
Jamie Oliver has banned his daughter from posting ‘porno’ selfies, but kids will be kids
I’ve got time for Jamie Oliver – at least he tries to stand up for
more than his own-branded crockery. This week, the father of five was
commenting on teenagers posting provocative selfies online. He’s banned his 14-year-old daughter Daisy
from posting selfies, and says that some of the photos he’s seen of
other girls are “quite porno, luscious, pouty, pushing boobs out”.
Oliver notes that this is the first parental generation to deal with
social media, and wonders: why are the girls allowed to do it? Oliver
says: “I’m like: Really? Aren’t their parents all over that like a
rash?”
Well, I have news for Oliver – it’s quite probable that parents aren’t
“letting them do it”. And it’s almost certain that they’re not looking
at their daughters’ “porno” photos, saying: “You look great there,
licking your lips suggestively in that tight top – why don’t you put it
on Instagram?”
The point being that parents either don’t realise that their children are doing it (or at least the extent
of it), or they do realise, but they also twig that there no way of
stopping it altogether, short of confiscating all phones and tablets,
and locking the children in a padded cell between the ages of 11 and 19.
And, believe me, there may be times when that latter option doesn’t
seem completely out of the question. Many a battleworn parent of a
teenager has travelled the trajectory from “Fly, my child, fly fearless
and free”, to a version of “Off to the tower, Rapunzel, and, if you let
down your hair, all Netflix rights will be suspended.”
What sometimes seems to be going on is self-willed parental myopia –
an often-unconscious reluctance to realise that, while there are always
exceptions, their kids are most probably up to everything their friends
are up to, or a version of it – either some, or all of the time, either
right in front of their faces, or sneaking around behind their backs.
It’s part of the Secret World of Teenage, and in that designated
age-restricted zone, operating within their own circles, it’s usually
(not always, but usually) harmless and short-lived enough. And, of
course, it’s not “porno”. They’re playing – testing boundaries,
experimenting with their image – which has always gone on to an extent.
While most parents wouldn’t have taken selfies in their youth, let’s
be honest, it’s only because we didn’t think of it. Personally, I did a
fair bit of prancing about in front of other people’s cameras, and, from
the looks of it, my self-obsession was in rude health, with rude the
operative word – in some photos, the look I appear to be going for is
Trafficked Goth.
While it’s a bit excruciating, it’s also screamingly funny. However –
and this is the generational dividing line – back in my day, my
cringeworthy cavorting was kept more or less private. As Oliver points
out, there’s now social media to deal with. Photos have the potential to
drop a cluster bomb of far-reaching consequences – ranging from the
degradation of revenge porn, problems with future employers, to young
kids just not registering that, quite often, it’s not just their target
peer group that can see the images.
So, Oliver is right, there’s plenty to worry about – in terms of
short-term behaviour and long-term consequences. As any half-bright
celebrity could tell you, the thing they miss the most is their
anonymity. Many young people are losing this great privilege, tossing it
away for a few “likes”, at a time when they’re too heartbreakingly
young to realise the full implications.
Even sadder, there’s no stopping it. Tech-wise at least, most kids
would be far savvier than their parents. Too often, this isn’t about
parents “letting them do it”, or failing to stop it – if certain kids
want to do it, the truth is they will usually find a way. ■
BHP