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

[Anne Niven]

As a Grandma to 3 little girls ages 3 and 4 and 2 yrs. The 3 and 4 yr olds love to hunt around in my nail polish box and very occasionally are allowed a pale pink on their fingers when their Mum's have theirs done. That is it. No lipstick or eye shaddow, no mascara. We have set the bounderies and they know we won't cross it. For heavens sake we were children, they are CHILDREN, the most I did was to parade in my Mums heels!

 

[Sarah-Jean]

To answer the direct questions asked:

1- How do we contribute towards the “Lolita Effect”, if in fact we do?

I presume you mean as therapists, stylists, business owners. In which case I don't really believe we DO contribute to the Lolita Effect at all. We offer services that we are trained to do because there is a demand in the adult world for it. We don't shove pictures of young girls heavily tanned, with fake eyelashes and skimpy outfits in people's faces, most people with photographic advertising use adult models so far as I have seen. We offer a service that yes, is used by people who may believe it's OK to do that to children, but on the whole I believe most beauty businesses are focussed on the adult customer. NOT the child. If someone CHOOSES to ASK us to do a service on a child, then we evaluate the situation based on our morals/insurance/the treatment wanted... But are we responsible for it, or contributing to it? No I don't really believe so. Society on the whole, advertising, TV, music.... Those are the main contributors to the Lolita Effect. We are just businesses providing a service who may occasionally get asked to perform treatments on children (and will, no doubt make an educated decision on whether we are willing to do so)...

2- Should we be held responsible for contributing to ‘Lolita Effect’, at a client’s request and should we decline?

I don't think we should be held responsible. The parents of said girls should. The advertising on TV, in magazines, on the high street and the parents themselves are responsible. If we are contributing, then so is the rest of the general public. We are businesses/therapists/stylists trying to earn a living... Clients can ask us to perform treatments and we can accept or decline. Accepting is a business transaction. It's not a moral injustice to the child/ren involved. Whatever wrong is being done to them, is being done by other people.


All this said. I really disagree with making children grow up to quickly. But I don't believe there's really anything that can be done to stop it apart from the parents. I let my girls have manicures, pedicures and their hair pretty. But nothing that is considered sexually appealing or for the "older" girls. They're only 2 and 4 years old and they love to feel "pretty" with pink nails... It's all very innocent.

 

[happyfeet]

Victoria fantastic thread thank you for posting.

OK I'm having trouble separating my morals if I'm honest, so what i write next may be peppered with my moralistic views as in truth I'm a little confused.

OK are we contributing to the lolita effect?

The beauty industry, therapists etc I don't believe are. In as much as I believe the treatments we offer are directed at adults. Where I think the contribution is is with the parents. They decide whether or not the child is allowed these treatments.

Do we have a responsibility? (this is where my 'ideas' and 'views' creep in sorry) slight change on the question.

Yes I actually think we do. I personally don't plan to treat children as I'll be honest it makes me feel uncomfortable. It's not that I see it as neccessarily sexualising children, but I am concerned about their self esteem or having the keep up the treatments to feel and look good. Also I was a girl that didnt 'need' makeup but saw my big sis wearing it and so I wore it at the age of 12 and can't now get away without it. I used to go a lovely olivey colour in the sun on my face, freckles the lot, now my poor face doesnt see the light of day without foundation..... think Twilight, Casper the Ghost etc. So for that I wouldnt want a child to be in that situation where by they feel they 'need' to wear makeup or feel they 'need' to have a particular treatment and continue with the costs as I did with pocket money.

I think the biggest responsibility first and foremost lies with the parents they get the yay or nay on their child having the treatments. The media whether its music, TV, film or publications comes second as nowadays I find myself quite shocked that the images and lyrics that are peddled about and I'm only 30 and a young minded 30 at that. I worry how these things make an adult feel let alone a child.

I also believe that children can have these treatments when they grow up, something to look forward to, like driving, going out clubbing etc etc, so I think it would be nice if treatments were left for a certain age and above so that they have things to look forward to. Often discussed on here is that this is a generation that thinks they should have everything now with little work, I don't completely agree with this view and alot of it depends on your family and social situation, but I'd like to throw it out there for whether treatments should be so readily available to children. Again i think i am giving my views and morals here so I apologise but I am really struggling not getting them mixed up.

My final thought for me personally is I also don't want to deal with 2 clients at the same time for one treatment.... the adult AND the child gracious no thank you.

