How best to foster a culture of consent

[Bronzeage]

The larger cultural indoctrination has to change. That means music, TV, and movies. Not going to happen any time soon.

That's a good point. I used to enjoy watching porn with my husband many years ago. It was nothing like what I've been told about a lot of porn that young people watch these days. I've read articles about how contemporary porn has negatively influenced boys who are starting to date. I know that porn produced by females is very different than porn produced by males, but from what I've read, that's not the porn that boys are viewing.


And, music, unless hip hop has changed in the last few years or so, also often objectifies and even sometimes uses language that brutalizes women, so that certainly can have a very negative influence on young people. Boys might think that women are there for their pleasure and young girls might believe that they are supposed to do whatever a young man tells them to do.

I honestly think that as long as a parent is loving and nurturing, it's not necessary to worry about getting consent from very young children to do basic things. You should always be kind and gentle when caring for young children, but the parent is the one that needs to be in control. What do you do if your child is filthy and refuses to bathe? A parent needs to be the one who makes the rules and insists that the child bathe. Infants don't have enough brains that are mature enough to even understand the concept of consent.

I think that the best time for discussing consent and sexual behavior is around a child reaches puberty. Most children aren't even going to remember much about their first few years of life. My son, who will be 48 this week, told me yesterday, that he doesn't remember a thing prior to the age of five.

I do not watch porn any more. I came to see most of it representing abuse in different forms. Old guys forcing oral sex on young girls and the like. Mostly about male power and female subservience.

I bwelive in a healthy sexual culture porn would ;argely be irrelevant.

In rehab I have been watching a lot of old movies on TCM. from an older experienced perspective. Misogyny jumps right out. A lot of mild physical abuse, a woman gets slapped for speaking out and she just accepts it as a norm.

In the 50s 60s I had no sex education, and when I got older I found out I was not alone. In the 70s sex was easy to find and was good, but I had no clue what a relationship was. It was all about sex. A girlfriend said to ne let;'s get out of the bedroom, and it went right over my head.

A quick look around this forum is enough to see that if the world had the healthy sexual culture of a Swedish Nudist Camp, there would still relevant and thriving porn industry.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, the idea that parents should get consent from babies before getting their nappies changed is arguably a bit daft. In her defence, I think she put the emphasis on the asking rather than on getting consent (though she did say something about waiting for a body language response). Imo, the idea might be a bit kooky.

On the other hand, it's not totally kooky, imo. In practice, especially very early on in baby's life, there won't be any sort of a response. It'll be more about the baby learning 'that it is being asked' and that, to some extent at least (even if not completely) it's response matters. In such a way, I think it is possible for the child to learn something about what consent is about.

Or, look at it another way, how should you go about changing a baby's nappy? What are the alternatives? Is it better, for instance, to lift baby, without saying anything, up off the floor where he or she might be interacting with someone, or another baby, or a toy, or a tv, lay it on its back and not say anything about what you are doing or why? Maybe that is going to the other extreme, but on the whole, I don't see much of a problem with the 'explaining what you are doing' being phrased in a 'respectful, consent-seeking' sort of way.

I think the woman's point is that kids who get sexually molested are often very confused about what is happening and whose fault it is. Perhaps inducing at least the basic idea of bodily integrity at an early age might not be a bad thing. Dunno.

Now, you could turn that on its head and say that if baby learns that his or her nappy will be changed even if they don't want it to be, they will learn the opposite, that their response does not matter, but in practice I doubt it would work out that way. A child can also learn that sometimes, others, especially those they have learned to trust, may do things that are in their best interests, and indeed this can be explained to them even when they are very little. So baby can start to learn about consent, consequences, and perhaps also negotiation.

Just thinking out loud. Not sure where I stand in relation to the suggestion. It could be just harmlessly daft in the final analysis.

You're not understanding: She's saying you should ask--not wait for an answer. Just as you might ask: do you want pears or applesauce with your lunch? of a child who isn't able to give an answer. Or do you want to wear your blue jammies or your green jammies? At the point of early infancy, it's obviously about conditioning the parent to a) talk to the child b) regard the child as a sentient human being with thoughts and feelings of his/her own. As the child grows and grows in its ability to understand and comprehend and express preferences, it becomes more and more about the interchange: asking and waiting for a response. A child who is raised to believe that his/her feelings and needs are important will be better equipped to stand up for him/herself as the need arises. Not just if the child is about to be molested.

