AIBU to think that the NSPCC should not have tweeted this...

[ChickenonaMug]

The NSPCC tweeted last night "Consent means actively saying yes, using both words and body language. You should explain to your child that they should always check to ensure the other person is happy to have sex or take part in sexual activity of any kind.

AIBU to think that this is an extremely badly worded tweet and the NSPCC really should know better. This tweet seems to demonstrates a really poor understanding of the grooming and sexual abuse of children. Many abusers will aim to convince a child that she or he consented to 'sex' (rape/sexual abuse) and I expect that it is relatively easy for an abuser to groom a child to say the word 'yes'.

I was groomed and sexually abused for many years of my childhood and my abuser always tried to convince me that the abuse was something I had consented to and that I wanted. Nowhere in the NSPCC's tweet about consent do they point out that children cannot consent to sex with an "other person'.

Children who have been sexually abused will often blame themselves or feel as though they will be blamed by others for what they have been subjected to and the shame that they are feeling stops them being able to talk to anyone about it. The attitude behind the tweet by the NSPCC really concerns me and it is not the only thing they have worded badly. Another example is the definition of sexual abuse they teach children in the Speak Out, Stay Safe assemblies which is "when a child is being made, asked or rewarded for doing anything with their body that frightens or worries them - or being made to do this to someone else." (my bolding). learning.nspcc.org.uk/services/speak-out-stay-safe#article-top . Again this wording does not seem to take into account the grooming of children into believing that they have wanted or consented to the sexual abuse nor does the NSPCC seem to recognise that a sexually abused child may absorb this definition and then think that it is she (or he) who is the problem because she did not react with fear like a 'normal' child is supposed to. This will then back up what the abuser is telling her, which is that she wanted or consented to the abuse and will lead her to not disclosing her abuse for fear of being seen as sexually deviant or stupid for not reacting with fear.

Even the title of the NSPCC "Speak Out, Stay Safe campaign is deeply problematic because it places the responsibility on the child to keep themselves safe from abuse.

The NSPCC are also describing kissing and hugging by young children as normal 'sexual behaviours'. I think it is wrong and very unwise to see young children as sexual beings especially as this is an attitude shared with abusers, for example the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) lobbied to have children seen as sexual beings with sexual rights and the ability to consent from a very young age. IMO the NSPCC need to undertake a serious review of their recent practice.

This tweet by Safe Schools Alliance UK describes what I am trying to say: twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1285868833891377152

Are you saying that if you were in a state with a 16 years age on consent they can only sleep with 16-18 year olds

In some states you can only have sex with someone who is a certain number of years older than you, it's bit a free for all once you hit 16 in all States. In some states, even where age of consebt is 16, they wouldn't be able to give consent to, say, a 26 year old.

*not a free for all (like it is here)

Ah, got it. Thank you.

Unless they knock you up and marry you, then it's ok. I'm not really arguing the point here, but I think it's a bit rich to make a point of saying how appalled Americans would be by our laws on age of consent when theirs are more abhorrent in many states.

Anyway... OP I totally agree with you. The NSPCC have lost their way lately.

Children can legally have sex. If you are under 18, you are legally a child. The age of consent is 16, ergo children can legally have sex. Also, 16 year olds can legally have sex with adults, like 40 year olds even, so... The wording is correct.

The law in relation to grooming and sexual exploitation extends to the age of 18, on the understanding that you can’t consent to your own exploitation. Age of consent is irrelevant if grooming is deemed to have taken place so if a 16 year old were having sex with a 40 year old I’d expect there to be some serious questions asked about grooming, most people who are groomed don’t feel uncomfortable or scared - that’s the point of grooming behaviours.

@VaginalTarantula

Are you saying that if you were in a state with a 16 years age on consent they can only sleep with 16-18 year olds

In some states you can only have sex with someone who is a certain number of years older than you, it's bit a free for all once you hit 16 in all States. In some states, even where age of consebt is 16, they wouldn't be able to give consent to, say, a 26 year old.

Is there a difference in the likelihood of someone being sexually inappropriate when they're over 26, or whatever the relevant age set by the state is, or is it decided on arbitrarily?

All the more reason for the NSPCC to tweet responsibly and be careful about wording.