Reading back I've definitely given my personal opinions above and yes I think they are my views but that's how I honestly feel. I am moveable however and I take other peoples ideas on board but for now this is what I personally think

I'm not sure if I've answered your q's Victoria lol! But thanks for starting this thread I am really enjoying everyones posts, and I find it very interesting reading them. I like to see it from all perspectives and then make an informed decision from there.

Love n hugs xxx :hug:

 

[Pinkprincess73]

Hi just my opinion & maybe not as eloquently put as some other posters, but I think as parents it is our responsibility to guide our children as to what is acceptable or age appropriate just because a treatment is available to children or a product ie padded bras, thongs, belly button piercings, it does not mean they should have it! Parents need to say no & be the adult in the situation you are not your child's pal you are their moral guardian until they are old enough to think for themselves, I'm sure most people can remember a girl from school allowed to wear/ do as they pleased, how popular was she with the boys? Do you see her now & cringe she probably does, if her parents acted as they should she would have been a child for longer without the pressures of looking & acting in an inappropriate manner, I know that's a quite a sweeping statement but it happens in some cases, I don't see anything wrong with a therapist refusing treatments for their own reasons it is their decision guided by there own moral compass, as they say it takes a village to raise a child & if more parents did there job properly we wouldn't be having this conversation IT'S OK TO SAY NO TO YOUR CHILDREN!!

 

[wonderwoman]

I enjoyed reading all the links. Now beside moral and parent issues i dont think there is a problem within our industry.

I honestly dont think therapists are contributing to the lolita effect, moreover the magazines for kids that include new lip glazes and nail stencils etc. Kids are more inquisative, they do actually take interest.

I have some girls that wear more makeup than me, does it mean i endorsed it? no. I think there has to be a certain ground where some treatments are not applicable, Eyelash extensions for instance i dont think is suitable for baby lashes.
Ear piercing is not suitable until a child is 3 months, but does that stop parents? nope. Spraytans i think are harmless, i believe that if they have a dance competition or a theatre recitial i would have no problem taking their money, it happens in the west end all the time.

I do think however therapist should be responsible for doing treatments on under 16 years old if they have no insurance that covers them.

I think by allowing some kids to grow up too quick is to be giving them bline etc. I did leg waxing on one girl that is 11 now, she started her periods when she was ten, now her mother knew how much this girl was getting bullied, i happly obligied knowing that puberty has kicked in for some girls, and yes they are not as innocent anymore. I hesitated as i knew this was the youngest client i would have, but i alson knew i would be helping her. Did i feel guilty taking her money and charging her my normal fees, no, im running a buisness, where that is my job, my passion. Helping her make the right choice on hair removal me feel better, knowing i had educated her mother on the consultation beforehand on this instance-not an exception.

I first and formost think of how it will affect my business and the contraindications that happen within it. (im able to say no to allot of kids, as i have ensure parental consent and contraindications for certain treatments within my salon.) I think file and varnishes, anti acne facials are not a bad thing for adolescence kids. In fact i think we are capable of supporting and helping our clientel with the insecuities and ensure that they use suitable products. I was brought up in a beauty legacy, and im the tomboy, does it mean i was affect by the lolita effect, no, i just think this is another way for the media to blame our industry for things that are out of control.

I watched that pushy and proud the other day, now where it may not come across as well, where where all the dads with their say on how their kids look?? Facinating how you never get the male opinion of these beauty pagent queens etc.

 

[Mike16300]

I was amused to read a couple of times in this thread people referring to "society" as if it were another being, forcing some of us to act in certain ways, or being responsible for certain ills etc.

I am "society", you are "society", we all collectively make up "society"! Even magazine articles are written and published by people like you and me, "society"!

If something exists in society, it is because people like you and I have created it. Someone like you, designed a pair of heals for a 5yr old, and someone like you bought them for their 5 yr old.

We live in a democracy, and select our leaders to represent our views and to create laws, the rules that guide and shape our collective direction, and we as members of that society, have it in our power to influence that direction. Padded bras were removed from the shelves at Primark, as I recall.

That this "Lolita Effect" exists, means that it is the want of people, people just like you and I.

If no-one watched the beauty pageants, they would soon decline. If a magazine that displayed children in a certain light wasn't bought, it would soon change it's content.

We, the people, have the powers, we just rarely use them, and to sit on the fringes and point a finger at "society" will not help!