Do I necessarily agree with her? Probably not. But by the time my kids were pre-school, there were casual conversations about whether or not someone was allowed to touch them in private places, etc.

Sure. And that's pretty much exactly what I said.

 

[ruby sparks]

The larger cultural indoctrination has to change. That means music, TV, and movies. Not going to happen any time soon.

That's a good point. I used to enjoy watching porn with my husband many years ago. It was nothing like what I've been told about a lot of porn that young people watch these days. I've read articles about how contemporary porn has negatively influenced boys who are starting to date. I know that porn produced by females is very different than porn produced by males, but from what I've read, that's not the porn that boys are viewing.


And, music, unless hip hop has changed in the last few years or so, also often objectifies and even sometimes uses language that brutalizes women, so that certainly can have a very negative influence on young people. Boys might think that women are there for their pleasure and young girls might believe that they are supposed to do whatever a young man tells them to do.

Yes. I often think that in some ways, things have improved dramatically, and in other ways they've gone backwards.

As to steve's point about whether more change for the better is likely to happen anytime soon, it probably isn't, this sort of change never happens quickly and there are no silver bullets. Imo, better sex/relationship/gender education is one achievable and pragmatic strategy. My wife teaches it in her secondary school and my youngest daughter teaches it in secondary schools as part of a society which she joined at her university. I'm generally in favour of it being (appropriately and sensitively) included in primary school curriculums too. As societies, we seem to be keen to set standards and requirements and educational targets for certain things but for other, sometimes very important things, we seem to be happier to let things take a more natural course and make fewer interventions. What is deemed important says a lot about our priorities. Imo, time spent on RE (religious education) could easily be reduced to accommodate more time on sex/relationship education so that no other school subject would have to suffer, and in increasingly secular societies, where priorities are changing, I think that is what is already happening, to some extent. I myself can't recall getting any sex/relationship education whatsoever, back in the 1970's, but I had a fair bit of RE.

I honestly think that as long as a parent is loving and nurturing, it's not necessary to worry about getting consent from very young children to do basic things.

True.

I think that the best time for discussing consent and sexual behavior is around a child reaches puberty. Most children aren't even going to remember much about their first few years of life. My son, who will be 48 this week, told me yesterday, that he doesn't remember a thing prior to the age of five.

I mostly agree. With one caveat, that there is probably a general case for starting as early as possible and not waiting until puberty. By 'starting' I of course mean starting with reasonable things to do with consent generally (not necessarily the sexual aspect) that are either helpful or at least harmless. I'm sure that we don't remember a LOT of stuff which nevertheless influenced us profoundly and they say that our very early experiences leave more indelible traces.

Yes, introducing the sexual aspect of consent might be iffy (or at least more complicated) before puberty, but the issue of consent in a more general sense could be introduced earlier, even if it is only later or gradually transferred to or understood (by the child) in relation to sexual issues specifically.

That the advocate in the OP is specifically a (self-described) sexual abuse 'expert' and coming from that angle is something that some commenters with raised eyebrows seem to feel might have skewed her views or made them questionable, but even allowing for that potentially valid reservation, I still think her suggestion wasn't entirely silly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, the idea that parents should get consent from babies before getting their nappies changed is arguably a bit daft. In her defence, I think she put the emphasis on the asking rather than on getting consent (though she did say something about waiting for a body language response). Imo, the idea might be a bit kooky.

On the other hand, it's not totally kooky, imo. In practice, especially very early on in baby's life, there won't be any sort of a response. It'll be more about the baby learning 'that it is being asked' and that, to some extent at least (even if not completely) it's response matters. In such a way, I think it is possible for the child to learn something about what consent is about.

Or, look at it another way, how should you go about changing a baby's nappy? What are the alternatives? Is it better, for instance, to lift baby, without saying anything, up off the floor where he or she might be interacting with someone, or another baby, or a toy, or a tv, lay it on its back and not say anything about what you are doing or why? Maybe that is going to the other extreme, but on the whole, I don't see much of a problem with the 'explaining what you are doing' being phrased in a 'respectful, consent-seeking' sort of way.

I think the woman's point is that kids who get sexually molested are often very confused about what is happening and whose fault it is. Perhaps inducing at least the basic idea of bodily integrity at an early age might not be a bad thing. Dunno.