Federal law makes it criminal to engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you. Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18. Some states, such as California and New York, set an age at which all sexual intercourse is considered statutory rape. For example, a state might set the age of consent at 18. In this hypothetical state, two seventeen-year-olds who had consensual sex could both theoretically be convicted of statutory rape.

Other states imply a different method which, like the federal statute, takes into account the relative ages of both people. In these states, such as Texas, the age of consent is determined by age differentials between the two persons and limited by a minimum age. For example, a state might set a minimum age of 14 but limit consent to partners who are within 3 years of their age. This would allow a sixteen-year-old to lawfully have sex with a fourteen-year-old, but make it criminal for an eighteen-year-old to have sex with that same fourteen-year-old.

Examples of different state’s statutory ages of consent:

California – The age of consent in California is 18. It is illegal for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse with a minor (someone under the age of 18), unless they are that person’s spouse. California employs a tiered system where the greater the difference in age, the greater the penalty. If the person engaging in sex with a minor is less than 3 years older or younger than the minor, then they are guilty of a misdemeanor. If they are more than 3 years older than the minor then they are guilty of a felony. Those over the age of 21 engaging in sex with those under 16 are subjected to more harsh penalties.

Florida – The age of consent in Florida is 18. It is illegal for anyone over the age of 24 to have sex with anyone under the age of 18, unless they are married.

Illinois – The age of consent in Illinois is 17. For people 18 or over, it is illegal for them to commit acts of a sexual nature on persons who are under the age of 18 if they are in a position of authority or trust over the victim. This effectively raises the age of consent for older people in positions of authority or trust to 18 years old.

New York – The age of consent is 17. It is illegal for anyone to have sex with someone under the age of 17.

Texas -The age of consent is 17. The minimum age is 14 with an age differential of 3 years; thus, those who are at least 14 years of age can legally have sex with those less than 3 years older.

Alaska: Consent is at 16, but is it still illegal for adults to have sex with minors (under 18).

Louisiana: There is no definite age of when a minor may consent to sex in Louisiana. ... A person between the ages of 13 and 15 can consent to have sex with someone who is up to 3 years older than them, but a person between the ages of 15 and 17 may consent to sex only if the other person is 2 years older or less.

Many more laws. Essentially I was trying to say that some states take age differentials into account to determine legality.

The law in relation to grooming and sexual exploitation extends to the age of 18, on the understanding that you can’t consent to your own exploitation. Age of consent is irrelevant if grooming is deemed to have taken place so if a 16 year old were having sex with a 40 year old I’d expect there to be some serious questions asked about grooming, most people who are groomed don’t feel uncomfortable or scared - that’s the point of grooming behaviours.

So perhaps we would do well to have some sort of law to prevent children dating adults, because it is open to exploitation? At the end of the day, I moved out at 16, and if you love someone you're hardly gonna say "they've been exploiting me" are you? It's a grey area really, unless you say "they abuse me or threaten me" or "they give me drugs for sex" nobody can do anything

Grooming is fairly straightforward to evidence because it just needs evidence of an adult approaching an under 18 with a view to initiating sexual contact. Exploitation is harder to prove - which is why it can go on for a long time, it’s often not until well into adulthood the individual realises they’ve been exploited. Convictions around sexual exploitation often use grooming, trafficking and harbouring legislation because those offences are easier to evidence in the absence of a young person saying they’re being exploited.

The “their over 16 they can choose to sleep with a 40 year old” narrative does no one any favours.

Grooming is fairly straightforward to evidence because it just needs evidence of an adult approaching an under 18 with a view to initiating sexual contact.

Plenty of 16 year olds meet over 18s without the adult approaching them for sex. I met many through friends of friends, their sibling friends etc.

Why would an over 18 approaching a 16 year old to initiate a sexual relationship be considered grooming when they are above the age for consent? They haven't been groomed, they are of age. Grooming starts when they are underage.

In what world can you say "16 year olds can consent, regardless of the age of the person" and then say that if you start a relationship with an adult at 16 you have been groomed. Not if you met them after you turned 16 you haven't as you've been legal the whole time they knew you.

The “their over 16 they can choose to sleep with a 40 year old” narrative does no one any favours.

Right. But I assure you they could, as long as they hadn't met the 40 year old when they were underage, having been groomed into the relationship.