 

[soriminah]

When I was little (30 years ago) they had toys you could buy little girls that had lipstick, eyeshadow palette, little plastic high heels, hairbrush, plastic hairdryer, hairclips, necklaces, clip on earrings. You can buy the sets with the beauty table and chair.

In the 80s you could buy the Little Blossom cosmetics through Avon. There was Strawberry Shortcake with her hair extensions.

In the 60s you could buy hair curler sets for girls.

Not to mention good ole Barbie.

So to answer the questions:

1- How do we contribute towards the “Lolita Effect”, if in fact we do?

I don't think we offer anything more except our expertise. Mums who let their girls put a colour through their hair on school holidays, nail polish, face masks, playing with makeup. I think the only think thats changed is that instead of these being used in play form as dressing up, kids are now leaving the house with the makeup still on.

I have a sister 9 years older and I used to play with her makeup off casts and Mums old Avon perfumes and dress up in their clothes and jewellry. I have a photo of when one of my sisters dressed me up in her swimmers when I was probably about 2-3.


2- Should we be held responsible for contributing to ‘Lolita Effect’, at a client’s request and should we decline?

No and maybe. No we shouldn't be held responsible for contributing. Beauty services have always been available. All throughout history women have been making themselves up - who knows, Eve could have rubbed a bit of dirt on her eyelid, Adam told her she was hot and that's how eye shadow was created......It's just that now we have longer life spans and an 'appropriate' age now, is not what an 'appropriate' age up to a hundred years ago when girls could get married at 13 because your life expectancy was as young as 30-40.

The only things that have changed are the advancements in what we have available to us now - botox, tan and more.

There are a lot of reasons for saying yes to providing services to younger people - bullying being the biggest. For girls that are hairier and have mono-brows or sideburns that want waxing; girls that have acne and want to cover it up with makeup.

I had the mono brow and sideburns and my older sister had to convince Mum to let me get it done because she was worried I'd get bullied at school. Mum had my ears pierced in primary school as my older sisters got a cousin to do theirs with a sewing needle when Mum wouldn't let them. I used to colour in my toenails and fingernails with felt pens - and anyone else who would let me do theirs...

I have a 15 year old girl that comes to me to get her underarms waxed which her GP suggested because of the cysts she gets under her armpits.

I work with sporting teams with kids as young as 11 that I massage. So long as their is parental consent then I don't have a problem with treating them.

The world is ever changing and evolving and although we may keep up with techniques and treatments, whether or not we like it, society and their expectations of us are changing too.

 

[VHunter]

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

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

Jacqui xx

OOPS, my bad... I was speed reading. Yes, that is one way to prevent it.

Simply, there is no need except to satisfy the parents own selfish needs for attention.

BINGO!!
"Look how pretty my girl is"....

I also raise the example of my daughter that would choose me pushing her on the swing at the park versus sitting still to get her nails done.
She only wants to spend time with ME.... so if the option were nails vs nothing (in place of park), she'd choose the manicure.
I think that's what happening in a lot of cases, as well.

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.
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

So IF the dealer is innocent and not responsible, then why is he going to prison?

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.
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

AHHH HAAAAAAAAAAA
The lightbulb goes on :green:
Ok, now that I've had a few replies, I'll explain why I kept saying morals are irrelevant to this discussion.
I said it because whenever issues of this nature are brought up on geek, everyone is either A) arguing morals, and it gets ugly OR B)saying morals have nothing to do with it, that we're just doing our jobs. That we have nothing to say on the matter.

So, IF IT'S TRUE that we have nothing to say on the matter and that our personal beliefs shouldn't enter into it, THEN morals are irrelevant.
HOWEVER, some people are proving that Morals are INDEED relevant.

As with ANYTHING that is wrong with in this society; until someone spoke up and said it was wrong, until people unified as a group against it, it didn't change. (and without quoting history to everyone, I'm sure you're all quite capable of compiling that list yourselves).

As you could see from the links I posted - people are already crying out against it. The results of the "Lolita Effect" are everywhere.

Well, I'm pretty sure my opinion on the whole issue is easy enough to see :lol:
I'll try to keep it brief, but here goes:

A) Our contributions to the "Lolita Effect" as professionals are:
- Offering services such as Pamper Parties (which I'm SERIOUSLY considering removing from my menu) which target children specifically.
- Marketing our services to the general public (which by default targets the children as well, because Monkey see/Monkey do, they want to be like Mom), by doing so saying "Beauty is important!", and in the grand scheme of things it's not.
- and the list goes on.

B) YES we are responsible for contributing to the effect. For reasons above.

Separate from the questions and separate from the professional angle; I'm also responsible as an individual and as a Mother.
The act of wearing makeup and applying it in front of my children.
Giving them grief for not wearing colours that match, creating a concern within them about making sure their clothes are nice.
Colouring my hair because I don't like how blonde makes me look (of course, been at it for 20yrs, it's darker now)
I've had cosmetic surgery due to my OWN insecurities that were fed by my own family's taunting of me as a teen, and by media and magazines.
Again, the list goes on.....

All little things on their own, but at the end of the day; the message I'm sending to my children is that I don't think I am beautiful by myself without all of that hooplah.
Not feeling very proud of myself at the moment.
How will my children believe that they are beautiful, without all of that fuss if I don't show them how to believe it DESPITE the media?
Will anything I say matter?
The old expression "do as I say, and not as I do" seems rather ridiculous right about now.

I don't see anything wrong with a therapist refusing treatments for their own reasons it is their decision guided by there own moral compass, as they say it takes a village to raise a child & if more parents did there job properly we wouldn't be having this conversation IT'S OK TO SAY NO TO YOUR CHILDREN!!

Exactly one of my points I've mentioned before in another thread. As a part of society, we do share some responsibility; on both personal and professional sides of the coin.:green:

I am "society", you are "society", we all collectively make up "society"! Even magazine articles are written and published by people like you and me, "society"!

If something exists in society, it is because people like you and I have created it. Someone like you, designed a pair of heals for a 5yr old, and someone like you bought them for their 5 yr old.

We, the people, have the powers, we just rarely use them, and to sit on the fringes and point a finger at "society" will not help!

DITTO!!!

 

[angelina221]

I know you didn't want to mention morals but, it is all due to the state of our moral decline.
I think advertising has to take a large proportion of the blame. Glamourising things for financial gain.
When I was younger there was no way my parents would let me out dressed like half the youngsters do today. I wasn't allowed to wear make-up or dye my hair and I respected my parents so I didn't
I think that there is such a lack of respect nowadays.
I wouldn't let my kids walk out the house wearing hardly any clothes, in fact I wouldn't allow them to buy them.
I think a lot of parents have busy lives and sometimes feel guilty that they do not spend enough time with their kids so they give them money to make them feel better. I'm not saying most parents do but some do.
I wouldn't spray tan a 4 year old and I wouldn't let youngsters wear make-up but that is my decision and I have my own code of morals that I stick to.
I guess everyone's morals are different.

 

[dandelionpoppy]

Fascinating and later on I'll read/view properly, so my take on it may vary slightly when I do.

My initial gut reaction is:

We contribute by being part of an industry which is MAINLY aimed at improving the looks of the female. The expectation to be glamorous is raised; it can be the norm to look completely groomed 24/7. We are all attracted to beautiful people by instinct, and young girls will want to emulate the images they see every day on TV etc. Imitative behaviour is a major way of learning.
We have responsibility to set parameters to ensure the health and safety of all clients. Should this include emotional health? I believe so. Should that include all ages? Of course. For that reason we should carefully consider whether a client will benefit or be damaged, in all senses, from a treatment.

 

[VHunter]

I know you didn't want to mention morals but, it is all due to the state of our moral decline.
I think advertising has to take a large proportion of the blame. Glamourising things for financial gain.

I think a lot of parents have busy lives and sometimes feel guilty that they do not spend enough time with their kids so they give them money to make them feel better. I'm not saying most parents do but some do.

While advertising might use the wrong tactics sometimes, I do think we are just as guilty by profitting from said advertising.

And ditto re: family situations these days. It's quite hard for famillies to find a balance when there are so many demands on their time.
Technology was supposed to simplify our lives and yet... with every advance, our lives become more complex and stressful.
Funny how that is.

Fascinating and later on I'll read/view properly, so my take on it may vary slightly when I do.

My initial gut reaction is:

We contribute by being part of an industry which is MAINLY aimed at improving the looks of the female.

We have responsibility to set parameters to ensure the health and safety of all clients. Should this include emotional health? I believe so. Should that include all ages? Of course. For that reason we should carefully consider whether a client will benefit or be damaged, in all senses, from a treatment.

