• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Sexuality Expert' Says Babies Should Give Consent for Diaper Changes

spud_meister said:
Could you logically point out where anyone has said babies should be left in dirty diapers? Or that teaching a kid to say no means always respecting that opinion?
Click to expand...

Spoken like not only a non parent but one completely ignorant of dealing with babies or infsnts on any level...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Pretty sure teaching them to respect and protect their privates can and is done simply enough without asking permission to change their diaper. Any parent with any basic skill can manage it.
Click to expand...

Good for you. This is just another way of doing it.
 
spud_meister said:
You change their nappy anyway. The point is to teach them that adults don't have a right to touch their bodies, and teach them that they can say no. The earlier you make kids aware of that, the better position they'll be in to prevent or confront potential sexual abuse, which is the point of it.
Click to expand...


But if the child says no, and you do it anyway, you are just teaching them that saying no doesn't matter.
 
spud_meister said:
You change their nappy anyway. The point is to teach them that adults don't have a right to touch their bodies, and teach them that they can say no. The earlier you make kids aware of that, the better position they'll be in to prevent or confront potential sexual abuse, which is the point of it.
Click to expand...

Well, you just contradicted yourself. Does the child have a choice, or the illusion of choice?
This is just more liberal stupidity.
Changing a diaper isn't sexual abuse. A parent or care giver touching a child's genitals to clean them isn't sexual abuse.
Parents should teach children about STRANGER danger, and not conflate it with care giving and keeping a child clean and healthy, let alone introduce some nefarious element into diaper changing.
 
Acadia said:
Well, you just contradicted yourself. Does the child have a choice, or the illusion of choice?
This is just more liberal stupidity.
Changing a diaper isn't sexual abuse. A parent or care giver touching a child's genitals to clean them isn't sexual abuse.
Parents should teach children about STRANGER danger, and not conflate it with care giving and keeping a child clean and healthy, let alone introduce some nefarious element into diaper changing.
Click to expand...

I once had somebody tell me that dogs have a private area.

I asked him if I should ignore that area when I am looking for flees and other parasites.

It is hard to deal with complete morons, like people that believe a parent should not touch a baby's genitals.

It is their job top clean that area.
 
DiAnna said:
On the surface, the mocking title sounds ridiculous; however, the entire article expresses more cohesively her theory... which I don't particularly agree with, but isn't as idiotic as it first appears.
Click to expand...

You expect those who live to hate liberals to actually read more than a title, or provide more than a single sentence response?
 
soylentgreen said:
No wonder fake news gets believed. Especially when the readers as in this case lack the wit to see it for what it is.

This article originally came from the mirror in england. A cheap tabloid that has more interest in selling news than in delivering facts or reliable information.
They took an article and looked for the most sensational and saleable way of selling it, not on how to deliver credible information on how to raise a child.

Unfortunately in today's world other news agents such as this one merely pick up and copy without bothering to fact check or research authenticity. So what we get is a cheap rag of a news agency distorting some information for profit and then having that article widely distributed through out the world on other news lines without anyone bothering to see if there is any truth to it.

And what we end up with is a bunch of talking heads on a debate site making themselves look silly discussing something that has no legitimacy at all.
Click to expand...

Hey, the member asked for a credible source, I gave him/her a link to a credible source. Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player.
 
spud_meister said:
Could you logically point out where anyone has said babies should be left in dirty diapers? Or that teaching a kid to say no means always respecting that opinion?
Click to expand...

Its a god damn baby. It can't speak. It can only cry.
 
lefty louie said:
Hey, the member asked for a credible source, I gave him/her a link to a credible source. Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player.
Click to expand...

No, you gave him a link to a news agency that merely copied and pasted from another news agency.

Which unfortunately is what is happening in these days of cheap information. News companies no longer bother to hire investigative reporters who actually seek out and investigate. News agencies today merely reprint what other news agencies have printed without bothering to investigate. We end up with this mass circulation of so called news that has no real credibility behind it and becoming fact because the same story is spread throughout the world.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, you gave him a link to a news agency that merely copied and pasted from another news agency.

Which unfortunately is what is happening in these days of cheap information. News companies no longer bother to hire investigative reporters who actually seek out and investigate. News agencies today merely reprint what other news agencies have printed without bothering to investigate. We end up with this mass circulation of so called news that has no real credibility behind it and becoming fact because the same story is spread throughout the world.
Click to expand...

No I gave him a link to a news agency that he deemed reliable or reputable, he was happy and even thanked me for the link. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the agency that you deem to be diluted, not me.
 
Acadia said:
Well, you just contradicted yourself. Does the child have a choice, or the illusion of choice?
Click to expand...

It's not about choice, it's about consent. Obviously there will be times when they need to be changed without consent, but it's still giving them that understanding.
This is just more liberal stupidity.
Changing a diaper isn't sexual abuse. A parent or care giver touching a child's genitals to clean them isn't sexual abuse.
Click to expand...

No-one's saying changing a diaper is sexual abuse, it's about teaching children that they don't have to consent to adults touching them.