Now, you could turn that on its head and say that if baby learns that his or her nappy will be changed even if they don't want it to be, they will learn the opposite, that their response does not matter, but in practice I doubt it would work out that way. A child can also learn that sometimes, others, especially those they have learned to trust, may do things that are in their best interests, and indeed this can be explained to them even when they are very little. So baby can start to learn about consent, consequences, and perhaps also negotiation.

Just thinking out loud. Not sure where I stand in relation to the suggestion. It could be just harmlessly daft in the final analysis.

You're not understanding: She's saying you should ask--not wait for an answer. Just as you might ask: do you want pears or applesauce with your lunch? of a child who isn't able to give an answer. Or do you want to wear your blue jammies or your green jammies? At the point of early infancy, it's obviously about conditioning the parent to a) talk to the child b) regard the child as a sentient human being with thoughts and feelings of his/her own. As the child grows and grows in its ability to understand and comprehend and express preferences, it becomes more and more about the interchange: asking and waiting for a response. A child who is raised to believe that his/her feelings and needs are important will be better equipped to stand up for him/herself as the need arises. Not just if the child is about to be molested.

Do I necessarily agree with her? Probably not. But by the time my kids were pre-school, there were casual conversations about whether or not someone was allowed to touch them in private places, etc.

So we're teaching kids that if people ask their answers are irrelevant, and whoever will just steamroll them. I don't see how this can end well.

The number one problem in today's society is that idiots think they're smart and feel empowered. Perhaps put focus there?

 

[ruby sparks]

So we're teaching kids that if people ask their answers are irrelevant, and whoever will just steamroll them. I don't see how this can end well.

That, if it was what was being suggested, may not end well, but it's arguably not what is being suggested. It is imo merely an exaggeration or a caricature of what is being suggested.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So we're teaching kids that if people ask their answers are irrelevant, and whoever will just steamroll them. I don't see how this can end well.

That, if it was what was being suggested, may not end well, but it's arguably not what is being suggested. It is imo merely an exaggeration or a caricature of what is being suggested.

I don't think it is? Kids are dumb as bricks. Our main focus should be to keep them obedient. Because it'll keep them alive and intact long enough to actually learn something useful.

 

[ruby sparks]

Kids are dumb as bricks. Our main focus should be to keep them obedient.

All I can say is I'm glad you weren't my parent.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Kids are dumb as bricks. Our main focus should be to keep them obedient.

All I can say is I'm glad you weren't my parent.

There's good and bad in life. Just imagine life without that peg-leg and hook for a hand you have now.

 

[ruby sparks]

You will only ever prise my eyepatch away from my cold, dead eye.

 

[Politesse]

On waiting until puberty to educate children on consent:

-Parents aren't always the best judges of when puberty has begun; there's a tendency to live in denial for a bit while kids are going through the first roil of confused hormonal emotions. Few feel ready to think about their eight or nine year old exploring their sexual identity when the time comes.

-Men won't wait patiently for your girls to hit menarche before molesting them. If possible, you don't want a kid's first lessons in sex and consent to come from their abuser. As the old country song says, the first cut is the deepest.

 

[ruby sparks]

On waiting until puberty to educate children on consent:

-Parents aren't always the best judges of when puberty has begun; there's a tendency to live in denial for a bit while kids are going through the first roil of confused hormonal emotions. Few feel ready to think about their eight or nine year old exploring their sexual identity when the time comes.

-Men won't wait patiently for your girls to hit menarche before molesting them. If possible, you don't want a kid's first lessons in sex and consent to come from their abuser. As the old country song says, the first cut is the deepest.

Good points, imo.

And to add a further relevant point, generally, and to do with body issues, children learn to masturbate very early, including from infancy, and I believe it is now considered by most experts to be usual and normal, in most cases. It feels good and is self-comforting. And of course the young child is not having sexual thoughts (or bodily reactions) in the way that they will later develop. Parental responses (and possibly to some extent societal ones, as in for example from peers or carers/teachers) can be an issue though, and I read that by 5 or 6, children will generally learn that it is best to do it in private.

 

[steve_bank]

I do not watch porn any more. I came to see most of it representing abuse in different forms. Old guys forcing oral sex on young girls and the like. Mostly about male power and female subservience.

I bwelive in a healthy sexual culture porn would ;argely be irrelevant.