I strongly AGREE!
ex: very short acrylic nails to assist a 10yr old child in breaking a nasty and SEVERE (because some aren't that bad) nail-biting habit VS acrylics on a 10yr old because she wants a pretty french like her Mom.............................
Big difference there.

 

[gr8nailz]

In the U.S., we have two shows in particular that strike at this very topic: Toddlers in Tiaras and Dance Moms. The recurring statement from the mothers of these girls is: "When I was a girl, I wanted to be...." or "When I was a girl, I never got the change to be..."

These little girls' (even babies) faces are caked in make-up. They have smokey-eyes and false eye-lashes. They are spray tanned. Their hair is high-lighted and done up in exaggerated styles. Their clothing is ridiculous and, more times than not, whore-ish. They look like little street walkers.

The competition and behavior of these mothers is abhorrent. These mothers will tell you their little girls "want" this. In reality, it's the moms who do. With that in mind, I feel that mothers feed this Lolita trend.

We as professionals need to set aside the all-mighty dollar and say no to sexualization of children. Will it stop it? No. But at least we can hold our heads high and say we took no part in it.

 

[dandelionpoppy]

To take my earlier post a little further.
In my opinion:

If we agree we have responsibility for emotional health we should be aware that it is unhealthy to push a child into accelerated maturity.

We should also allow a child to develop a wide view of their worth and individuality. This should include all aspects of their uniqueness, and looks should be only a minor part.

We should put health and safety above profit. Although a business will not survive long without profit, it is built on false foundations if it compromises h&S .

 

[mizzy_dizzy]

In the U.S., we have two shows in particular that strike at this very topic: Toddlers in Tiaras and Dance Moms. The recurring statement from the mothers of these girls is: "When I was a girl, I wanted to be...." or "When I was a girl, I never got the change to be..."

These little girls' (even babies) faces are caked in make-up. They have smokey-eyes and false eye-lashes. They are spray tanned. Their hair is high-lighted and done up in exaggerated styles. Their clothing is ridiculous and, more times than not, whore-ish. They look like little street walkers.

The competition and behavior of these mothers is abhorrent. These mothers will tell you their little girls "want" this. In reality, it's the moms who do. With that in mind, I feel that mothers feed this Lolita trend.

We as professionals need to set aside the all-mighty dollar and say no to sexualization of children. Will it stop it? No. But at least we can hold our heads high and say we took no part in it.

**Shudders** .... I've seen these programs blugh! But they are the extreme not the norm .... Right? Lol when I used to ice-skate we would offten have mums hanging around bi*Ching and pressuring thre kids a bit like this ! Eeek !

I don't know about Canada , but it seems to me that there beauty treatments and children are looked on very differently beetween the US and the UK,

In the UK I never really had clients book there kids in or book mum/ child mani / peds but here my clients are from alll over America and I get asked sooooo much to book kids in !

Maybe the odd treat or a novelty pamper party , but not a regular treatment.

I've asked alot of my clients and they say it's the done thing in states ,

In england most mums go to the salon to get away from kids lol
and the main widely accepted child treatment is the odd back to school hair cut ,

 

[essentia]

I think the 'celeb' culture fuels these obsessions. The girls want to be like this and some mum's think it is cool to be a mini me. It is getting out of hand. However it has been going on insiduously for years. Vogue magazine has often used underage models for decades (I remember when they used a 12 year old reportedly used as their skin is so fresh). Society has become more liberal in every way. I cannot bear to see young girls caked with makeup, tans etc - they do not need it or the attention it brings. I also notice this with boys as well. Inappropriate hair styles and jewellery in Infant School though admittedly in a minority at my son's school! Some boys clothes are so urban and hip that they no longer look like little boys. I personally do not treat under 16 so not a problem for me but I think some salons should think before they spray tan a 4 year old!

 

[persianista]

Parents are responsible for setting the boundaries for their children, not me or my workmates.

Personally I think its vile to dress a 4 year old like a grown up and put her in a pagent, but I also think putting a child on stage is vile too. It is only my personal view, and not a business perspective.

 

[VHunter]

The competition and behavior of these mothers is abhorrent. These mothers will tell you their little girls "want" this. In reality, it's the moms who do. With that in mind, I feel that mothers feed this Lolita trend.

We as professionals need to set aside the all-mighty dollar and say no to sexualization of children. Will it stop it? No. But at least we can hold our heads high and say we took no part in it.

I agree!

