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

Its teaching children, as adults, they must always be aware that their 'attempt' at sex from a partner, or date, must be consensual.
There has been a big campaign about this, date rape, marital rape etc...
It's not advocating a child agreeing to sex, it seems so obvious.

It’s the nspcc for heavens sake, of course they their employees and any information they give out has to be held to a higher (the highest) standards! They are considered an authority on these matters, that comes with huge responsibility. I hope they can get back on track.

Folk are quick to criticise them which will result in people withdrawing their donations, no donations = Less face to face work with the children who really need them, who otherwise would be waiting years on a CAMHS waiting list.

They are a huge charity, who have built their reputation as experts in safeguarding, who spend an enormous amount on publicity, communications, courting celebrities and who have a good legal/ethics team. They are very able to protect their reputation if they have a mind to.

If they don’t want to be criticised they need to make wiser choices about what they communicate, how and who they use to do it.

Folk are quick to criticise them which will result in people withdrawing their donations, no donations = Less face to face work with the children who really need them, who otherwise would be waiting years on a CAMHS waiting list.

Then they need to ensure that they are like the Emperor's wife, or what use are they to their client base?

Ive had the odd wank at work, as a young woman, working 60hours a week

WHAT??

I stumbled over that too! Mistype ? Irony? Or a level of sexual activity that just doesn’t exist in my world.

@GoshHashana

Is that shocking to you? Really?

Quick google suggests 39% of people have... I know plenty of people who have.

www.timeout.com/newyork/blog/39-percent-of-your-coworkers-masturbate-at-the-office-according-to-our-survey-122115

If the NSPCC is such a valuable organisation, then they need to ensure they put safeguarding at the heart of everything they do. They don't.

I get why many of you feel outraged by what is presented publicly but all I’m saying is that before you judge the whole organisation, hold in mind also the amazing face to face work they do with children who have lived experience of abuse.

I’m struggling to think of another voluntary organisation that offers the range of therapeutic services that they do. NSPCC isn’t just celebrity ambassadors and twitter, it’s the helpline, childline, post sexual abuse therapy, life story work, solution focused therapy, COVID-19 online therapeutic support for children who have experienced abuse and have been isolated.
The generous donations and fundraising of the public do make a huge difference to the lives of individual children.

You just need to watch the trials of Gabriel Fernandez on Netflix to see how vital it is that we have an organisation, that if you’re worried about a child and are not satisfied with the LA response that you can call the helpline and the nspcc is a safety net for many children who otherwise wouldn’t be heard.

@Blueshoess : read the last sentence of this guidance from the NSPCC website. Do you think an organisation which believes that young children kissing and hugging or using swear words are examples of sexual behaviour should be supporting CSA survivors? Because I don't.

I think they're dangerous and have been infiltrated by people who are seeking to queer children's sex education

There is some very worrying responses on this thread. Some people seem very invested in defending the idea that the NSPCC should be muddying the waters around children engaging in sexual activity.

They are the largest national childrens’ safeguarding charity, they are the only charity with the ability to remove children from the care of their parents, they should be absolutely squeaky clean from the bottom to the top and on every perceivable tangent.

They have not been squeaky clean for a while, some of their actions have been very questionable indeed. Their material teaching children about sexual abuse which they use in primary schools is worded in such a way that it suggests child sexual abuse is ok as long as the child is made to feel safe. That is the very definition of grooming.

This particular tweet is so ambiguously worded that it gives the impression that the NSPCC think it’s fine for an inthusiastic 7 year old to be engaging in sexual activity. That alone is very bad, when you consider where the tweet originated from, but put it together with other learning materials they use and it is indicative of a very worrying attitude to children and sexual activity within the organisation. Add to that them immediately making uq excuses to jump to the defence of a man who filmed himself wearing a gimp suit and masturbating in the work toilets, then uploading it to a porn site tagging his work and linking it to his very visible, very easy to access public profile, and it’s hard not to feel that there’s something very rotten about the NSPCC.

This is a charity, the largest childrens’ charity, don’t forget, who refused to take part in an advertised online web chat on the UK’s largest parenting forum because they didn’t want to answer questions about very real safeguarding concerns some of its users had, safeguarding concerns that were considered serious enough for the high court to grant a judicial review to explore when another organisation was challenged.

hold in mind also the amazing face to face work they do with children who have lived experience of abuse.

As worthy as the work may be, it doesn’t mean their actions are above criticism. I know the NSPCC well, I worked with them for many years, I firmly believe they’ve lost their way.

Excellent post Whatisthisfuckery, I totally agree.

All charities should be able to be criticised and it is certainly not anyone who sees flaws with the NSPCC's fault that waiting lists are so long.

Yeah it's a weirdly worded tweet, especially with some of their other recent work. If it was part of a tweet thread that expanded on that to include limits of consent, I wouldn't be as concerned - only so much can fit on one tweet - but yeah, a lot of charities and other organizations relationship & sex ed stuff have become weird and just a bit trying to hard to be sex-positive rather than just informative.

Children over 16 can consent to anyone with no consequence

As a previous poster said, this is incorrect. 16 is the age of limited consent, they cannot give consent to their teachers or anyone else in a position of authority even if adult is 18. Unlimited consent, which is how the NSPCC tweet sounds like as they're not putting limits on it, is 18.

What the US doesn't really matter for a British charity and I mean, there are cases in the States where the families of schoolboys who've been raped by their teachers have had to pay child support. Those age laws aren't as well enforced as some might think, they're barely suggestions most of the time.

but all I’m saying is that before you judge the whole organisation, hold in mind also the amazing face to face work they do with children who have lived experience of abuse

Blueshoess, do you not see that because of this work, the NSPCC needs to have and show itself to have extremely tight safeguarding in place?

Children who have already suffered abuse are particularly vulnerable and need extra safeguarding. I honestly can't believe that you think we should lower our standards because the NSPCC does that work.

I’ve RTWT

It’s concerning
Any charity that is such a public face and
Voice for such a major issue needs to be spotless . There should be nothing murky , ambiguous and questionable

There should not be grey areas , confusing wording and ambiguity

And to use the word consent is terrible

It’s illegal , the whole concept of
Consent is null and void

Sounds like some very big problems at the leadership level . I bet morale there is rock bottom
And as for gimp wank . You don’t fucking DO that at work ! End of . In your private life whatever . But at WORK . No

As a previous poster said, this is incorrect. 16 is the age of limited consent, they cannot give consent to their teachers or anyone else in a position of authority even if adult is 18

Wouldn't that be obvious? Surely poster meant at 16 you can consent to an adult of any age. Not an adult in any position of trust.
Although why we allow a 16 year old child to date any adult, regardless of being in a position of trust, is iffy anyway.

And given that their title is CHILDREN
To discuss consent with the small group of children between 16-18 is just plain strange

I’m not even going to try and say what the messaging should be as I’m no expert

But I don’t teach my kids about consent
They know no one can touch them , period