Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

NSPCC again

62 replies

Imnobody4 · 22/07/2020 13:17

I'm not sure whether to be heartened by this or not.
NSPCC put out a tweet implying children can consent to sex.
Lots of complaints and outcry concerning safeguarding.

NSPCC withdraw for rewrite. No accusations of bigotry etc
I am wrong to think this is progress of sorts?

NSPCC again
NSPCC again
OP posts:
RaccoonTwenty7 · 22/07/2020 13:36

That's not the point, 16 year olds are not what most people understand by "child".

Doesn't change that they are. Besides, if your 14 year old was gonna have sex with his 14 year old girlfriend, wouldn't you want to make sure he at least got consent (not legal consent but willingness and enthusiasm regardless) rather than rape her (not stay rape, but rape without willingness/enthusiasm from his partner). Because... Even the Home Office say they are not looking to prosecute situations like that, and they are underage children, so advice around consent is useful for these children.

Kids kiss and touch before moving onto sex usually. I remember having my first "snog" in the school library when I was about 10. What if the boy who kissed me hadn't known about consent and kissed me when I want into it? That's assault...

Gatr · 22/07/2020 13:29

I wouldnt of thought that was about children specifically having the ability to consent to sex.

Theres much wider discussion early on about consent before children are of age, i would talk about safe sex etc before i would be expecting them to have sex
Equally having discussions about consent and that they can say no is important, and equally they must respect someones no especially for teens. Much sexual exploring is done under age and is sometimes under pressure so i would be talking to kids around 12 ish and up about consent

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 22/07/2020 13:27

Proof? Don't know where that came from. Tweet.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 22/07/2020 13:27

Can someone talk me through what was wrong with the original proof in simple terms? I read it as talking to a child about their future sex life when they were old enough to have one. Is the problem that it wasn't stated clearly that children can't consent to anything sexual?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/07/2020 13:24

Hopefully they'll make it clear in any future iterations of this message.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/07/2020 13:23

YY, Honeysuckle

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/07/2020 13:23

And generally don't have their parents explaining consent to them for the first time. Consent needs to be taught in a way that doesn't sexualise children.

HoneysuckIejasmine · 22/07/2020 13:23

If they were talking about 16+ year olds then they need to make that abundantly clear, which they did not. The vast, vast, vast majority of who is understood to be "children" cannot consent to sex.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/07/2020 13:21

That's not the point, 16 year olds are not what most people understand by "child".

RaccoonTwenty7 · 22/07/2020 13:20

*Children under age of 16

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/07/2020 13:20

Depends what they put up next, I guess!

RaccoonTwenty7 · 22/07/2020 13:20

16 year olds are children.
Children do have sex and while legally they cannot consent, the police aren't going to do anything about two underage kids who both say they wanted it - "It is an offence for anyone to have any sexual activity with a person under the age of 16. However, Home Office guidance is clear that there is no intention to prosecute teenagers under the age of 16 where both mutually agree and where they are of a similar age."