It's becoming more and more the trend here.... unfortunately.
I know of an ELEVEN year old who has: hair extensions, coloured hair, acrylic nails, a cell phone and dresses like an adult with mascara and lipgloss too. SHE'S IN GRADE SCHOOL!! Not even in highschool.
Drives me BONKERS.

However it has been going on insiduously for years. Vogue magazine has often used underage models for decades (I remember when they used a 12 year old reportedly used as their skin is so fresh). Society has become more liberal in every way.

I think that's a big part of the problem.... advertisers are not held accountable for misleading people with misrepresentation of their products. Which leads to unrealistic expectations for everyone.
How is it possible for a 30yr old to have skin like a 16yr old?

I think a LOT of people aren't being held accountable, and just pass the buck. MYSELF included! (as in, "it's not my fault society made me insecure and so I paint on the warpaint and dye my hair and this is the example I set for my children, perpetuating the cycle, but it's not my fault").
Just a thought.

Parents are responsible for setting the boundaries for their children, not me or my workmates.

Personally I think its vile to dress a 4 year old like a grown up and put her in a pagent, but I also think putting a child on stage is vile too. It is only my personal view, and not a business perspective.

I agree with the pageant thing, it's abhorrent.
But I'm not entirely sure I understand your aversion to a stage... in what sense?

 

[gr8nailz]

Agreed. We had this discussion at the Salon and I was told that since I only had a son, I really didn't have a proper perspective. I felt the fact that I only had a son put me very much in a proper perspective...even more so. I wasn't blinded by the "mini-me" syndrome.

 

[jacquelineanna]

So IF the dealer is innocent and not responsible, then why is he going to prison?


Because drug dealing and drug taking have been deemed bad things to do.

So governments around the world have banned it and made it a punishable offence.

But that still does not make him responsible for the drug takers predicament that makes him responsible for dealing in drugs.

The drug taker caught with drugs about his person will also be punished with a prison sentence.

But he chose to buy them and sniff or inject or smoke them. Therefore he is responsible for his own predicament. Not the drug dealer.

That therefore leads me to the conclusion that the drug takers of the world are responsible for the drug culture.

Just as the mothers of the world who want to beautify their daughters are responsible for the Lolita Effect.

 

[VHunter]

Replies inserted below :wink2:

So IF the dealer is innocent and not responsible, then why is he going to prison?

Because drug dealing and drug taking have been deemed bad things to do.

And by whom was that deemed? If not, by society as a 'whole'? And then why did they deem it thus?

So governments around the world have banned it and made it a punishable offence.

But that still does not make him responsible for the drug takers predicament that makes him responsible for dealing in drugs.
The drug taker caught with drugs about his person will also be punished with a prison sentence.

Very true, except that at some point the drug dealer is responsible else why would punish him for doing so UNLESS doing it is wrong? If he's not responsible, then he wouldn't be punished at all. And why would it be wrong?

But he chose to buy them and sniff or inject or smoke them. Therefore he is responsible for his own predicament. Not the drug dealer.

Yes and no. If there are no drugs to begin with?? Then they can't be purchased/abused.

That therefore leads me to the conclusion that the drug takers of the world are responsible for the drug culture.

Which leads back to the question if that is truly the case, then why would law enforcement punish the Dealers, the Traffickers, and the Farmers/Chemists responsible for producing them? If the one consuming them is the only guilty party?
Such as a Bar that can be fined and/or shut down for serving alcohol to a minor; in that case, the Bar is responsible as well.

Just as the mothers of the world who want to beautify their daughters are responsible for the Lolita Effect.

Ahhhh but who led them to believe it was a great idea to do that to their kids?......
No one else is responsible?
Because I have to say... Princess Parties is looking more and more like it's coming off my menu.

If society as a 'whole' doesn't cry out that something is wrong, then nothing changes. History has proven this.
And as wisely quoted by someone else "it takes a village to raise a child", thereby meaning that it's not only the parents that influence the child.

Also, what of the Mother who doesn't wear makeup and isn't a fan of salon treatments and/or didn't approve of such things for her child at a young age etc.... how does she end up with a potential little Lolita?
Because they're out there, and they're fighting against each other. I hear of it every day.
Mom's arguing that their daughters are wearing their skirts too short, or too much makeup. Or asked their Mom for blonde streaks and so Mom said no, and the child came home the next day with them anyway. Etc

WHO/WHAT is putting these ideas into children's heads that the only way to be Beautiful is to do such things?
It's not all on Mom's back, that I know for a fact.