Parents should teach children about STRANGER danger, and not conflate it with care giving and keeping a child clean and healthy, let alone introduce some nefarious element into diaper changing.
Click to expand...

Most sexual abusers aren't strangers. And teaching kids that even familiar adults ought to ask before touching them gives children a sense of bodily sovereignty, so that if something happens they don't like, they can alert their parent.
 
lefty louie said:
No I gave him a link to a news agency that he deemed reliable or reputable, he was happy and even thanked me for the link. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the agency that you deem to be diluted, not me.
Click to expand...

You appear to be under a illusion that you gave a credible source. All you did was what your source did. Which was copy and paste a story without bothering to see if there was any credibility behind it. And that is how these things get about. Just one source copying another and what was nothing more than a bit of sensationalising in order to sell some news becomes a fact.
 
Acadia said:
Parents should teach children about STRANGER danger, and not conflate it with care giving and keeping a child clean and healthy, let alone introduce some nefarious element into diaper changing.
Click to expand...
Actually you are behind the times and teaching about stranger danger is no longer considered a point to emphasise as it never really worked. In fact the information shows a child is more likely to be harmed by someone they know.
https://www.kidsmartz.org/StrangerDanger
“Stranger danger.” It’s short. It’s simple. It even rhymes! But is it really the most effective abduction prevention lesson for our children?

Children do not understand the concept of a stranger. Many believe that strangers are mean, ugly people — so the nice man asking for help to find his lost puppy? Not a stranger.

Children also learn that some strangers – like store clerks, police officers, or parents with children – are helpful. It may be hard for them to understand the difference between strangers who could hurt them and strangers who may help them.



Most importantly, “stranger danger” ignores the fact that most children are abducted by someone they know.

Avoiding strangers will not help if the abductor is a family member, neighbor, or family acquaintance. When you talk to your children about abduction prevention, don’t focus on warning them about certain types of people. Instead, teach them to identify and respond to threatening situations.
Click to expand...

So actually spud meister is correct in saying it is better to teach a child about being aware than teaching them to be scared of strangers.
 
soylentgreen said:
You appear to be under a illusion that you gave a credible source. All you did was what your source did. Which was copy and paste a story without bothering to see if there was any credibility behind it. And that is how these things get about. Just one source copying another and what was nothing more than a bit of sensationalising in order to sell some news becomes a fact.
Click to expand...

No what I did was answer a members request. That member looks at my link as a credible source for news, so I in fact proved both that member and that source to be wrong. You are welcome.
 
lefty louie said:
No what I did was answer a members request. That member looks at my link as a credible source for news, so I in fact proved both that member and that source to be wrong. You are welcome.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what happened. The member who asked for a link ( post #2) did not say anything about your source. the person who started this thread and forgot to add a link thanked you for doing his job ( post #5.). Your only other comment is nothing more than a smart arse remark that shows you neither understood the lack of credibility of the source or the credibility of the story itself.

Care to show how you proved anything wrong? Except your recounting of what actually happened.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, that is not what happened. The member who asked for a link ( post #2) did not say anything about your source. the person who started this thread and forgot to add a link thanked you for doing his job ( post #5.). Your only other comment is nothing more than a smart arse remark that shows you neither understood the lack of credibility of the source or the credibility of the story itself.

Care to show how you proved anything wrong? Except your recounting of what actually happened.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive my laziness, I didn't have the energy to go back and see what post said what, you have far too much time on your hands for me to deal with on such a petty issue. You've defeated me, go gloat now. People on this page are soo funny. Fact still remains, I pointed out that the accepted source is full of garbage by posting their full of garbage cut and paste. Live with it..
 
lefty louie said:
You'll have to forgive my laziness, I didn't have the energy to go back and see what post said what, you have far too much time on your hands for me to deal with on such a petty issue. You've defeated me, go gloat now. People on this page are soo funny. Fact still remains, I pointed out that the accepted source is full of garbage by posting their full of garbage cut and paste. Live with it..
Click to expand...

It is not your laziness that needs forgiving it is your continuing to lie in order to redeem your laziness that you should beg forgiveness for. You have done nothing to point out that the accepted source is full of garbage. All you have done is make some silly remark of no real value.
There is nothing you have offered to live with.
 
ANYONE, and I mean anyone in this thread that is rationalizing this by associating this nonsense with teaching kids consent of their bodies to help them later in life with sexual predation is a complete and utter moron. Give me a ****ing break! Parents literally have their children's entire adolescent life to worry about this, and can be accomplished very easily with time and tested results. Besides all that, studies have proven without any doubt that kids, especially girls learn this all on their own anyway around age 7 through 12.. Meaning, we as humans instinctively learn to protect our personal space..

I think what happened is that this nutjob provocateur realized what utter nonsense she was spewing and other libs came to her defense, much like in this thread, with offering another rationale..

I can't believe I just spent 3 minutes trying to explain why this was garbage.. but I feel charitable today.

Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom