How hilarious is this? There is no end to fashionable madness.
Second response - this just pisses me off. Why? Well, I found out two years ago that my brother never saw his kids naked beyond the few days after they were born. He would put them in shorts to bathe them. Why? Because he felt curious when he saw their little penises, and was convinced that he must obviously be a sexual predator, and had to protect his kids from himself.
Let me get this very straight. I asked him VERY specifically what he meant by curious. He described something that, if sexual perversion, pretty much applies to everyone I've ever known with a son. He wondered how big or small a baby boy's penis was, and he was a bit incredulous and how huge their testicles were. His wife had strong feelings, so they didn't circumcise them, and as my brother is circumcised, he had some curiosity about how the foreskin worked, and kind of slid it back and forth just to see. ON A ONE DAY OLD INFANT and with no sexual intent or feelings. I asked him, and he was being very open, and he said, no, he didn't feel aroused or even think about sex or gratification. It was just curiosity.
But this society has made it so that a perfectly good man, honest man, non-perverted man, felt so bad about being the least bit curious about his children's anatomy that he even bathed them with shorts on.
I don't know how or if this will affect his kids, but I don't imagine it gave them a good awareness of their body if anything.
Also, is this person a parent? A parent knows when the kid is ready to have more privacy. It happens pretty naturally, and if a parent is stupid about it, a kid will generally make it very definite. I gave my daughter showers probably longer than most people do, because she has HORRIBLY curly hair, and couldn't/wouldn't wash it herself. But there was a day when she said, you have to wash my hair without looking at me. So I did, but that didn't last long haha! Finally got her to do her own damn hair.
I'm going to post two comments, because I have two separate responses.
This is the first one. If the goal is to lower abuse, think about this. Is there a parent who otherwise would have sexually abused their child, who is now not going to because of this practice? Jesus fuck.
""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," she said. "
Note that last bit "you’re letting that child know that their response matters," This is what she's trying to achieve, not some nonsense about arguing with infants.
If 60s kids had known this, and that authority figures don't have any right to touch your body, maybe there'd have been fewer paedophile success stories emerging now.
Maybe women would feel more comfortable in public places knowing that the men around them had been raised to think consent to any touching was important.
Maybe we'd have broken free of the pre-medieval (and literally religiously enforced) idea that offspring and women are possessions.
Maybe not too, but going by the evidence what we're doing ain't working.
Not insane at all, if you read the article she explains that you're training children to expect to have their wishes respected. One of the reasons it's so easy for predators to target kids is the kids expectation that adults are always in charge. If you teach your kids, by example,that their bodies must be respected they'll resist if someone tries touching them inappropriately.
Did you read the article? I don't think it's ridiculous at all. She acknowledges that babies cannot verbally give consent, but that their body language may tell you something. I have a relative who was repeatedly molested by her stepfather for years, and one of her actions as a parent now is to make sure her young daughter knows she can refuse someone's touch if she is not comfortable with it. All this woman in Australia is doing is communicating that message to much younger children.
It was always my position as a parent that you don’t offer children a choice if they don’t have one. That only sets you up for an argument. NOT “Do you want peas?” But instead “Do you want peas or carrots?” “No” is not an option. parents who end every sentence with, “ok?” end up arguing and negotiating because they imply that toddler gets to decide for themselves whether to eat vegetables, wear a seatbelt or leave the playground when told.
What else are you supposed to respect? They don't want to eat, so you don't try to feed them? They don't want to go to bed, so you let them stay up all night? They don't feel like going to school? Well, you get the picture.
I skimmed the article, I'll admit. It seems clear that this is classic conflation of nudity and sex: changing a nappy means that a child's genitals are exposed, and any time this happens, there must be consent, presumably because genital exposure is automatically sexual.
As someone who's raised their child as a naturist (he sees me naked around the house regularly, went on his first naturist holiday with me and my ex at 6 years old, and goes on one most years, though he's never expected to be naked himself unless he wants to be) I believe this sends precisely the wrong signals. Kids brought up in naturist families tend to have better adjusted attitudes towards sex as they mature: there's a proven correlation between prudish societies and teen pregnancies. This just takes prudery to level... silly.
It's true that kids need to be taught that only trusted adults (parents and medical professionals) should be able to touch them in certain ways and on certain body parts, and that certain types of touching should be reported to a trustworthy adult, regardless of who's doing them and how they've attempted to justify it. Consent to sex should not be confused with consent to nudity. You do not need your child's consent to change a dirty nappy.