In rehab I have been watching a lot of old movies on TCM. from an older experienced perspective. Misogyny jumps right out. A lot of mild physical abuse, a woman gets slapped for speaking out and she just accepts it as a norm.

In the 50s 60s I had no sex education, and when I got older I found out I was not alone. In the 70s sex was easy to find and was good, but I had no clue what a relationship was. It was all about sex. A girlfriend said to ne let;'s get out of the bedroom, and it went right over my head.

A quick look around this forum is enough to see that if the world had the healthy sexual culture of a Swedish Nudist Camp, there would still relevant and thriving porn industry.

That is deep. Nudism equates to mental health.

- - - Updated - - -

By puberty we are already individualizing ourselves from parents and developing independence. It is too late by then.

 

[Rhea]

As the old country song says, the first cut is the deepest.

Not a country song



It's either R&B or Indie, depending on whether Cat Stevens or PP Arnold did it first...

Also recorded in Reggae, Pop, Rock, and Dance Pop, but never as Country.

 

[Politesse]

As the old country song says, the first cut is the deepest.

Not a country song

View attachment 18914

It's either R&B or Indie, depending on whether Cat Stevens or PP Arnold did it first...

Also recorded in Reggae, Pop, Rock, and Dance Pop, but never as Country.

My apologies!

Sheryl Crow, to me, is a country singer, and it was her version of the song that I happened to know. This may have something to do with having grown up in hick country around the time she took it to #1. That's a cool history though, I had no idea it was a flimsy copy of a song done much better by others! Damn, P.P. Arnold could belt one out.

A bit of research indicates that Cat Stevens was the original author, which makes it even funnier that I didn't know that as my mother has quite hung up on the guy.

 

[ronburgundy]

So we're teaching kids that if people ask their answers are irrelevant, and whoever will just steamroll them. I don't see how this can end well.

That, if it was what was being suggested, may not end well, but it's arguably not what is being suggested. It is imo merely an exaggeration or a caricature of what is being suggested.

It is what is logically entailed by the poorly thought out suggestion. Infants and toddler most certainly have preferences that often go against what the parents knows is best for the child. The child crying is often an expression that they do not consent to what is happening. So, unless a parent is going to stop doing what they are doing whenever the kid cries, then the parent would be in fact asking for consent, then disregarding the lack of it. Even once the child can verbally communicate, their objections must be often ignored for their own well being. So asking kids for consent even into later years ethically requires disregarding their lack of consent and/or using methods of coercion to get them to "consent", which is not really consent.

There is a way to ask kids for their input and preferences and communicate to them what is happening and why, without asking their permission. Permission should only be asked if their objections, however expressed, are going to be taken seriously and the action stopped and no methods of coercion used. Otherwise, the lesson learned is that "consent" is a process where as long as you ask, the answer doesn't matter.

 

[ruby sparks]

So we're teaching kids that if people ask their answers are irrelevant, and whoever will just steamroll them. I don't see how this can end well.

That, if it was what was being suggested, may not end well, but it's arguably not what is being suggested. It is imo merely an exaggeration or a caricature of what is being suggested.

It is what is logically entailed by the poorly thought out suggestion. Infants and toddler most certainly have preferences that often go against what the parents knows is best for the child. The child crying is often an expression that they do not consent to what is happening. So, unless a parent is going to stop doing what they are doing whenever the kid cries, then the parent would be in fact asking for consent, then disregarding the lack of it. Even once the child can verbally communicate, their objections must be often ignored for their own well being. So asking kids for consent even into later years ethically requires disregarding their lack of consent and/or using methods of coercion to get them to "consent", which is not really consent.

There is a way to ask kids for their input and preferences and communicate to them what is happening and why, without asking their permission. Permission should only be asked if their objections, however expressed, are going to be taken seriously and the action stopped and no methods of coercion used. Otherwise, the lesson learned is that "consent" is a process where as long as you ask, the answer doesn't matter.

Get real though. 'Logically entails' is for certain types of philosophical discussion using logic, not debating the pros and cons of parenting techniques. In the real world, it is not difficult to refine a suggestion so that when used judiciously and sensibly, it can be a good thing. Specifically, teaching kids about consent does not have to mean steamrolling them or making their responses irrelevant, even when they don't or can't consent. In fact, when doing things that are in their interests even though they may not realise it or in some cases agree with it or want it, a parent can finesse the issue of consent (and possibly add in teaching about concepts such as negotiation and persuasion).