* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Anyone who has watched a music video or gazed idly at a television or magazine advert featuring women over the past few years would hardly fail to notice that overtly sexual imagery seems omnipresent in our culture.
After increasing concerns at the daily deluge of pink padded bras, provocatively sloganned t-shirts and provocative music videos children are exposed to in their daily lives, a long awaited government commissioned review into the problem finally launched this week in the UK.
The Bailey Review, named after Reg Bailey from Christian charity Mother's Union who undertook the work, recommended several moves to combat the images that businesses and the media have saturated society with, ranging from brown paper bagging lads mags, setting up a website for parents to complain about sexualised images and slapping age restrictions on videos to banning billboards with racy content from appearing near schools.
However, the report stopped short of compulsory legislation for business and media to adhere to, sticking to voluntary codes and practises with stronger action should this move fail.
Overall the review is a welcome endeavour from the government on an issue with no small amount of misinformation and hysteria around it, nonetheless it perhaps missed the opportunity to take a more gendered look at the issue.
For example, there is no concerted effort in the report to address combating the impact of such overtly sexual images on children's attitudes towards sex and towards girls' self esteem by recommending the teaching of more positive attitudes in schools so girls (and boys) are empowered to say no, despite peer pressures.
In addition, as a letter to the government from the UK-based End Violence Women Coalition (EVAW) pointed out, the review, while praiseworthy, did not address the fact that the sexualisation of young girls – and its resulting negative effects on society - cannot be divorced from the issue of sexual and domestic violence in this country. Women's organisations who signed the letter also stressed that the government should link the Bailey review in with its violence against women strategy, unveiled earlier this year.
"It is critical that the government's response recognises the gendered nature and consequences of sexualisation and explicitly addresses the links with violence against women and girls and gender inequality," the letter stated.
"Furthermore, while it is important to recognise the particularly harmful impact of sexualisation on children, this can not be separated from sources of sexualisation that are targeted to both adults and children to reinforce negative gender stereotypes and women's inequality."
The next moves on the part of both the government and the industries this report targeted will be crucial. Will voluntary regulation work? Will the government move to forcibly legislate if it doesn't? And what about the role of parents in this?
Much criticism of the review in some quarters has focused on the perceived "nanny state" role played by government on an issue some critics argue should be the responsibility of parents.
Perhaps more simply, we should all take responsilibility, from government to parents to women's and other charitable organisations. This way child sexualisation becomes an issue that is finally comprehensively addressed and acknowledged as a problem that is inextricable from the violence and sexual abuse meted out against women and girls. Then, hopefully, we can tackle the issue for real.
