies (Gray, 2010).…”

The 2010 UK Home Office ‘Sexualisation of Young People’ Review: A Discursive Policy Analysis

“…I have explored elsewhere both the historical context of contemporary discourses on sexualisation (Duschinsky, 2012a), and also media and policy responses following the UK Review (Duschinsky and Barker, 2012). My intention here is to use ‘discursive policy analysis’ to offer a sustained consideration of the text of the UK Review itself.…”