Let’s assume here that Woolworths executives are just not huge fans of Vladimir Nabokov, rather than they intended their Lolita Midsleeper whitewashed pine bed range to be enjoyed by a repulsive Humbert Humbert and the underage “fire of his loins”. But who knows? WH Smith justified its Playboy logo stationery range by denying that it had any connection with nude centrefolds. “It’s just a bunny,” the company said. “A bit of fun, popular and fashionable.”

Maybe Woolies should come up with a similar excuse. “It’s just a girl’s name, just a racy but misunderstood Penguin Classic.”

Companies that sexualise children for profit like to paint those who oppose them as killjoys, fusspots or old-fashioned frumps. Just as this week Ryanair, defending its banned advert - featuring a sexy, bare-midriffed schoolgirl posing in a classroom – said that it simply reflected clothes fashionable among young women.

But it is right to be aghast at padded Bhs bras for primary school girls embroidered with Little Miss Naughty or kiddy thongs, or to feel sick rather than amused by a prepubescent girl in a T-shirt saying “So many boys, so little time” or “Hands off – for display purposes only!” Teenage girls already feel huge pressure to conform to the up-for-it 24/7 pornographic ideal. To be deemed attractive, you must also look “hot”. Consequently, their little sisters have learnt to equate pretty with sexy. Companies, seeing a lucrative new market of mini-consumers who want to dress like adults, exploit this without qualm.

Paedophiles often justify abuse by saying “I thought she wanted it”, and come-hither children’s wear legitimises acting upon these impulses. Even boys’ clothes have taken a twisted sexy turn. There are those of us who don’t see eight-year-old lads emblazoned with “Chick magnet” or “Young, cute and single” as anything like equality or progress.

Times Recommends

• Hysteria alert: Fab One tour starts
• Whodunnits? A cultural religion
• Prison works. So why won't we admit it?