Apparently they should consent to changes

Americans should just substitute the word “diaper” here where they see “nappy.” Even with that it won’t make a great deal of sense. A sexuality expert in Australia has insisted that we should gain a baby’s consent before changing its nappy. It’s possible that we’re too rich a society if we’re now supporting someone off the economic surplus with ideas like that. And it also tells us what’s going to happen to the world of work once the robots take all the jobs. We’ll be left to spread odd opinions, as no AI is ever going to believe something as stupid as that now, are they?

A sex education expert has sparked a debate on sexual consent, after she argued that parents should ask children for permission before changing their diapers.

Well, not so much sparked a debate as set off a sense of wonder at what some people will believe.

The ABC has drawn criticism and ridicule for airing an interview with a ‘sexuality expert’ who claims that parents should ask their babies for consent prior to changing their nappies.

Deanne Carson, a “sexuality educator” with Body Safe Australia appeared on the public broadcaster to talk about establishing a “culture of consent” in the home.

Speaking during the segment, she said she works with children from birth on issues of consent.

When asked to give an example of how parents could establish the culture in their home she said they could ask questions such as “I’m going to change your nappy now, is that okay?”

The organisation, Bodysafe Australia, insists that one in five children are sexually abused before they are 18. That might explain something about why Australians are as they are but we don’t believe it for a moment. Not unless sexual abuse includes being looked at funny or summat.

We do get a certain walkback when the details of this consent are explained:

“Of course, the baby is not going to respond, ‘yes, mum, that’s awesome. I’d love to have my nappy changed,’” Carson continued. “But if you leave a space, and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact, then you’re letting that child know that their response matters.”

Not that that’s much better. For of course that’s not how we should be considering the little snotdribblers’ desires. A very large part of the raising of a child is an insistence that no, you won’t do that, yes, you will do that. Sure, desire becomes important at times – you can choose between these strictly limited options but that’s all.

No, you can’t go play in the fire, yes, you will eat your broccoli. Your choice is as to whether you have your mashed carrot before or after your broccoli and that’s it Kiddo. As a child ages, from babby to their 20s – then regressing for men as marriage reduces choice – the areas of choice increase, the restrictions diminish. But the idea that a child should always consent, that they consent should even be sought on most matters, is an obvious mistake to start with.

And no, matters of sex do not change this. For we insist that a child doesn’t have the ability to consent in any meaningful manner in matters sexual. Therefore if consent cannot happen it cannot be sought, can it?

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

10
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
7 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Hector DrummondSpikesynpRhoda KlappNautical Nick Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Chester Draws
Member
Chester Draws

Sexually abused “before they are 18” is such idiocy.

17 and 16 year olds fighting off unwanted attention should not be lumped with child abuse. Both are bad, but in different magnitudes.

Spike
Member

Quite! But lumping together individuals in completely different situations, and then legislating based on a stereotype, is what we do, from military veterans to immigrants (“Dreamers”? or MS-13 gangsters?). The LGBTQ movement does this explicitly.

Pat
Member
Pat

The redefinition of the word “expert” to mean “blithering idiot” continues apace.

Spike
Member

Demanding consent from an infant is “expert” virtue-signalling and nonsense. Perhaps “we’re too rich a society if we’re now supporting someone…like that,” but they are protected by government as they do jobs no one would pay his own money to do. Asserting “rights” of beings who cannot exercise rights informs our politics from animal-rights to the rights of the unborn.

Nautical Nick
Member
Nautical Nick

Complete lunacy, but while we are talking of broccoli, I seem to remember George W Bush saying that he had always hated broccoli, and had been forced to eat it as a kid. He said “Now I am President, I’m not going to let anyone tell me what I’ve got to eat”, whereupon the broccoli growers of America sent 30 tons of the stuff to the White House. Tee hee!

synp
Member
synp

This expert is asking for baby’s consent to change its diaper. If the baby doesn’t respond and doesn’t protest too much, this is taken as consent.

Does this standard apply to men obtaining consent from women as well? Because I don’t think this is at all the message we’ve been getting about consent.

Rhoda Klapp
Member
Rhoda Klapp

What if it says no?

Spike
Member

They all say no at around the age of two, don’t they?

synp
Member
synp

No means no, I guess.

Hector Drummond
Member

If a chav did this to their baby then the social workers would take the baby away.