Stupidest idea of the month...so far

[Forty Two]

How an you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?

Just make the food and feed it to them. If they don't eat it then they go hungry.

That's the way I've done it. They don't have to eat, but it's waiting for them if in a half hour they want a "snack." And, they have all the choice in the world about what food to eat, but they cannot be rude about it. I teach them how to refuse food politely, and how to ask for something else politely. If they are rude, they aren't slapped, or even yelled at. They are simply told the "ifs" and the "thens" and they can proceed accordingly. They learned that if they wish to cry about the shape of their food or that they didn't get ice cream for dinner, they can go to their room and do so.

Once they learn the expectations, they're good about 80% of the time. All kids fall of the wagon, of course. They're little kids, and they don't have all the emotional control or detailed thinking that adults have, and so they freak out over stuff, and they don't know why they're doing it. One needs to empathize with that, while educating them to deal with everyday life.

[Forty Two]

Changed many nappies have you, Ani?

So, asking a baby for permission before changing its nappy isn't crazy? The problem with such a ridiculous extension of "progressive" thought is that it will convince the vast majority who hear such utter tosh that the more moderate and reasonable suggestions coming from progressives are tarred with the same irrational brush...

To me, it seems counterproductive, because regardless of what eye contact one makes or what body language one sees from the baby, one has no idea if the baby is communicating "consent." They baby might not want to be touched - sometimes they flip out for no reason - what appears to be resistance could very well be the discomfort of an ass full of shit and piss in the diaper. They could be flipping out or resisting because they are tired, hungry, or had a dream, or saw something arbitrary that caused a reaction.

There is no consent coming from an infant.

A parent's job is, in part, to do all the things necessary to properly care for the infant. Hygiene is one of them. What? If they don't look like they want a bath, you're not going to give them one? Or, what? You're going to pretend to ask for consent, but then give them one anyway? What does that teach a person about consent?

The very suggestion is absurd. What proper parent does when changing the baby is pick the baby up and check if it needs changing -- must consent be requested before handling the baby? Why not? Shouldn't we be saying "Baby Jane! Can I pick you up?" What if the baby doesn't appear all happy and giggles? Does that mean the baby doesn't want to be picked up, or that she does want to be picked up? What is the body language of consent?

Once picked up, do we have to ask to look down the back of their diaper?

The fact that the woman can make the suggestion she's making with a straight face is just bizarre.

[Forty Two]

'Selective eating disorder'. Yep - the twats have given kids being fussy and needing a good slap - a medical name. Fuckwits.

http://www.the-heath.co.uk/treatment/se ... er-sed.php

My daughter was a fussy eater. After a couple of hours sitting at the table with her vegetables in front her on a nice sunny day with her friends wanting her to join them soon cured her.

The magic moments get far too much attention. They cant do anything by themselves. There always has to be a Yummy Mummy around.

[pErvinalia]

That baby was asking for it with its sly giggles!

[Forty Two]

It's not a big deal.

I'm just laughing at how uppity and offended you're all getting. Even the woman's hair offends you. You're all just hand-waving her off as a loon, without being able to explain why. The most youse can do is scoff at the idea of talking to an illiterate baby; as if people don't talk to their babies all the time.

It's not about talking to them. Talking to them is great. Any good parent talks to their babies as much as possible. I'd take mine to the store with me and talk to them up and down the aisles, telling them what stuff is, and having a conversation with them. It was great fun. But, I never thought that by talking them through getting dressed or getting changed I was obtaining their consent.

[Forty Two]

The relevant quote, "We work with children [on consent] from 3 years-old. We work with parents from birth."

Am I the only one who read past The Mirror's headline?

Yes, parents from birth - meaning they're talking about the parents getting consent from newborns. Three year olds are potty trained already, for the most part. One isn't generally changing their diapers.

[pErvinalia]

The point of all this is to supposedly condition children into respecting consent, so that when they are older they won't be sexually used or commit sexual assault.

[Strontium Dog]

It's stupid, and here's why. If the baby doesn't understand the notion of consent, asking them is a pointless waste of time. But if the baby does understand consent, and they say no to having their nappy changed, then the baby is either walking around in a shitty nappy or, assuming the parents override the lack of consent, then they are actually reinforcing the idea that consent isn't important.

[Rum]

The last comment on the OP website is 'the world has gone completely mad'. I tend to agree, however if one reads the article properly the 'sex expert' (for that is she) says that it is about 'creating a culture of consent' even though the baby doesn't understand. It is still loony, but one can see where she is going with it.

[Animavore]

Rum gets it.

[pErvinalia]

Indeed he does.

It is still loony..

The question is, do you get it yet? You were trying to argue it was about the parents.

[JimC]

Indeed he does.

It is still loony..

The question is, do you get it yet? You were trying to argue it was about the parents.

All that Rum meant, I suspect, is that one could see the intention - producing a cultural change in the nature of consent, I suppose to stop the Weinstein type of sexual harassment.

Fine, but the idea of parents asking for 'consent" from very young children for either normal stuff like nappy changing, or giving hugs etc. remains a batshit crazy way of achieving that. Good, standard child-rearing with an emphasis on developing respect for the rights of others is all that is required.

[Rum]

Indeed he does.

It is still loony..

The question is, do you get it yet? You were trying to argue it was about the parents.

I have found the level of bickering here of late pretty grindingly tedious so I'll just comment that to my way of thinking the idea here is about creating the conditions where consent is part of the psychological environment. I do however think it is a silly idea - this one in (the nappy changing strategy) particular.

[pErvinalia]

Indeed he does.

It is still loony..

The question is, do you get it yet? You were trying to argue it was about the parents.

All that Rum meant, I suspect, is that one could see the intention - producing a cultural change in the nature of consent, I suppose to stop the Weinstein type of sexual harassment.

I agree with Rum 100%. I made the same case earlier in the thread, but Animavore didn't want to listen back then for some reason.

[pErvinalia]

Indeed he does.

It is still loony..

The question is, do you get it yet? You were trying to argue it was about the parents.

I have found the level of bickering here of late pretty grindingly tedious so I'll just comment that to my way of thinking the idea here is about creating the conditions where consent is part of the psychological environment. I do however think it is a silly idea - this one in (the nappy changing strategy) particular.

I'm not sure what bickering has to do with this. I agree with you 100%.