I was groomed into prostitution by an adult who met me when I was underage, but who didn't engage in sex with me until I was 16, who didn't get me into selling myself until I was 17. That was exploitation and grooming. Meeting someone at 16 who is much older than you, and you have sex with them, is not, unless they are exploiting you with abuse, alcohol, I won't love you unless you do this type shit.

As Binterested says, NSPCC are a disaster. Their understanding of both grooming and boundaries have been woeful for some time.

Could be about things like kissing and touching, not necessarily consent for sexual intercourse

What does it matter what the consent rules are in America?

The NSPCC is a UK charity, their post is not problematic at all.

To be honest, all this talk of the ambiguity of 16-18 year olds is moot really. The NSPCC is a children's charity with a primary aim of protecting children from abuse. They shouldn't be putting stuff on social media about 'consent' without explicitly talking about the age of consent and that children under that age cannot consent, no matter how much they want to do this or that. And they especially shouldn't be doing this with their recent history.

@ThatsHowWeRowl

To be honest, all this talk of the ambiguity of 16-18 year olds is moot really. The NSPCC is a children's charity with a primary aim of protecting children from abuse. They shouldn't be putting stuff on social media about 'consent' without explicitly talking about the age of consent and that children under that age cannot consent, no matter how much they want to do this or that. And they especially shouldn't be doing this with their recent history.

See this isn't true

Children under 16 can consent

It's just not legally admissible in terms of a defense if it's questioned.

They are not physically unable to consent, it's imperative to teach children about consent. Many children under 16 have sex with each other, not ideal but if my teenager had sex with another teen (both under 16), they still need to get consent. That consent makes it different from a rape charge.

YANBU

What does it matter what the consent rules are in America?

The NSPCC is a UK charity, their post is not problematic at all.

Because people were complaining saying children can't consent when they can. That children can't consent to have sex with adults when they can. If you don't want kids to have sex or kids to have sex with adults then just fucking change the law that makes it possible. I was giving US laws to show the flexibility and differing ways you can do it, but ultimately allowing a 16 year old to consent to any age is problematic (as the discussion above shows with all the talk of grooming). So if people have an issue with they maybe try and get the gov to impose some age differential type laws like "1y year olds can only consent to other children their age" or even "16 can consent to people 5 years older and no older".

It's quite possible that they meant "Teach children NOW how they must handle this when they are ADULTS" but if so then they had a responsibility to get it right and not provide justification for everyone currently supporting the idea that "if kids like it then it's ok.".

If that say things without thinking them through then they are not fit for purpose. In this case just showing it to a co-worker and saying "does this sound ok to you" would probably have been enough to avoid a mistake.

@LastTrainEast

It's quite possible that they meant "Teach children NOW how they must handle this when they are ADULTS" but if so then they had a responsibility to get it right and not provide justification for everyone currently supporting the idea that "if kids like it then it's ok.".

If that say things without thinking them through then they are not fit for purpose. In this case just showing it to a co-worker and saying "does this sound ok to you" would probably have been enough to avoid a mistake.

But they don't have to wait until they are adults to handle it

Age of consent is 16!!

They are not physically unable to consent

What do you mean by 'physically'?

I wasn’t sure about the ‘their’ either in terms of “aware of their body language and behaviour”. If that is referring to being aware of how others behave and Ensuring you protect yourself fine but if it is referring to how an individual gives the “ wrong signals” we are getting into victim blaming.

Given NSPCC conduct those I don’t trust them anymore anyway.

I think it's a very odd thing for the NSPCC to put out there without qualifying it with statements about the age of consent and that just because a someone doesn't find it an awful experience doesn't mean they haven't been exploited.

Anyway, apparently they have deleted it now anyway

@ThatsHowWeRowl

They are not physically unable to consent

What do you mean by 'physically'?

They can consent

Home Office guidance [1] 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

So two similarly aged teens under the age of consent can and should agree (also known as consent) for it to not be taken further

That's the difference between a 15 year old being moaned at by parents or a 15 year old facing a rape charge

Children definitely need to be taught about consent

Rwoolley I was speaking of children under the age of consent. Granted there's some room for misunderstanding there since adulthood is 18 and if someone was taking them to court for saying what they said they could use that as a defence, but that is beside the point isn't it as no one is.
I already said that I don't think they meant that the way it sounded. I just think they have a responsibility not to send mixed messages and provide ammunition for MAPS